I'd like to think it's more than just a crutch.

 

Still, what you said had nothing to do with the comment you quoted. Random...

 

You're kidding me right? Ok, I'll find all the mothers who are pregnant. Tell them to have the babies and give them all to you to raise them until they are old enough to make their own decisions. I hope you're rich!!!

If you want to voice your opinion, you should step up to the plate and take care of the children. I love pro-lifers who want to "save" the child's life but once they're born... they don't do jack shit.

 

A crutch is a crutch is a crutch is a crutch.

If you need to lean on it to support a function, it's a crutch. No matter how you dress it up, it's a crutch.

 

They can say any goddamn thing they want. I was pissed at the father, decided to walk into a clinic and off the kid as revenge. Its easier than using birth control.

 

yeah, that's all fine and good, except that it is NOT a child until it breathes on it's own. An unborn child/fetus/baby/whatever has no right to choose anything, because it does not exist on its own.

 

What aaaaaaaaare you talking about?

 

If they wanted to sue the state for killing the kid, they can say anything they wanted.

 

I think I remember reading this statement on page 2, 5, 9, 11, and here.

 

stalker much?





Atsxguy, have a fun time in land.

 

It is a new life upon conception. It will become a human. It will be sentient. Just because at some stage it is more or less developed doesnt mean a thing. You are arbitrarily deciding at what point it is technically a child. I'm saying who the hell cares at what point it 'becomes a child', it will become a child and that is all that matters.

 

I no longer see how this is relevant.

 

The problem with this viewpoint is ... it could.

A fetus is potentially viable in the 2nd trimester after as little as 24 weeks.

While your argument may hold up for 1st trimester pre-fetal stage babies, it falls apart after that.

In the coming years, the age of viability will continue to drop as we continue to develop ever more freakish ways to mature a lifeform outside of its mother.

What then?

 

answer is in your pm

Let us crack out our biology books!!!!!

 

Just an example how abortions can be abused when readily available.

 

oh, i'm not advocating any kind of relief from pregnancy if it's after the 1st trimester, i think that's more than enough time to make a decision and act on it.

But i still don't feel that a fetus is a baby until it exists outside the womb.

 

You were saying how people might regret it afterwards, but I was arguing that you can't just find out you're pregnant, and walk in and have an abortion an hour later.

 

LOL

That's like saying you don't have something because you're hiding it behind your back.

I don't think "exists" is the right word. Obviously the fetus exists, its not just not there because you can't see it.

In anycase, I think I understand what you're saying. I'm simply pointing out that there are many instances where a fetus can live, develop, and mature without assistance from its mother or the safety of the womb.

In the future, the stage at which this can happen will likely continue to widen. As it is now, 24-weeks is the minimum length the baby needs to remain in the mother to remain viable.

In the future, technology could lessen this to maybe as little as 12 weeks (unlikely, but possible).

What then?

If this is what makes it OK for you, what then? If it's possible for the child to be viable in the 1st trimester, what then?

 

That does not hold up, because if they went and had an abortion, then regretted it later, dont you think that she could just get pregnant again. Its not like once you have an abortion, you can no longer have children.

How could someone be so selfish to bring a child into this world, that they have no means to care for and give 100% of what that child needs. So now you have a child, that does not get the attention he/she needs because the mother is alone and working 2 jobs.

What kind of affect do you think that is ultimatly gonna have on the child... Not a positive one, thats for sure.

 

You argue that abortion is unnatural...an unborn child living outside its mother's womb is much more unnatural.

 

being kept alive via machines and modern medicine doesn't equate with age of viability for me.

so i don't think that future medical advancement will have any effect on my view.

my previous statement that you quoted would have been made clearer had i included the caveat that the baby must exist on it's own outside the womb.

 

Oh I agree completely, no questions there. EXCEPT, premature birth is a completely natural occurence and does happen at early stages in some instances.

 

You cant speak for all mothers just like you cant speak for all children in those situations.

If I can come up with one instance where a mother doesnt forever regret that child they aborted when they were younger and more irresponsible or maybe I could point out that that poor child who doesnt get 100% of what he needs here in the US is still 1000 times better off than millions of ethiopian kids.

 

Yeah, but well after the time that SHOULD be allowed for abortion.

 

Your right, niether can you! You cannot say that abortions should be illegal. Its not your right to choose for other people. You know dont their situations.

I know for a fact that they always regret it. But then soon after realize that it was better off.

And were not in or even talking about Ethiopian children, so that point is moot.

 

Huh? That's ridiculous.

It's not being "kept alive" on machines permanently like some vegetable.

It's simply being incubated, kept safe, until it is a healthy infant.

This is a common thing. Slightly un-natural that were able to do it, but if and when the day comes that you have a child you will thank god for the ability for it to become a healthy person even if it is naturally born premature.

There are also instances where the woman will WANT the child but is incapable of carrying it past an early stage. If future medicine is able to relieve the mother of that burden and carry the child to maturity then how can you not change your view to the flip side?

I think it's very narrow to say that "viability" isn't count for premature babies just because modern medicine makes it possible.

Especially when 1 in every 8 of us here are here today because of this capability.

So again, what I'm saying is, when the day comes that the possibility of viability outside of the womb in the 1st or early 2nd trimester is here... what then?

It destroys your statement that it's not killing a life, a human, if it is done before it's viable...

Because today's viable is already much wider a window than yesterdays, and tomorrows will be infinitely more promising for premature babies.

 

Agreed 100%.

I'm only speaking hypothetically towards the question... how late is too late for abortion?

In the future, it will be even less of a window before life is viable. So if you use the "its not a baby outside the womb" argument... well... you know...

 

I think past the first trimester is a stretch.

 

Agreed. I think outside 3 days from when you find out your pregnant is a stretch.

(Yes I know some women, especially lil girls who shouldnt be getting pregnant in the first place, don't find out their pregnant until rather late. I'm speaking towards the average who find out within the first 4-5 weeks tops).

 

adam, regardless of what medical technology makes possible in the future, i will always fully support first trimester abortions. I feel that these procedures when done with proper precaution/forethought provide potential life saving benefits to both mom/dad and unborn child.

 

You are confusing science with religion here. The though is that a fetus in the 1st trimester doesn't have a soul.

 

There is Whiskers! Now where is my favorite moderator Ric should chime in

It seems like we have 2 admins here; one's pro-life and one's pro-choice

 

As will I. Nonetheless, that's not what I was disputing here.

I was simply questioning your reasoning that only Viability == Baby, especially when that reasoning didn't seem to be factoring in early prematurity - something that happens today and can produce more than "viable" children.

 

The saying "shit happens, now man up and deal with" just does not hold any amount of water in this debate.

I know that I was not ready at all when i was 18, neither was the girl I was with (whome is now my wife and we have a beautiful daughter together). Do I regret it, well of coarse. But when I was 18 I was no where near ready for a child. i could not have given him/her the life that him/her would require.

 

Ric knows all...

 

What amazes me the most is the fact that this thread has gone 16 pages without going offtrack and threatened of getting locked..

 

a premature baby can generally breath on it's own, hence it is viable by my definition.....

i guess this does become a bit foggy with your prediction of greatly improved viability from very premature babies, however I still would support the decision to abort within the first trimester.

 

good point

 

really? who's the pro-lifer?

 

There is a line to be drawn somewhere, we will just never agree on where it is. I suppose the easiest line to draw is right at birth, so thats how we do it.

I think most would support moving that line to just before the third trimester, but the hardcore pro-choice advocates will reject it in fear of a slippery slope.