Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by JOEBIALEK, Jan 31, 2008.

  1. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Without a doctor's help? That's an interesting caveat. What about a full term baby with a heart defect? It needs a doctor's help to survive, is it OK to kill it? And does your logic only apply to babies? Would it be Ok to kill an adult with diabetes?

    And what's so special about a doctor's help? A full term infant is absolutely helpless. It can not survive without help from somebody. But if that somebodies a doctor, it's open season?
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. sowhatifit'sdark Valued Senior Member

    Is it alright to kill 'enemy' late term foetuses in wartime? And why?
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    by doctor's help i mean if barring no birth defects if it needs special medical attention beyond that of a normal birth thats is what i mean by a doctors help. this around the seventh month for sure is in the no abortion zone
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Bells Staff Member

    I beg to differ. And I have the internal and external scars to prove it.

    Yes it does. You could have a stroke or heart attack during sex and die. Or you could be raped and/or find a relative sneaking into your room late at night and then finding yourself pregnant. Now pure pro-life people like Sandy believe that victims who suffer such fates should simply suck it up and have the child. If the girl is 12 or 13, her pelvis not fully capable of bearing a child through late term, she could die or be incapable of ever having children again, along with a plethora of other medical conditions that will affect her for the rest of her natural life. As far as someone like Sandy is concerned, that girl does not get a say in any of that. I doubt she would view her assault as being 'pleasurable'. Personally I don't think a child should be forced to have a child, do you? Even if she consented to sex with little Johnny behind the bleachers and because her education failed her in not teaching her about safe sex or she was made to take the virginity pledge with her family, she thought his pulling out would be ok, only to find herself pregnant.

    As Orleander said, this is not about the baby but what you and many others view as the woman who enjoys sex and after all, a 'whore' gets what she deserves, right?

    It is inconceivable to me how anyone, let alone a Government, can take a woman's rights away from her own body.

    An 18 week old looks like a baby and does suck its thumb. I know both my son's did during the ultrasounds. It still does not mean they were 'classified' as 'people'. The doctors, midwives and other medical staff, never once referred to them as "babies" to me. It was always a 'foetus'. With good reason. Many women do miscarry during the second and third term and until that foetus becomes viable, the medical staff will continue to use the medical terminology when referring to the foetus.

    Personally, I think 20 weeks should be the cut off date for an abortion, or possibly 18 weeks. The viability at 24 weeks is minimal and depending on where the child is born, it's chances are close to nil. If it is born in the hospital and rushed straight into icu, then it might have a chance. I still remember being 37 weeks pregnant and in hospital due to complications (with my first) and I was in a twin room with a woman who was 26 weeks pregnant and who's amniotic fluid was leaking out. She gave birth to the child in the toilet, thinking the mild stomach cramp she'd suddenly suffered was a sign she needed to go to the bathroom. I can still hear her screams, I can still remember rushing (lumbering) to the bathroom in our room, opening the door to see her covered in blood on the floor and a little foot sticking out of the toilet. I remember screaming my head off and hitting the alarms as the midwives and doctors came rushing into the room, pulled the baby out of the toilet and running to the trauma room, while others helped her to her bed... I remember one kind male midwife taking my sobbing self back to my bed. The child survived 2 days. And she was told afterwards that even if she had given birth to the child in a birthing room, the chances of it surviving were about 20%.

    As I said above, I personally think 18 weeks should be the maximum cut off. Maybe 20 weeks. In cases where the child has severe abnormalities, that would mean the foetus would not make it to full term alive and would not survive out of the womb either, in such instances, I do not disapprove of late term abortions. The horror of sitting and waiting for an ailing foetus to die so you can give birth to a dead child is something I cannot even begin to imagine and forcing women to go through something like that is cruel and unnecessary. And if the pregnancy poses a risk to the mother at any time, then it should be her choice in whether she wants to take the risk with her own life or end the pregnancy.

    But arbitrarily refusing women the right to any choice is wrong in my opinion. At 4 weeks, most are not even aware they are pregnant. With my first I found out when I was 7 weeks and thought I had the flu.:bawl: And I was not meant to be able to have children.

    While the earlier the better, I think putting a 4 week limit is way too restrictive since most would not recognise or be aware they were pregnant at 4 weeks or even 6 weeks. If the woman had been on the pill, it could be longer than that. A 13 year old girl for example, might not recognise that she is pregnant, especially when one considers that early menstruation in young girls is irregular most of the time.
  8. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Any woman confronted with a real, live, fully and unarguably human being who was about to do to her what a baby does in development, including the very real risk of killing her that you dismiss as "bullshit" (especially in the US, with its second world medical system), would be fully within her rights to kill that person in self defense.

    One of them being abortion. LIke eating sugar risks root canals.
    No, that is the problem: reasonable considerations like that one are not allowed in the discussion - the morning after pill,for example, is not "sure to pass" any referendum, and is fought by such a large proportion of the electorate that drugstores have refused to carry it under community pressure, and pharmacists have refused to fill prescriptions for it, and the Federal government in the hands of Republican fuindies has put all kinds of obstacles and laws in the path of its use.

    You exaggerate, and take advantage of biological ignorance to appeal to emotion by way of superficial resemblances.

    Now we enter the realm of actual discussion among adults. But we have long been in flat opposition to the prolife crowd.

    Establishing that it is at some point during the pregnancy that one draws the line, or lines (anencephaly ?), is the entire conflict. Roe vs Wade did exactly that, and is vilified for it.
  9. Dr Lou Natic Unnecessary Surgeon Registered Senior Member

    The more I think about this issue, I think it's one the crazy religious people somehow got right.
    It is bullshit to think clinically slaughtering a baby is fine just because it hasn't flopped out of a vulva yet.

    I'm conflicted in that I think more babies should be destroyed, ESPECIALLY white trash (and other colours of trash) babies, so abortion is seemingly perfect.
    But I don't like how trashy piggy sluts aren't facing consequences for their haphazard fucking.
    Since my stance is there's no difference when you kill a baby, I think it should be after it's busted the tart apart, and then it should be killed in front of her with a sterile surgical hammer.

    Ofcourse, sensible mature couples should be able to get an abortion if there's something wrong with the baby. For example, I would like to marry a redhaired woman, but I don't want a redhaired son (redhaired daughter or son of another hair colour would be fine), so if we had a redhaired son I would like to have him killed in the womb, out of the view of my precious cherry haired wife, and before the little ranga freak damages her unusually pink lady parts which vividly contrast with the unusually white porcelain skin surrounding them.
    I don't see a problem with that.

    What I don't like is teenage sluts showing up at doctor's offices like "I was just fucking this group of guys and I somehow got pregnant, it's really annoying, can you suck it out and throw it in the trash? I have a date with that big negro from the green mile and his buddy t-bone *applies lipstick and spreads legs*".

    Abortion shouldn't be a way out, it's not a "convenience", it's for if you're seriously going to have a red haired son or a mong or something and you planned on having a presentable family.
    If you're just a wreckless slut you should have to have the baby, and then you should get hit over the head with it untill both of you are dead.
  10. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    That was definitely not our experience. Even at one month the doctor would being doing the ultrasound and say, "Let's see how the babie's doing". They pretty much used the term fetus and baby interchangably.
    We're within shouting distance here.
    That's a horrible story. Midwifes aren't very common in the US, by the way.
    I'd go earlier, maybe 8 weeks. I definitely want ot err on the side of not killing the baby. But a baby without a brain or no chance to live, I'd still hope you could find that out early; but wouldn't absolutely rule out abortions in such cases.
    An actual serious risk of death, yes. I agree. But I don't want any weasle "mental health" crap in there, that amounts to a blank check.
    I'm not being arbitrary. I'm tying my ideas to specific developmental milestones in fetal development.
    If it were up to me, I'd do a lot of research into when the "fetus" can feel pain, when it becomes aware of it's environment and put the limit on the earliest time that is.
  11. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    If I want to cut off my arm, I can do so. If I want a parasite cut out of my womb, I should be allowed to do so. Until it can live on it's own, it's welfare falls under my right to privacy. Any fool can make a baby, but can they make a functional and happy adult? If they can't, they should not have a baby, not even if there is one already growing inside them. There are too many children already being raised by incompetent and unprepared mothers, many of them without fathers. That's what I call respect for life. Busting out buttloads of babies is nothing.
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2008
  12. sandy Banned Banned

    Popo is not the highest religious authority on the planet. He's the head of the Catholic church.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  13. Bells Staff Member

    Not the obstetrics staff I ever came into contact with here in Australia. They began to refer to both as "the baby" when I was about 35 weeks or so.

    I adored the midwives (with the exception of one who was a bit of a nazi in the middle of the night). They were the one's who ultimately saved my second child and myself when everything went wrong. They are very common here in Australia and quite often, they are the one's who actually deliver the baby. Wonderful people!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I was told afterwards that it is apparently not uncommon for women to give birth while going to the toilet. Was just so horrific. The mother and the father were quite stoic about it and those midwives were wonderful during and afterwards. I trust them implicitly.

    In some instances, such severe abnormalities are not detected until the 18th week ultrasound. Some even later than that. The woman that I spoke of who faced such a horrible fate found out that something was wrong during the routine 18 week ultrasound. After a battery of tests and scans, it was determined by 22 weeks that the foetus would not have made it to 35 weeks and had no chance of survival. At 24 weeks, she went to a clinic to have her abortion, feeling devastated, and then having a couple of women camped outside the clinic abuse her and spit at her. She ended up waiting and having more tests and by 28 weeks, there was really nothing anyone could do. The foetus had severe heart and brain abnormalities and it was starting to fade. She then opted to deliver it via an inducement and had the chance to hold her until she died. That way, she was also allowed to have a funeral for it and able to take photos of her daughter and have the footprints and handprints and she still visits her child's grave every month. She did not deserve the treatment she suffered at the hands of the pro-life people. To them she would probably still be considered a murderer. They added to the stress she was already suffering from. I think it is appalling expecting such women to simply sit and wait until the child dies inside her and then making her deliver a dead child.. knowing the whole time and waiting for it to die. I cannot even begin to imagine the horror of having to go through something like that.

    I disagree. There are some women who can and will kill themselves if forced to go through the pregnancy. She cannot be medicated due to the risk to the foetus. It's not a "blank check". There are some women out there who do suffer from severe mental illness and are simply incapable of going through a pregnancy intact. No one should force such a woman to go through it because of one's own personal belief of when life begins.

    Setting such early limits is risky.

    A 6 week embryo might feel pain, in that the nerves have developed enough to 'feel pain'. But it lacks the brain capacity to recognise it as pain. Lets face it, at 6 weeks, the cells are not developed enough to consider it to be a 'baby' and is in no way developed enough to recognise its environment. Even at 12 weeks, it is not.
  14. sandy Banned Banned

  15. Bells Staff Member

    Err no they aren't.

    And what kind of sick bastard poses aborted foetus like that? Who in the hell takes an aborted foetus and places it on a coin for a photo shoot? You view women who have abortions as being murderers? I view people who takes such photos for their own political and religious gain to be psychopaths.
  16. sandy Banned Banned

    Pencils and coins were used to show size. Those pictures are the REALITY of murdering babies. It's much more educational for people to actually see the babies instead of just throwing them in the garbage can.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  17. Bells Staff Member

    Oh for heaven's sake!

    Half the time, the woman will miscarry at 7 weeks and it does go down the toilet or be a bit of a mess in her pad, without her even knowing she was ever pregnant, instead thinking her period was a bit late and it's finally arrived. Is she a murderer too?
  18. Bells Staff Member

    You can view that much detail from something that is about 1cm in length? If you placed the embryo of a dog alongside that of a human embryo, you would be hard pressed to tell the difference at that point in time.
  19. sandy Banned Banned

    No. That's different and you know it. Nice attempt at spin though.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Purposely killing her baby should result in a woman never being able to have children again.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  20. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Sandy unfortunatly it DOES mean that for more women than it should.

    Oh and just out of intrest have you ever herd of an entopic pregnancy?

    Sentor Stock Despouer had one and was forced to abort. She already had kids and is pregnant again, and good luck to her. She shouldnt be punished for nature screwing up

    Nither should people be punished because at 14 they had to have an abortion later in life
  21. Bells Staff Member

    How is it any different? Her body rejected the foetus and as such, "killed the baby". Does that mean she should never be allowed to have children again? And why do YOU think you should have so much power over the reproductive cycle of women to the extent where you would dictate who could and could not have babies. Who in the hell do you think you are, exactly?

    For all I know, the images you posted are from miscarriages.

    A 7 week old embryo is not a baby. You might like to think it is in your romanticised notion of motherhood and babies, but I can assure you, it is not. Half the time women don't even know they are pregnant at 7 weeks. And in a lot of cases, she will miscarry it.

    Would you refuse to grant a woman with an ectopic pregnancy the right to remove and "kill her baby"?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Or would you refer to her as a murderer and deny her the right to ever have children again?
  22. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Anti-abortionists are disingenuous

    A question for the anti-abortionists:

    A woman miscarries. If life begins at conception, we should, then, investigate this death under unknown circumstances. How much money and how many hours are you willing to spend investigating every miscarriage that occurs?

    And I mean every miscarriage. In 1997, my partner aborted a fetus that was already dead. How much should have been spent investigating how that fetus came to never come alive? (Its heart never started beating, as far as anyone can tell.)

    In 1990, a teacher at my high school nearly died during a miscarriage. Because she was a Catholic, she refused to undergo a D&C when it was discovered that the fetus was developing without a brain, and had zero chance of being born alive. It took her months to recover from the health damage. When should the investigation have started? While she was pregnant? Right after the miscarriage? After she had time to recover and bury evidence?

    How many women who are anti-abortion would accept that each of their menstrual issues should be screened for a fertilized egg, in order to ensure that a death does not go unnoticed?

    Regardless of those who would get abortions, how many women, facing ten months' virtual imprisonment during their pregnancies, would have children?

    Of course, that would be an easy way to get them back out of the workplace, wouldn't it? Which is at the heart of the matter. Women, as individuals are, like any human being, welcome to hate themselves. I think it's tragic if they do. And I would, in my liberal outlook, suggest that they need help, since the pursuit of happiness is, by our Declaration of Independence, a natural right of human beings. But I don't think it's right that they should ask—or demand—that other women think so poorly of themselves.

    It's all about appearances to them, which is why the anti-abortion crowd is so insincere.

    And that insincerity is disgusting.
  23. sandy Banned Banned

    Miscarriages and intentional baby-killing by the vicious mother are not the same. Any woman who could kill her baby is a soulless monster with an evil spirit imo.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


Share This Page