General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI'm pro-choice but,
I will always consider the demarcation of at what point of development in the womb as an arbitrary time invented by humans. There must be some point chosen, and that's what happened in R v W. and other decisions.
All other arguments make my head hurt.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Mnemosyne
(21,363 posts)Last edited Sat Feb 2, 2013, 12:03 PM - Edit history (2)
that the Bible has something similar.
I concede my error. You educated me, once again, DUers.
salinen
(7,288 posts)to the day before birth could be argued.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)salinen
(7,288 posts)but have an idea that some fetuses mature faster than others.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)It picked the point at which a fetus can be alive outside the womb, under any circumstance.
Since then, however, medical advances have lessened that demarcation line.
salinen
(7,288 posts)is the best marker. It is still a construct in the battle for abortion rights.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)Since then, though, medical advances make it possible for fetuses younger than that to live outside the womb.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)and I am fully pro-choice, is that technology continues to make this point a moving target. Roe was born in 1973 (I believe) and technology has made leap and bounds since then...
Babies born after 26 weeks are called very premature, moderately preterm, or late preterm babies.
What Is the Survival Rate for Micro Preemies?
Micro preemies are very fragile, and every day that a mom spends pregnant increases her baby's chance of survival.
Born at 22 weeks: About 10% of babies survive
23 weeks: 50% to 66% of babies survive
24 weeks: 66% to 80% of babies survive
25 weeks: 75% to 85% of babies survive
26 weeks: Over 90% of babies survive
What will come in the future? Nothing wrong with abortion again but I disagree with setting a specific time for when or when not abortion can occur. That being said I am a male so it's not my body and therefor not my choice to make.
salinen
(7,288 posts)for aborting at a late date because of knowledge of a severe haddicap in the child. Usually that's detected early, but if it were detected late, I would like that person to still have a choice.
And to be really honest and frank I'm not sure what I'm arguing for besides that basic core idea of choice, all I know is I feel women should have the choice.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)physically harm or kill the mother.
Currently, it's against the law to abort a late term fetus for any other reason than that, incl. if you think it might be born severely handicapped.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)And physical burden. And emotional burden.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)I actually am one of the people who will choose not to have children simply because I will not be able to afford it. Unfortunate I know.
I hope someday I can make it work, I am young so I have time.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)Mnemosyne
(21,363 posts)
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)so I joined a pro-life group. We all drove down to the Kansas capital for a protest and there were Methodists there who were speaking about how life began when taking the first breath. There's a scripture about that but I don't remember it. The lady that took me to the protest was a staunch Catholic who did not believe in birth control and had several children. I have since gained confidence in my decision based on my circumstances. I was not ready to raise a baby at the time and I was not emotionally strong enough to go through with a pregnancy in order to give the baby up for adoption.
cali
(114,904 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)demwing
(16,916 posts)"an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/parasite
Definition of parasitism:
"an intimate association between organisms of two or more kinds; especially : one in which a parasite obtains benefits from a host which it usually injures."
http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/parasitism
Thanks for the advice about educating ourselves...
salinen
(7,288 posts)In ecology, commensalism is a class of relationship between two organisms where one organism benefits without affecting the other. It compares with mutualism, in which both organisms benefit, and parasitism, when one benefits while the other is harmed.
Commensalism derives from the English word commensal, meaning "sharing of food" in human social interaction, which in turn derives from the Latin cum mensa, meaning "sharing a table". Originally, the term was used to describe the use of waste food by second animals, like the carcass eaters that follow hunting animals, but wait until they have finished their meal.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)
DURHAM D
(32,603 posts)I should probably go to bed.
dballance
(5,756 posts)eom
obamanut2012
(26,041 posts)dballance
(5,756 posts)If DurhamD's post wasn't snark and condescending then what was it? What value did it add to the discussion?
It was clearly an attack on the original poster.
DURHAM D
(32,603 posts)He is a man who wants to have a theoretical discussion about something that has nothing to do with his own life. He just wants to play around with women's choices.
dballance
(5,756 posts)so you can discern what other posters are thinking and what their intentions are. By the way, how, exactly, do you know it has nothing to do with the original posters life? Did you pick that up when you were reading their mind about their intentions on starting the thread?
DURHAM D
(32,603 posts)This is just a game.
dballance
(5,756 posts)With particular scrutiny for his original posts. But I read lots of his replies too. I see no pattern of playing games.
DURHAM D
(32,603 posts)you get to continue his fun little - Let's Play With Women Rights all by yourself.
dballance
(5,756 posts)My comments have been limited to how I believe you were being condescending to him and how I don't see any evidence that was deserved.
As for "Let's Play With Women Rights," if he suggested altering the state of currently legal abortions as per Roe v. Wade I must have missed that in his posts. Nor did I see him coming out in favor of "personhood" laws that would alter women's rights. So I find your assertion that he wants to play with women's rights a FAIL. You haven't made a single post with any sort of argument or commentary on his original post. You started by making a post that is, in my opinion, condescending and snarky.
You have added absolutely nothing of value to the conversation even if it is his "theoretical discussion." I must have missed it in the TOS where it says theoretical discussions are improper and discouraged.
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)...for myself.
Some point does not need to be "chosen." We do not legislate our beliefs upon others. End. of. story.
Deep13
(39,154 posts)...at what point does the developing fetus become a person, at what point does its theoretical rights outweigh the actual rights of the person carrying it, and most significantly, whose decision is it?
The only way a very early pregnancy is a person is if personhood is defined by the addition of a soul, something that--let's be real here--does not exist.
and for those reasons there will always be a fight concerning abortions. The"soul" question is impossible to put a marker on. I know "soulless" humans. Many are politicians.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)almost certainly grow into a human being at some point. It is an arbitrary point invented to make us feel better about killing something that will probably become a baby.
A sad but necessary evil, the alternative being coat-hangers or some horrific underground abortion clinic. We tell ourselves that life is precious, but that is just a lie, isn't it?
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)every egg, every sperm, every miscarriage, every frozen embryo in a fertility clinic, every ectopic pregnancy, every sexual encounter using birth control, every normal pregnancy has the potential of life but until the process is complete and the fetus is able to survive outside the womb the question as to when life begins no one knows. I look at couples who have large families and I think wow if they had decided to not have that many children then those children would not be alive. I decided two was enough for me and me and my husband dediced on permanent birth control. By doing that we were preventing any future potential life from entering the world. Does that mean we did a bad thing? Some Catholics, evangelicals, and other Christians would probably think so.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Interesting to hear everyone's perspective. What you did makes sense, it's a personal decision for everyone, which is partly why I'm pro life. Whatever choice you make, the consequences are your own to think about, you get to be your own judge and not John Boehner.
salinen
(7,288 posts)a zygote of a human sperm and human egg can only become a human. So society has decided when it's "viable". That's arbitrary in my opinion. Life is precious. All who think not should contemplate suicide. They want to wholesale the lives of others.
cali
(114,904 posts)Science and the federal court system, particularly the SCOTUS, has.
salinen
(7,288 posts)more than anything. Another reason why SCOTUS has too much power.
Deep13
(39,154 posts)Life has been continuous for at least 3.5 billion years. The sperm and ovum are living cells and they make combination living cell in the zygote. The question, or rather one of three questions, is when does it become a person?
With cloning, every cell in the human body has the potential to be a human being. They cells are alive and are human, but they are not people.
UtahLib
(3,179 posts)It's rather cavalier to claim to be pro-choice while at the same time seeming to argue against it. I don't believe anyone would make the decision to have an abortion lightly. I, and I daresay you, have never found myself in the position of having to make such a heart rending decision. Hence, I believe it to be nearly impossible for anyone to put his or herself in the shoes of the person having to make such a decision. That seems a strong argument as to why no person should assume the right to make that decision for any other person.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)It has qualifiers already. Anyone who is pro-choice has a qualifier.
And no, not everyone who enters that decision enters into it seriously or not lightly, as I have been so informed on DU. As one poster told me once, it's no different than getting a root canal.
zazen
(2,978 posts)salinen
(7,288 posts)scream about "viability" when it's an arbitrary point in development chosen by humans. For argument sake, why not extend that point to 8 months? The logic to me is the same. I know for the mother this would be horrible. But as pure logic, to me, the entire period is the same as any.
REP
(21,691 posts)At some point, the lungs of a fetus become sufficiently developed that the fetus can take in its own oxygen. That developmental landmark occurs in week 24, though there are some rare cases of live births at week 22. It is unlikely that any technology can push viability any earlier than this.
Besides the development of the lungs, there are profound differences between a fetus and an infant. Here's just one:
demwing
(16,916 posts)then does it matter whether we believe that "anyone would make the decision to have an abortion lightly"?
Otherwise, we're not pro-choice, we're pro "informed/responsible/mature" choice.
In other words, pro-choice with a qualifier.
Iggo
(47,534 posts)Last edited Sat Feb 2, 2013, 03:20 PM - Edit history (1)
...not a goddam thing.
SQUEE
(1,315 posts)and as a male I have no say at all what a woman does with her life, body or conscience and fully support and will fight for her and her right and ability to choose.
I have a fairly intimidating presence, and have walked 1 friend, and the sister of a friend to the clinic door and back to their car after they have had procedures, to make sure no one can intimidate and bully them in a very painful moment.
My beliefs are mine and I don't apologize, but I will support and fight for your rights as strongly as I will fight for my own.
RB TexLa
(17,003 posts)Last edited Sun Feb 3, 2013, 10:42 AM - Edit history (1)
the fact that abortions occur because of people's personal control of their body is irrelevant.
pipi_k
(21,020 posts)that makes my head hurt, also.
Once very long ago, I found I could not morally have an abortion. I often wish I could have, since my daughter died at the age of 3 months anyway, and an abortion would have altered things so much for me. She wouldn't have been a real person I gave birth to, named, took care of, loved...for three months.
In any case, I was against it for myself, but fully support the right for all women who want it.
As to when a fetus becomes a "real" person...I don't know.
I suppose it's probably a question whose answer should begin and end with the woman involved.
renate
(13,776 posts)Something about your words touched me very deeply: "a real person I gave birth to, named, took care of, loved...."
She had three months of being loved--a short time but a good one. I'm so sorry that the gifts you gave her, of her life, a name, and your heart, have left you with so much pain. How you must miss her.... 
ismnotwasm
(41,956 posts)I'm sorry for your loss. I believe this; if a women is pregnant, considers it her child then it is, if a women is pregnant and considers the pregnancy something else than it is.
My daughter recently had a miscarriage. It hurt her terribly, I think she was surprised at the depth of her grief. I could only hurt with her and mourn the loss of a grandchild-- because this is her choice.
I've had an abortion I've never given a second thought to, that was my choice, and my personal emotional reaction was relief.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)
Cerridwen
(13,252 posts)does the girl/woman become fully human with the attendant autonomy alloted other fully human humans we arbitrarily deem human?
When I read a public "philosophical debate" about abortion that makes the girl/woman invisible in the whole of the "argument", I am reminded that the status quo requires that some of our species must remain forever invisible and under control, in order to maintain the status quo; to benefit the few at the expense of the many. I am also reminded how easy it is to provide crumbs of apparent autonomy to a few so the few may feel justified in denying even crumbs, to their fellow members of the many.
In a perfect world...
This is not, however, a perfect world. During a time and context in which women's rights to their own bodies is under constant attack by various r/w groups, the timing of this particular "philosophical debate" is, at the very least, tone deaf.
Here, in this not so perfect world, there are many women for whom abortion is not an abstract over which to muse, but a reality to be faced as they maneuver through this imperfect world and maybe, just maybe, get a few crumbs for themselves.
Very nicely stated
I cringe hearing these 'public philosophical debate' trainwrecks
Your post would make a great OP
Cerridwen
(13,252 posts)I almost didn't post it because I wasn't sure I had made myself understood. It looks as though you and two others did understand. 
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)
Cerridwen
(13,252 posts)
Solly Mack
(90,758 posts)Cerridwen
(13,252 posts)ismnotwasm
(41,956 posts)What's not often mentioned is that very early births are prone to any number of complications, and many without good outcomes. My hospital just built a state of the art NICU. I'd hate to see that as sign to challenge choice.
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)I don't think we should even try to keep sub-6-month fetuses alive if they are born prematurely. They virtually ALL wind up with very serious, lifelong disabilities.
DrewFlorida
(1,096 posts)I also think there should be some limit within the pregnancy at which that choice is no longer available, maybe the beginning of the 3rd trimester. I can build logical arguments in my head which support less time than that or more time than that, but I do think there should be a limit!
If your wife was 8 months pregnant and was beaten up causing death of the fetus, most people would consider that murder, I would! What does that say about how we look at the subject of pregnancy as a society.
On the other hand, I completely understand the concept that a woman has and should have control of her body.
This is a legitimately difficult subject, and given that, I think abortion should be legal and available, reasonable yet minimal limit.
patrice
(47,992 posts)CHOICE.
mzteris
(16,232 posts)(though I'm a believe in Islam - or any religion)... but the Muslim community was extremely advanced scientifically and medically well before most of the world.
In their Quran it says something like - it's not really a baby until four months. They believe that's when the "soul" enters the baby. But I also think it had to do with the "quickening" or something to that effect.
Just an interesting point. YMMV. But thousands of years ago, an "advanced scientific medical society" (advanced for their time) came to the same conclusion, that abortion BEFORE four months was acceptable because it was not a human being yet.
Response to mzteris (Reply #58)
patrice This message was self-deleted by its author.
patrice
(47,992 posts)mzteris
(16,232 posts)If you're against abortion - don't have one.
But don't presume to tell other women what to do. Not your place. Not your call. Not your business.
gtar100
(4,192 posts)another person's pregnancy become my business? For me, that answer is never. If they ask for my support, then the focus is still what is right for them... not me, not society, not the church... just her.
patrice
(47,992 posts)whom they do FREELY (i.e. without any form of coercion) choose to have and/or facilitate adoption that leaves the baby un-encumbered by any biological parent who changes his/her mind.
