If you don't want a baby, get your tubes tied.

Unlike third world countries, women in the US have a better opportunity for education, access to contraception, and access to reproductive health care. The "pro-life" movement is trying to change all that, however.

 

Where did I indicate I didn't know it's a woman choice" within legal limits" ? I didn't.

Why are you talking about the mindset of those who want to make it legal up to the day before a full term birth if NO ONE advocates for that ????????

 

Then, you agree it's not completely up to the woman. Thank you.

You advocated that didn't you? A couple of weeks ago?

If you oppose it - belly up to the bar and state that.

 

I did not advocate for that.

Why are you lying about me?

You OBVIOUSLY have nothing coherent or intelligent to post so are making things up....

 

Just a note : the quotes in post 660 and 655 aren't mine

 

What is wrong with choosing a convenient time to have a baby ? This is how responsible people behave.

If a pregnancy is untimely or unwanted the responsible thing to do is terminate that pregnancy prior to the creation of a human.

 

There's nothing wrong with choosing to start having a baby at a convenient time. But when a woman is pregnant, she's already started.

Once the process is started, the responsible thing to do is to finish it.

 

The issue is, the creation of a human being doesn't happen all at once. It's a gradual process that happens over several months. It's not just an inanimate clump of cells one moment and a baby the next.

 

She has not started to have a baby as no baby yet exists. The process of creation has started .. granted.

Why is it a responsible thing to do to let a process which might result in the creation of a baby continue, when you do not want a baby ?

 

Every human cell is "animate" and so is the egg and sperm. I realize that the various religious groups over the years have claimed, "every sperm is sacred" and you are welcome to this belief. I just do not share it.

Your second point relates to the continuum. Yes, life is a continuum. Seasons come and seasons go. The process of the creation of a human actually starts long before the egg or sperm is even created.

The point of the abortion debate, in my mind (please feel free to suggest something different) is to figure out where along that continuum a living human exists such that it should be given rights, including the right to life.

The first question posed is "When is it human life" "when does human life begin" distinguishing "human life" from other forms of life. Keep in mind that saying something is "human life" does not tell us if a living human or a "person" exists. Every human cell is "human life" these are not living humans.

A human heart cell for example is neither a human nor is it a heart.

Also note that the word "human" in the term "human life" is a descriptive adjective where as the word human is a noun in the term "living. human" Folks often confuse the two.

The question "is it a living human" is a separate question but we will leave that along for now.

There are currently at least 5 major perspectives on the question of "when does human life begin".

Metabolic, Genetic, Embryonic, Ecological, Neurological

You can read in more detail about each of those perspectives here.
https://www.franklincollege.edu/science_courses/bioethics/When does human life begin.pdf

Only one puts the start of human life at conception (Genetic) and this perspective has fallen out of favor among many scientists due to certain problems, some which are described in the link.

So there is no agreement as to when "human life" begins. This would represent the "Start" of the continuum you speak of.

Even if we were to agree " Conception is the start of this continuum" this does not help much.

The real question is "where along that continuum does a living human exist" and not "when does human life exist".

It is fallacy to claim "a life of a human (n) exists at conception" or " the life of a human (n) starts at conception" as many try to do, on the basis that "human (descriptive adjective) life starts at conception"

Note that the word "human" in the first two phrases above is a noun whereas in the phrase , "human life starts at conception" the noun is a descriptive adjective.

it is fallacy to claim "The life of a human has started" because a human has not yet been shown to even exist.

To me it is absurd to claim that a single human cell (zygote or otherwise) is a living human. It is true that the zygote is on a path, the continuum that you want to speak of, but a single cell being on a path does not make it a living human (unless of course you have a valid argument which can explains why this is so or proves this).

 

Says you...........

 

If you have a baby, why is it a responsible thing to do to let the process continue which might result in a toddler, when you do not want a toddler?

 

It seems reasonable to assert that, just as the life does not develop all at once, human rights might not be acquired all at once either. Perhaps there should be additional protections governing under what circumstances an abortion can be obtained, depending on gestational age. Of course, pro-lifers and pro-choicers are not likely to agree on exactly what those ages should be, but this is the basis for the start of a framework. So as the fetus becomes older, the situations under which a woman could seek an abortion would become more limited. The restrictions would be very gradual and incremental, correlated with gestational age.

So at some age—say, 20 weeks—the fetus would attain full equality with the woman. That would mean that the woman would have to have an over 50% chance of mortality to justify terminating the life of her fetus. This is how it would work out according to mathematical valuation analysis, because obviously if the woman dies, her fetus dies too, so the possibility of the woman's death carries double weight. In reality, the calculations would be much more complex, and a bio-ethics counsel could formulate some convenient tabulations and guidelines.

 

unless threat to mom's health, impregnated during rape, or incest (there's been a number of cases where that has already been too late)

 

very rare for there ever to be a serious threat, imminently requiring abortion

Plan B pills. Emergency shots of estrogen administered immediately after at the hospital. The rape exception keeps coming up so often I was thinking about starting a thread about it.

I will admit this indeed could theoretically be a valid issue. But I still think it's wrong to abort at 16+ weeks. Incest doesn't make it any less of a person.

 

Why should it be OK then?

 

You're correct. The fetus doesn't become a human being al at once and that's why it's ok to have an abortion....when the fetus isn't viable, isn't a person.

 

It might not make it OK, but it would make it a little less bad. I suspect many abortion situations are worse than others.

Some of them are so bad even most pro-choicers would have to admit what the woman did was terrible, while other situations might illicit our sympathy to the point where even many pro-lifers would find abortion acceptable. Abortion comes in many shades.

Wouldn't that be why it's not ok to have an abortion?
If a human being is becoming a person, it's not just an un-person.

How does that follow?
Not all people can survive without life support, you know.

 

NOPE, if the Anti -AbortionChoicers call it murder they HAVE to be consistent ...it can't be murder when they decide it is and NOT murder when THEY decide it isn't.

Abortion is abortion whether the woman had consensual sex or was raped....