Is abortion really wrong?

blacksmithn wrote:

real life wrote:

blacksmithn wrote:

The question of viability is really a MEDICAL one, more so than a legal or legislative one, it seems to me.

That's medical, as in between a woman and her doctor. Not as in between you, me, or anybody else. The choice for a woman is agonizing enough without getting politicians or Religious Yahoo Know-Nothings involved.

Not claiming to be a doctor, nor some hyped up pseudo-religious zealot either, I'm content to leave that decision where it can best be determined.

OK, so if the gestational period from conception to birth is 38 weeks, are you comfortable with abortion at 37 weeks and 6 days if a woman can find a 'medical professional' to rid her of the inconvenience, even though you seem to admit that a human life has begun by then?

Oh, please. Couldn't you find a more extreme and unreasonable example?

At 37 weeks, 6 days it would seem to me, albeit I'm no doctor, that the fetus is viable by almost any definition. Conversely, at 6 days the embryo is almost certainly NOT viable. So what?

That being said and given the current parameters of the law, I'm content to leave the choice up to the mother and the doctor. It's not my decision as it's not my body. Nor is it yours.

It would be an unreasonable example, if babies of 37 weeks gestation were not aborted. But they are.

Sure, in less than 1% of all abortions. And, some 36 states have laws against such late-term procedures. To repeat, GIVEN THE CURRENT PARAMETERS OF THE LAW I'm content to leave the choice up to the mother and the doctor. What part of that is so difficult for you to grasp?

So if abortion is legal up to the point of birth, (and it was in the entire USA for years with the blessing of the liberals of the political left, AND it still is legal in some places,) you are content to let 'the current parameters of the law' stand, thus denying protection to viable human beings?

YES.

You don't seem to be able to decide whether the medical facts of life should determine the legal availability of abortion.

"Medical facts of life?" I'm not sure what you mean by this phrase. Since medical professionals apparently have trouble defining at what point an abortion becomes "late term", which is the procedure it seems that you're all wrought up about, I'm certainly in no position to state definitively that this procedure is right but that is wrong.

Even if the unborn at a given point is clearly a living human by any reasonable medical standard, you still seem to back away from agreeing that elective abortion should not be a legal option at that point.

To repeat yet again, GIVEN THE CURRENT PARAMETERS OF THE LAW I'm content to leave the choice up to the mother and the doctor.

Is there any point in the pregnancy at which you will state without equivocation that abortion should be illegal (I am assuming an exception in those few rare cases to save the life of the mother)?

Hey, Jack Ass, have you ever heard the word "please"? And since when did you become an expert on neonates?

I'm not sure I can define my ethics so quantitatively, but I feel as though abortion is ethically muder-like, and worse as the fetus approaches birth.

Has anybody even considered asking the fetus? After all, he/she would seem to have the most significant interest in the decision.

OK, I know you will say the fetus has not developed language; but couldn't you allow a reasonable amount of time for him/her to articulate an answer?

Say 18 years or so?

neologist wrote:

Has anybody even considered asking the fetus? After all, he/she would seem to have the most significant interest in the decision.

OK, I know you will say the fetus has not developed language; but couldn't you allow a reasonable amount of time for him/her to articulate an answer?

Say 18 years or so?

Such a position might be more plausible if those who oppose all abortions were willing to undertake the financial burden of the support of the resultant child in cases of immature or indigent mothers.

Brandon9000 wrote:

I'm not sure I can define my ethics so quantitatively, but I feel as though abortion is ethically muder-like, and worse as the fetus approaches birth.

So your position on abortion is more of an esthetic one, such that you dislike abortion in much the same way as someone might dislike clown paintings or polka music or dill pickles. Right?

neologist wrote:

Has anybody even considered asking the fetus? After all, he/she would seem to have the most significant interest in the decision.

OK, I know you will say the fetus has not developed language; but couldn't you allow a reasonable amount of time for him/her to articulate an answer?

Say 18 years or so?

Such a position might be more plausible if those who oppose all abortions were willing to undertake the financial burden of the support of the resultant child in cases of immature or indigent mothers.

neologist wrote:

Has anybody even considered asking the fetus? After all, he/she would seem to have the most significant interest in the decision.

OK, I know you will say the fetus has not developed language; but couldn't you allow a reasonable amount of time for him/her to articulate an answer?

Say 18 years or so?

Such a position might be more plausible if those who oppose all abortions were willing to undertake the financial burden of the support of the resultant child in cases of immature or indigent mothers.

Abortion rights advocates always act as though they are speaking on behalf of women, when in truth many speak on behalf of the lucrative business of aborting babies. (265 million yearly from tax funding in usa) There are so many studies that show that women who have abortions suffer depression and regret afterwards. If these advocates care so much for these women why are they not warned of this and why are those women who have abortions not given help for depression?
http://www.afterabortion.org/news/index.htm

That's all that anyone's ethics consists of, unless you feel that "correct" morality is written down in some book in some room somewhere.

Brandon9000 wrote:

That's all that anyone's ethics consists of, unless you feel that "correct" morality is written down in some book in some room somewhere.

If all ethics are equivalent to personal esthetic tastes, then saying that you deem late-term abortions to be wrong is the equivalent to saying that you find late-term abortions to be personally distasteful. And if that's the case, how can you say that someone (besides yourself) shouldn't have a late-term abortion?

You object to liquor store robberies on an aesthetic basis? How odd.