What is your opinion on abortion?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Science does not say that human life begins at conception. Development begins at conception. A lot of things I have read say that 26 weeks is when human life begins, but again this is not proven it's based on the development of the fetus.
 
MissMoo said:
Science does not say that human life begins at conception. Development begins at conception. A lot of things I have read say that 26 weeks is when human life begins, but again this is not proven it's based on the development of the fetus.


The life cycle itself begins when an egg is fertilized and attaches itself to the uterine wall. Any diagram that illustrates the human life cycle shows that. It's not like I'm making this up...

Also, there are babies that are born at 6 months after conception! That is roughly 24 weeks, two weeks less than whatever literature you have read states. Babies born at this stage have been known to survive. I know someone who is alive and well today and they were born right at 6 months after conception.

Carrie
 
Generally, I would consider "life" in terms of a fetus to be the time at which a fetus is able to survive outside the womb as an independent entity. A fetus cannot survive outside the womb at 10 weeks or 12 weeks or 17 weeks, etc.

And babies which are born very prematurely (also look at the famous quintuplet cases) on average tend have an incredible multitude of problems, including seizures, cerebral palsy, muscular and degenerative disorders, developmental problems, lower IQs, lower birth weight, higher incidence of asthma, etc. There are real and serious consequences to being born very prematurely, and oftentimes, years of pain and suffering to follow.

It is a shame that fertility programs today are unable to restrict the number of implanted embryos. The human uterus is not meant to carry 5, 6, 7 babies, and it's unsafe for both the mother and the children.
 
i suppose i could have been a potential abortion. my biological mother was 15 when she had me and gave me up for adoption. i cannot imagine how hard this must have been for her, and i have a huge amount of respect for her strength to make this decision.

as i stated above, (as much as i hate to use the label) i am pro-choice. not pro-abortion or pro-death, but pro-CHOICE. i do not think abortion is great--i think it's a necessary evil. ideally, we would live in a world where no one was forced to have sex or be pregnant against her will, where there would be no need for abortion. but that's just not our reality. women find themselves in these situations everyday, and i support and respect their ability to chose what's best--be that keeping the child, giving it up for adoption, or aborting the pregnancy. the state does not have the right to remove this choice.
 
MissMoo said:
Science does not say that human life begins at conception. Development begins at conception. A lot of things I have read say that 26 weeks is when human life begins, but again this is not proven it's based on the development of the fetus.

For the sake of arguement, say I agree with this statement.

However, science does say that the heart of this developing fetus begins beating at 25 days after conception. It is hard to imagine that anything with a heart beat does not have life.

So before most women have missed their first period, their fetus's heart has begun to beat.
 
nbcrusader said:
At what age can a child survive as an independent entity (without adult care & supervision)?

You are picking split ends here, nbc.

I'm saying that a fetus is not a biologically viable entity. It cannot survive outside of the womb for 1 second.

A child can. Yes, it needs nourishment, and yes it needs supervision, but if left unattended for a second, it is a living, breathing entity with fully developed organs capable of carrying out the simplest metabolic functions of life.
 
If we are trying to define"life" based on an organisms ability to survive independent of another, the birth (or some point slightly earlier) seems to be only a convenient dividing line.
 
I'm going to slip in my 2 cents here. This issue is a hot one for me. Lemme just say that even though this sounds extremely intolerant I am simply here to register my vote on a poin-blank question. I'm not here to have my views changed or to explain why I feel the way I feel. I am simply here to state what I feel and nothing more. I am pro-life...there we go.
 
Abortion is violence against women. Ask all the women now dealing with post-abortion traumatic stress. led astray by the lie that abortion can ever be about "choice".
It's a baby, plain and simple.
Women need empowerment, not a society that mentally and physically allows them to kill their unborn children. It is evil that a baby cannot be safe in it's own mother's womb.

"When a mother can kill her own child, what is left of the West to save?"
- Mother Theresa

BTW, Since when??? has saving a life been about pushing religious beliefs? AND if it is then call me 'religious'.
 
Another interesting fact:

In reality an abortion is defined as killing a baby that would be unable to survive in the first place. So what we view as abortion isn't REALLY abortion.
 
anitram said:


You are picking split ends here, nbc.

I'm saying that a fetus is not a biologically viable entity. It cannot survive outside of the womb for 1 second.

A child can. Yes, it needs nourishment, and yes it needs supervision, but if left unattended for a second, it is a living, breathing entity with fully developed organs capable of carrying out the simplest metabolic functions of life.

Do you think it is right for a women to be able to sue( on ground of manslaughter or murder) another person who caused this "non-biologically viable entity" to perish as a result of actions taken on purpose or accidently by that person? If a person were to hit a women with "non-biologically viable entity" in her womb and cause the entity to die, have they committed murder?

It is interesting to note that in such cases people have been tried for murder and manslaughter. If the entity's were indeed not lives, why the charges of murder and manslaughter?
 
STING2 said:
Do you think it is right for a women to be able to sue( on ground of manslaughter or murder) another person who caused this "non-biologically viable entity" to perish as a result of actions taken on purpose or accidently by that person?

To be honest with you, I've never given this particular idea any thought. It just hasn't crossed my mind.

I'm assuming you are referring to say, a fetus within the first trimester? No, I would not consider it to be murder in that case, as the child is not viable. If the woman dies, then I would consider it murder, and if she survives, I guess I would see it as some type of assault (I'm not really familiar with the criminal system, don't know the jargon, sorry).
 
anitram said:


To be honest with you, I've never given this particular idea any thought. It just hasn't crossed my mind.

I'm assuming you are referring to say, a fetus within the first trimester? No, I would not consider it to be murder in that case, as the child is not viable. If the woman dies, then I would consider it murder, and if she survives, I guess I would see it as some type of assault (I'm not really familiar with the criminal system, don't know the jargon, sorry).

So you don't think a couple who were expecting their first child should be able to sue a person for murder, who through some physical act caused the death of their first trimester baby/fetus?

If technology one day makes it possible for a fetus to be viable from the point of conception, would you consider it a life?
 
anitram said:


To be honest with you, I've never given this particular idea any thought. It just hasn't crossed my mind.

I'm assuming you are referring to say, a fetus within the first trimester? No, I would not consider it to be murder in that case, as the child is not viable. If the woman dies, then I would consider it murder, and if she survives, I guess I would see it as some type of assault (I'm not really familiar with the criminal system, don't know the jargon, sorry).

So you don't believe in abortions after the first trimester?
 
Abortion is a big issue, there's no doubting that, but if a woman became pregnant through rape or incest or if she or the child were in danger from the praganacy, I feel that it is the choice is with the woman. Tough subject. Cheers.
 
shart1780 said:


So you don't believe in abortions after the first trimester?

In cases where the fetus is not viable (ie. dead), or will not be born alive, or the mother's life is in danger, I support late-term abortions.

In regular (ie. most) cases, I would not support abortion once the fetus is viable outside of the womb.
 
STING2 said:


So you don't think a couple who were expecting their first child should be able to sue a person for murder, who through some physical act caused the death of their first trimester baby/fetus?

I think I already answered this rather clearly. As I said, I've not sat here for years thinking about this. Maybe I'll flip flop in a year. :wink:
 
*If someone were to get in a vehicular accident with a woman, who is pregnant and in her first trimester, and she suffers a miscarriage, is it murder?
*If a man were to hit a woman in the stomach while she was in her first trimester of pregnancy and resulted in miscarriage, is that murder as well?

I don't know, I have never heard of them before.
As they do in courts, if you believe this is murder, please give me a date and the case number and an actual case that is similar to these scenarios.

As for men answering these questions, I get queasy, sorry. Let's have males squeeze out a watermelon out of a hole the size of a plum and let's see how their views change.
I think the only exception for men having a say with what women want to do with their bodies is if they are the biological father and they will take full care of the child, physically and financially, if the mother cannot.
I really don't and can't see what gives men right to control our decisions. Especially over women they don't even know and children that aren't theirs...
 
I do not thing that such actions constitute murder murder, it certainly makes the crime a lot more awful and should warrant severe punishment but to give it the legal definition of murder is really a step towards naming abortion murder and frankly that is a slippery slope.
 
A_Wanderer said:
I do not thing that such actions constitute murder murder, it certainly makes the crime a lot more awful and should warrant severe punishment but to give it the legal definition of murder is really a step towards naming abortion murder and frankly that is a slippery slope.

When I say murder in the context of abortion I know I'm not talking about legal murder. I'm thinking of what I view murder as. Killing an innocent human.
 
But that "killing an innocent human" would no doubt be a reason to outlaw abortion, which is where I am coming from - when the morality police begin to wedge their beliefs into the law it is the first step towards a higher degree of influence.

Abortion is awful and not to be taken lightly - there must be more education on the matter to allow for proper public discourse and better choice, open education will do more for the situation than having people who know that they are right come in and scream at eachother.
 
This is one of my opinions on the issue. I think the term "pro-choice" should never have been attached to this whole discourse. It is misleading. Some believe the foetus has a choice. In some cases, the woman who "chooses" to have an abortion is actually forced to do so by social circumstances: eg how many fathers/grandmothers of these unborn pressured the mother into aborting?

foray
 
xtal said:
*If someone were to get in a vehicular accident with a woman, who is pregnant and in her first trimester, and she suffers a miscarriage, is it murder?
*If a man were to hit a woman in the stomach while she was in her first trimester of pregnancy and resulted in miscarriage, is that murder as well?

I don't know, I have never heard of them before.
As they do in courts, if you believe this is murder, please give me a date and the case number and an actual case that is similar to these scenarios.

As for men answering these questions, I get queasy, sorry. Let's have males squeeze out a watermelon out of a hole the size of a plum and let's see how their views change.
I think the only exception for men having a say with what women want to do with their bodies is if they are the biological father and they will take full care of the child, physically and financially, if the mother cannot.
I really don't and can't see what gives men right to control our decisions. Especially over women they don't even know and children that aren't theirs...



Its called feiticide.
Keeler v. Superior Court of Amador County, 87 Cal.Rptr. 481, 470 P.2d 617 (1970)

Whitner v. State, No. 2446 (S.C. Oct 27,1997) the Supreme Court of South Carolina held that a viable fetus was a "person" for the purposes of the state's child neglect statute.
Oklahoma's Court of Criminal Appeals (7-0) in Hughes v. State, 868 P.2d 730 (Okl.Cr. 1994), all held that generally-worded homicide statutes applied to viable fetuses.

Section 609.266-2691 of the Minnesota Code


etc. etc.
 
Back
Top Bottom