Abortion -cpr on the fetus?

[answer-is-42]

@snakeoil. Listen you dumb as dirt lubricant for fecal regularity you specifically stated it was fine as long as some besides the mother paid (the doctor, a church, ect) that was your arguement. So the morality is based on payer. I don't believe that payment or money has anything to do with morality. How have I mis-interpreted your position ? Regarding the woman didn't get what she wants my point as I stated earlier is that the most she can morally ask for based on the bodily autonomy argument for abortion is a termination of pregnancy. She got that so no right infringed. Try addressing my actual points rahter then hissing on without saying a word.

[Cato]

My point is why should the mother have the right to decide in these situations from a moral standpoint?

Whom else would you nominate?

[Ravenshire]

@snakeoil. Listen you dumb as dirt lubricant for fecal regularity you specifically stated it was fine as long as some besides the mother paid (the doctor, a church, ect) that was your arguement. So the morality is based on payer. I don't believe that payment or money has anything to do with morality. How have I mis-interpreted your position ? Regarding the woman didn't get what she wants my point as I stated earlier is that the most she can morally ask for based on the bodily autonomy argument for abortion is a termination of pregnancy. She got that so no right infringed. Try addressing my actual points rahter then hissing on without saying a word.

Misrepresenting my arguments will get you nowhere you limp-dicked, cum guzzling pile of syphilis infected monkey shit. No, the morality is not based on payer, but who the responsibility for the child (got that part yet fuck-tard) falls to after the patients rights are violated by her doctor. Hell, the fact that those rights were violated is enough, but as I have said multiple times, dim-wit, if the doctor arranges to provide for the child's whole fucking life (not the medical costs of being born as you so ignorantly keep ass-uming) then as a stand alone event, saving Baby Goo would not be unethical. Whether or not mommy sues the holy fuck out of the doctor for refusing to perform the abortion he agreed to perform is a whole other subject.

Do you really think you're insults are actually insulting? I've heard better from young grade-schoolers.

With that, I'm done with you.

[Pyrrho]

Let me begin by stating that I am not a theist (the most common as-homin attack I get when opposing abortion on secular grounds is that I am secretly a theist again I am not).
Most people oppose abortion based in the right to bodily autonomy. Regardless of your beliefs on that, once the fetus is out of the maternal womb, bodily autonomy no longer applies. 20 weeks has arbitrairly been considered the limit of viability, however infants born at 21 weeks have clearly survived and case reports of younger (less developed) infants surviving are also available. Additionally not all abortions occur before 20 weeks.
Therefore my moral question is why is resuscitation and medical support with held from an aborted fetus if there is a chance of survival?  We do not allow this in any other situations. certainly we would not allow a parent to stop feeding or withhold medical care from a child because they simply do not want the child. It is actually considered child abuse even if they want the child and are following their misguided religious convictions
this is not a financial question so I would ask that cost not be an arguement. We use more expensive therapies for similar success rates all the time. This is a moral and philosophical question

If I am understanding you, the way you have constructed your question, I think the question hinges on what amount of development is considered to be a person.  That will determine whether or not anything would be required to do for a premature birth (which is what you seem to be asking about rather than an abortion in which the fetus is removed dead).  And a related issue would be whether or not inducing a premature birth would have the same impact on the woman as a traditional abortion.  If not, then the effects on her would have to be considered (in my opinion, the effects on her would be paramount, though I am aware of the fact that not everyone agrees on such matters).

As for trying to save the life of a fetus born prematurely, that is normally done because the parents wish for it to be done.  One would expect that they may have opted for an abortion if they did not desire to have a child.  There is also the legal issue (which is obviously different from the philosophical issues), that whenever human life is born, it is legally considered to be a person (I think that is the case in the U.S., but I am no lawyer).

Your question also naturally raises the issue of fertilized eggs that have been started for the purpose of in vitro fertilization.  Such fertilized eggs are outside the woman, and so the issue of her bodily integrity is not relevant to what happens to extra fertilized eggs.  Such fertilized eggs could be implanted in another woman and so they could live.

Do you think it is wrong to kill the extra fertilized eggs?  If so, why, and if not, why not?


My own take on all of this is to suggest that for legal purposes, it would probably be best to only regard something as a person after it is born, to give us a definite point that is relatively unambiguous (though I am fully aware that there is a time when part of the thing is inside the woman and part of it outside; we could select either partway out or fully out for convenience).

As for the moral aspects, again, I think the issue then is going to involve when one is a person.  For my part, I am not convinced that a newborn qualifies, but I think that having a definite point that is relatively unambiguous is best for legal purposes, and so I think that regarding a newborn as legally a person is probably best.


Perhaps a better question would be, when is a grouping of human cells a person, and when is a grouping of human cells not a person?

[Thumpalumpacus]

A child of rape did not choose that course of events, but you state that you're okay with aborting them. Why?

Are their lives less valuable?

Not less valuable at all. A negative thing happened to the mother. That could bring negative to the child. Also the mother is not responsible. And cannot be held accountable for something she couldn't help.

Yet you are holding the innocent child accountable, and killing him for the sin of being a rape-child. The fetus could not help being conceived.

She may not be able to provide for the child. These all become feasible, legitimate reasons to abort at a very early stage of pregnancy do to circumstances that were really out of the mother's hands.

Ah, so poverty is sometimes an acceptable reason for an abortion, then ... so long as the woman has been punished a priori by rape?

What if it was consensual sex between an impoverished married couple, using birth control which failed? They did their level best to avoid conceiving a child in a situation where they cannot afford. Must that woman now be required to bear that fetus for nine months, to give birth to a child which will either have to live in poverty or be given up to an impersonal state foster-care system that cannot provide for the developmental emotional needs of the growing child?

I'mn gonna level with you, Pops. I think that guys like you and me, who lack a womb and a birth canal, guys like us should shut our fucking pieholes about what a woman decides on this sort of thing. You let her make her peace with your alleged god, and quit appointing yourself to be his mouthpiece when you can never, ever know the weight of decision a woman must face in such a moment.

I don't know about you, or you Christians, or your Christ, but if I'm in the position of judging someone, I prefer to judge charitably.

[popsthebuilder]

I thought we were no longer speaking in ideal scenario. But if it was ideal there would be no abortions whatsoever. The government, being a part of a whole society which is in turn part of real religion and guidance would accept responsibility for the child's mental, emotional, and phisical well being , along with values. But in an ideal scenario abortion would never be an option, nor would it have to be.

[bennyboy]

@snakeoil. Listen you dumb as dirt lubricant for fecal regularity you specifically stated it was fine as long as some besides the mother paid (the doctor, a church, ect) that was your arguement. So the morality is based on payer. I don't believe that payment or money has anything to do with morality. How have I mis-interpreted your position ? Regarding the woman didn't get what she wants my point as I stated earlier is that the most she can morally ask for based on the bodily autonomy argument for abortion is a termination of pregnancy. She got that so no right infringed. Try addressing my actual points rahter then hissing on without saying a word.

Okay, given the tone of your response to snakeoil, I'm going to call bullshit on you-- absolutely everything you have said.  There's no chance someone as immature as you has an MD.  I mean, you're arguing and you can't even fucking spell "argument.  I've known several doctors, and met many, and NONE would ever be caught speaking like a 14-19 year-old punk. . . which is clearly what you actually are. It's weak enough to appeal to credentials to support a flimsy point-- but appealing to credentials that everyone but you knows you couldn't possibly have. . . that's just silly.

[Longhorn]

My point is why should the mother have the right to decide in these situations from a moral standpoint?

Whom else would you nominate?

Jay-soos?

[answer-is-42]

@pyyrho. Thanks for a good and on point response. Absolutely the crux of the arguement is at what point do we bestow personhood. That seems to be missed by most here. Many (not all) people who oppose abortion do so based on the bodily autonomy arguement. IE even if a fetus is a person, the mothers bodily autonomy trumps theirs. I'm trying to introduce a point that take that out of the equation and is there still a moral justification for termination ? I won't address legality because I'm not a lawyer and honestly am not try to change legislation. What I am doing doing is trying to spark intellectual and moral discussions on why we think some things are ok and again I want to thank you for actually engaging in this. Regarding frozen embryos. That is a difficult moral question for me along the same lines. Certainly they are not independently viable so there are no known ways of salvaging them short of a maternal womb. If there is no womb then my argument really doesn't hold since my point only focused on a fetus who could potentially survived ex utero
@benny I don't care what you think of my assertion on my degree. I began insulting snake oil because I first politely asked him to stop cursing and his response was essentially bring it on (I think he said I'm shaking). So I began insulting him without cursing and generally mocking him/Her related to his username. My insults derive from either snake or oil. If you have an issue with insults then I await your response to snake oil for childish behavior. Insulting some one because they disagree is is wrong. I only insulted snake oil because he continued to insult me and challenged me to do so. If you don't believe me then review this thread. My credentials don't change that so either you are a hypocrite or you will oppose snake oil for childishness. If your only comebacks are personal attacks then you really don't have an argument. I see this much more from theists but I suppose anyone who is challenged in their beliefs and does not want to change them even if they cannot justify them will respond in this way

[brewer]

Good morning you poser. Bennyboy summed it up rather well. Your using lies to give credence to your position, which by the way sucks. If you are actually an MD you wouldn't fear providing the documentation except that this rant might be made public and your license to practice brought into question. I'm convinced that you are a liar. Congratulations, you are an excellent representative for the rest of the delusional.

You stated " If the fetus survives, why should she have the right to kill it?" When you state "she" you are referring to the mother. Again, read the law! It is in simple enough terms that even you should be able to understand. If you can't understand it let me know and I'll be happy to restate it on the level that you are currently functioning at. If born "alive" there is a requirement to attempt to sustain life. The mothers "right to kill" does not exist. Any persons present do not have the "right to kill". This should be the end of your moral debate. Now shut up and go away.