Volconvo Debate Forums - View Single Post

damnrad · Jan 28, 2004, 04:57 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (whiterice,)
Abortions because of medical complications shouldn't be restrictied, and should be the choice of the mother. I would find that casual abortions performed widescale during the third trimester to be ghastly and a blatant disregard of human life. It would be indicative to a deteriorating society and culture. Freedom comes with responsibility. Choice should never be simple, especially in this case. <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Agreed, but I was noting that some medical complications are known about earlier, so that action could be taken earlier. Some are not, so third-trimester abortions would still be necessary.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (whiterice,)
Lately, with improving technology, babies have been delivered prematurely and kept alive through machines until they can survive on their own. I think that's a working framework to determine when abortion should be outlawed. If the fetus is physically dependent on the mother to survive or would no way survive on its own even with the help of machines, then abortion can be performed. If it takes a mother 9 months to decide to abort a baby, she definitely can't make the responsible choice. Her choice should rest during the first 4 months. It's not a perfect solution, but what ever is? <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

No, in the real world, solutions are seldom simple -- but they can sometimes be simpler than the complications upon which fanatics insist. The idea of using the viability of the fetus is a possible answer for defining when a human person begins. But is it the best answer? I was suggesting the earliest point at which there could be consciousness, so self-consciousness. But on the other hand, the best point may still be birth, when everything changes -- and when viability is not just theoretical, rather is put to the actual test. Still, at no point before birth should we talk about 'when abortion should be outlawed,' as you yourself have noted with regard to medical complications -- which can be complications for the fetus. I can't see requiring that a fetus with severe spina bifida, or especially an anacephalic fetus, be born simply because it is theoretically viable. So, let's talk about restrictions on late-term abortion. And as I have noted, we already have SCOTUS rules on that, thanks to Roe v. Wade.

Jan 28, 2004, 04:57 pm	#12 (permalink) (top)
damnrad Igneous Magma Posts: 264	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (whiterice,) Abortions because of medical complications shouldn't be restrictied, and should be the choice of the mother. I would find that casual abortions performed widescale during the third trimester to be ghastly and a blatant disregard of human life. It would be indicative to a deteriorating society and culture. Freedom comes with responsibility. Choice should never be simple, especially in this case. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Agreed, but I was noting that some medical complications are known about earlier, so that action could be taken earlier. Some are not, so third-trimester abortions would still be necessary. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (whiterice,) Lately, with improving technology, babies have been delivered prematurely and kept alive through machines until they can survive on their own. I think that's a working framework to determine when abortion should be outlawed. If the fetus is physically dependent on the mother to survive or would no way survive on its own even with the help of machines, then abortion can be performed. If it takes a mother 9 months to decide to abort a baby, she definitely can't make the responsible choice. Her choice should rest during the first 4 months. It's not a perfect solution, but what ever is? <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> No, in the real world, solutions are seldom simple -- but they can sometimes be simpler than the complications upon which fanatics insist. The idea of using the viability of the fetus is a possible answer for defining when a human person begins. But is it the best answer? I was suggesting the earliest point at which there could be consciousness, so self-consciousness. But on the other hand, the best point may still be birth, when everything changes -- and when viability is not just theoretical, rather is put to the actual test. Still, at no point before birth should we talk about 'when abortion should be outlawed,' as you yourself have noted with regard to medical complications -- which can be complications for the fetus. I can't see requiring that a fetus with severe spina bifida, or especially an anacephalic fetus, be born simply because it is theoretically viable. So, let's talk about restrictions on late-term abortion. And as I have noted, we already have SCOTUS rules on that, thanks to Roe v. Wade.