Pro abortion or not

[Esquilax]

How do you feel about Neonaticide? And do you think your feelings should be applied as a legal restriction upon anyone else?

Ah, but at that point the infant is born, and fully alive, and hence falls under the same laws concerning the killing of any other human. And to be clear, my feelings aren't the reason why those legal restrictions should be in place; the analysis of how permitting that act affects the real world are. There is not the same issues of the violations of bodily autonomy involved in neonaticide, that one finds in issues of abortion.

[Zen Badger]

My only caveat on the issue is that you should not be able to abort after the second trimester unless for medical reasons.

You've had six months to make up your mind about what to do..

If you change you mind after this then put the child up for adoption after the birth.

And yes, It's an arbitrary line I've drawn in the sand. But aren't all such distinctions so? (Right to drive, legal drinking age etc)

[Aractus]

Ah, but at that point the infant is born, and fully alive, and hence falls under the same laws concerning the killing of any other human.

But by that logic the infant is no less "fully" alive then it is at the 23rd week since from this point on it has the potential to survive if born. Remember that even at 9 months the baby still only has potential to survive once born, so there's really not much difference except that with such a premature birth the infant needs more nursing to get it to full health.

This is what confuses me about your point of view. A normal, healthy, pregnancy is 38 weeks. Let's say a woman is 39 weeks pregnant - can she abort? Let's say a woman gives birth at 35 weeks - is neonaticide okay? And did you read any of the links I posted - which relate to this publication? It's still your world-view which opposes it.

But I guess the question, which I asked before but you didn't answer, that I would really like answered is this. When aborted babies are born alive, they are either left to die (neonaticide takes place by not trying to save the baby's life), read the links I posted earlier - or - the baby is left with its parents.

Now let me address both points - firstly, point 1. is technically illegal, yet even though dozens of cases (over the last 10 years) are documented and proven in each State of Australia no one has ever been charged with committing a crime. Thus in practise doctors and nurses are allowed to practise neonaticide, it's only the parents who aren't?

Point 2. Even more important - a study in Victoria found that about 1/4th of infants that died from SIDS in the first year of their lives were babies that had survived abortion. Why were these babies ever given back to the parents that wanted to terminate them before birth??

Point 3. If a woman "has a right to an abortion" as many here claim, then howcome a child can be born alive following an abortion? Who's rights tump who's?? Shouldn't the baby have the right to have a parent who is somebody who will love them from the very start, and thus be given to somebody who will take proper care of it?

And to be clear, my feelings aren't the reason why those legal restrictions should be in place; the analysis of how permitting that act affects the real world are. There is not the same issues of the violations of bodily autonomy involved in neonaticide, that one finds in issues of abortion.

So a foetus doesn't live in the real world, even if it is breathing and capable of surviving outside the womb?

---

My only caveat on the issue is that you should not be able to abort after the second trimester unless for medical reasons.

Then this link should interest you.

[Esquilax]

But by that logic the infant is no less "fully" alive then it is at the 23rd week since from this point on it has the potential to survive if born. Remember that even at 9 months the baby still only has potential to survive once born, so there's really not much difference except that with such a premature birth the infant needs more nursing to get it to full health.

This is what confuses me about your point of view. A normal, healthy, pregnancy is 38 weeks. Let's say a woman is 39 weeks pregnant - can she abort? Let's say a woman gives birth at 35 weeks - is Neonaticide okay? And did you read any of the links I posted - which relate to this publication?

I do want to make one thing very clear: you don't know my point of view. I believe there should be a cutoff point once the fetus becomes viable outside the womb too- varying for context, of course. The difference between your position and mine is that I recognize that what I believe should be the case isn't the issue here, because I'm not a woman, nor am I medically trained. Being that I have literally no experience in either of the two quadrants of experience relevant to this issue, I've opted to err on the side of freedom, and let the people who actually know what they're talking about determine the situation.

As Nora pointed out quite astutely, women are people, and this is an issue that concerns women; we should let women have the decision to themselves for the most part. Wouldn't you find it awfully strange if the group deciding what should happen to your testicles in a medical context consisted almost entirely of women?

Would you let people who aren't pilots determine air traffic and plane safety precautions?

So a foetus doesn't live in the real world, even if it is breathing and capable of surviving outside the womb?

See above.

[Aractus]

As Nora pointed out quite astutely, women are people, and this is an issue that concerns women; we should let women have the decision to themselves for the most part.

Babies are people too. You may want to re-read my last reply i've edited it a couple of times.

[pocaracas]

Esq, this is one instance where I disagree with you and find myself agreeing with Aractus.
Abortion should only be allowed up until the fetus can survive on its own... Of course, there's no clear cut border, so legislators must impose one and they use medical consensus on the average gestation period that provides a viable (even if very premature) infant.

I personally, would go further and place a limit on ~15~20 weeks when the nervous system of the fetus is developed and the abortion would cause it suffering, before death.
20 weeks (provided the first 4 may come without the woman being aware of it) are more than enough time for the woman to decide what to do and take appropriate measures...

[KichigaiNeko]

I am to understand that 10-15 weeks is the limit. IF a female is unable to determine whether or not she wishes to go to term with a pregnancy within that time period then the only other option for a late term pregnancy termination is due to deformity or the death of the foetus. surely this is sensible?

[Esquilax]

But I guess the question, which I asked before but you didn't answer, that I would really like answered is this. When aborted babies are born alive, they are either left to die (neonaticide takes place by not trying to save the baby's life), read the links I posted earlier - or - the baby is left with its parents.

Now let me address both points - firstly, point 1. is technically illegal, yet even though dozens of cases (over the last 10 years) are documented and proven in each State of Australia no one has ever been charged with committing a crime. Thus in practise doctors and nurses are allowed to practise neonaticide, it's only the parents who aren't?

I don't think either should be able to. At that point, just adopt the kid out or something. Again though, I have to stress how uncomfortable it makes me to blunder into shit I don't really know how to experience as though my opinions matter.

Point 2. Even more important - a study in Victoria found that about 1/4th of infants that died from SIDS in the first year of their lives were babies that had survived abortion. Why were these babies ever given back to the parents that wanted to terminate them before birth??

I don't know, though I'd suspect it varies according to context. Again, I'd say at that point there are far less cruel ways to resolve the situation.

Point 3. If a woman "has a right to an abortion" as many here claim, then howcome a child can be born alive following an abortion? Who's rights tump who's?? Shouldn't the baby have the right to have a parent who is somebody who will love them from the very start, and thus be given to somebody who will take proper care of it?

See above: at the point at which the infant is literally born and still alive, to my mind the issues that affect the woman's choice have been resolved, which rather means it's beyond the reach of my position anyway.

Esq, this is one instance where I disagree with you and find myself agreeing with Aractus.
Abortion should only be allowed up until the fetus can survive on its own... Of course, there's no clear cut border, so legislators must impose one and they use medical consensus on the average gestation period that provides a viable (even if very premature) infant.

I could see that, and I'm not against legislating for this issue either. I'm just saying that the person to be asking about how that legislation should be determined isn't me, nor is it the standard anti-choice guy, nor right wing politician. It's doctors, and women. The people actually affected by this issue should have more representation than they currently do, and certainly more than armchair pundits like me.

[pocaracas]

Esq, this is one instance where I disagree with you and find myself agreeing with Aractus.
Abortion should only be allowed up until the fetus can survive on its own... Of course, there's no clear cut border, so legislators must impose one and they use medical consensus on the average gestation period that provides a viable (even if very premature) infant.

I could see that, and I'm not against legislating for this issue either. I'm just saying that the person to be asking about how that legislation should be determined isn't me, nor is it the standard anti-choice guy, nor right wing politician. It's doctors, and women. The people actually affected by this issue should have more representation than they currently do, and certainly more than armchair pundits like me.

Oh, completely agreed on that... in fact... I've said that before,
perhaps not in so many words:

I'm not a woman, so I probably shouldn't have a saying in this. But I am entitled to an opinion and my opinion is that, at it's core, cat, you're right. It's wrong to kill. It's even wronger to kill a human being.

[KichigaiNeko]

But I guess the question, which I asked before but you didn't answer, that I would really like answered is this. When aborted babies are born alive, they are either left to die (neonaticide takes place by not trying to save the baby's life), read the links I posted earlier - or - the baby is left with its parents.

Where is the evidence for this? And by "aborted alive" are you referring to premature babies Danny? Or are you referring to those babies that are forced to an early termination of pregnancy because they are deformed beyond help and as such are left with their parents to say goodbye because they would not survive whether full term or pre-mature?

Now let me address both points - firstly, point 1. is technically illegal, yet even though dozens of cases (over the last 10 years) are documented and proven in each State of Australia no one has ever been charged with committing a crime. Thus in practise doctors and nurses are allowed to practise neonaticide, it's only the parents who aren't?

I don't think either should be able to. At that point, just adopt the kid out or something. Again though, I have to stress how uncomfortable it makes me to blunder into shit I don't really know how to experience as though my opinions matter.

So again where are these stats you are talking about Danny? As for the emotive term "neonaticide" just where do you draw the line? Is masterbation "neonaticide"?

Point 2. Even more important - a study in Victoria found that about 1/4th of infants that died from SIDS in the first year of their lives were babies that had survived abortion. Why were these babies ever given back to the parents that wanted to terminate them before birth??

I don't know, though I'd suspect it varies according to context. Again, I'd say at that point there are far less cruel ways to resolve the situation.

Really? 1/4th of babies? Then please explain the other 75% that died from SIDS including my nephew please Danny.

Point 3. If a woman "has a right to an abortion" as many here claim, then howcome a child can be born alive following an abortion? Who's rights tump who's?? Shouldn't the baby have the right to have a parent who is somebody who will love them from the very start, and thus be given to somebody who will take proper care of it?

See above: at the point at which the infant is literally born and still alive, to my mind the issues that affect the woman's choice have been resolved, which rather means it's beyond the reach of my position anyway.

I'd love to see the evidence of abortions that result in the baby being "born alive" are you sure you are not getting the stats for premature births confused Danny?

Esq, this is one instance where I disagree with you and find myself agreeing with Aractus.
Abortion should only be allowed up until the foetus can survive on its own... Of course, there's no clear cut border, so legislators must impose one and they use medical consensus on the average gestation period that provides a viable (even if very premature) infant.

I could see that, and I'm not against legislating for this issue either. I'm just saying that the person to be asking about how that legislation should be determined isn't me, nor is it the standard anti-choice guy, nor right wing politician. It's doctors, and women. The people actually affected by this issue should have more representation than they currently do, and certainly more than armchair pundits like me.

As I have stated before, (silly males) IF a female has not made up her mind to go ahead with the pregnancy by the 10th - 15th then abortion is problematical at best...ask any Medical practitioner. The ONLY reasons for a late gestation termination that I am currently aware of involve genetic deformities or the death of the foetus.

---

Oh and just WHEN did you get your doctorate in Gynaecology/ Obstetrics Danny?