15 Jul 09
Originally posted by Palynkaso would you be against abortions after say...22 weeks--since a baby can survive at that point (it's earlier than that, but for the sake of this debate...)?
Finally! Someone who understands...
Except that the line is not that easily drawn because the brain develops gradually, but at least we can say with certainty that some cases are clear cut for pro-choice.
15 Jul 09
Originally posted by Starrmanmen are usually the ones crying loudest about the rights of the unborn, often siting the belief that the right of a forcibly implanted fetus supersedes the rights of the victim. Its really about men controlling the reproductive rights of women
You think an autonomous person should carry a fetus which was forcibly placed into them against their will to term?
15 Jul 09
Originally posted by NimzovichLarsenViability is up to scientists/physicians to decide.
so would you be against abortions after say...22 weeks--since a baby can survive at that point (it's earlier than that, but for the sake of this debate...)?
My complete view would also pose conditions on brain development. If science develops into a point where viability reaches a point where brainless fetuses are "viable", then obviously I still think they are just chunks of flesh. Again, the exact minimal point would be decided by neurologists and other medical professionals.
15 Jul 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Starrmani could possibly see it in this case...but adoption is still a better option. Pro choice people always change the subject to these rare circumstances. Most abortions are not done after a rape, they are done after someone chooses to get pregnant even though they don't want a child.
You think an autonomous person should carry a fetus, which was forcibly placed into them against their will, to term?
15 Jul 09
Originally posted by duecerI'm not sure what that has to do with the topic, obviously there will be more women pro-choice when it comes to rape cases. I'm not sure it's 'really about men controlling the reproductive rights of women'.
men are usually the ones crying loudest about the rights of the unborn, often siting the belief that the right of a forcibly implanted fetus supersedes the rights of the victim. Its really about men controlling the reproductive rights of women
15 Jul 09
Originally posted by Palynkawow, way to not answer the question. Babies have lived at 22 weeks, so make a decision! Ok, i'll dumb down my question for you, at 34 weeks (is that viable enough for you or do i need to get a scientist involved) is an abortion cool with you?
Viability is up to scientists/physicians to decide.
My complete view would also pose conditions on brain development. If science develops into a point where viability reaches a point where brainless fetuses are "viable", then obviously I still think they are just chunks of flesh. Again, the exact minimal point would be decided by neurologists and other medical professionals.
15 Jul 09
Originally posted by NimzovichLarsenAre you stupid? My previous answer already made it clear that at 34 weeks abortion would not be 'cool' with me.
wow, way to not answer the question. Babies have lived at 22 weeks, so make a decision! Ok, i'll dumb down my question for you, at 34 weeks (is that viable enough for you or do i need to get a scientist involved) is an abortion cool with you?
15 Jul 09
Originally posted by NimzovichLarsenAgain you're precluding the argument by assuming that the fetus always has a right to life, but there is clearly a time at which the fetus is just a ball of cells. Adoption is not a better option if there is no need to bring the ball of cells to life/personhood.
i could possibly see it in this case...but adoption is still a better option. Pro choice people always change the subject to these rare circumstances. Most abortions are not done after a rape, they are done after someone chooses to get pregnant even though they don't want a child.
15 Jul 09
Originally posted by duecermen cotrolling the repro rights of woman, lol.. good one. It's never about the baby to pro choice people. You always divert to something else. I give a woman all the rights in the world to reproduce. If you don't want to reproduce, don't get freaking pregnant...and if you do take some responsiblity and don't kill the baby. You can call it a fetus or whatever, but just because it can't live outside the womb at 12, 15, 20 weeks, whatever doesn't mean it isnt a living human being.
men are usually the ones crying loudest about the rights of the unborn, often siting the belief that the right of a forcibly implanted fetus supersedes the rights of the victim. Its really about men controlling the reproductive rights of women
15 Jul 09
Originally posted by Starrmanbut that is not the usual argument made by pro choicers, and the one i most disagree with...that an abortion should be ok at any stage.
Again you're precluding the argument by assuming that the fetus always has a right to life, but there is clearly a time at which the fetus is just a ball of cells. Adoption is not a better option if there is no need to bring the ball of cells to life/personhood.