Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Leave a 1-mo infant alone in a field and see how far he gets.
Leave an elderly person with dementia in a field and see how she survives.
Your point?
Oh, right. You think a baby is a female reproductive organ. /eyeroll/
So why don't we remove the fetus from the uterus? Problem solved. Woman is no longer pregnant and the fetus isn't killed. Just like the 1 month old baby and the elderly person, someone will be willing to care for them.
Right. How does killing a baby affect a woman's reproductive organs? It doesn't. Her organs remain intact. There are no decisions made 'about' them. But it sure kills the baby.
Question. If a brain hasn’t developed yet, what are the implications? Basically it’s a lump of cells. It has no experience no cognition. It alive but all cells are alive. Is there a certain level that should be reached like a fully developed brain?
And Im asking from more of a scientific point of view.
It is not and never has been about her body. The only reason there's any controversy is that there's another human being's body and life on the line. The right or lack thereof to extinguish that life is the entire abortion debate.
Also worth noting: Even after the baby is born, the father has few rights. If the mother wants to put the child up for adoption, he generally has no say in the matter.
Then why are their exceptions for the termination in cases of rape and incest?
If the father is involved enough to know there is a baby and care anything of it, yes he most certainly does have paternal rights.
That's not the most important factor. The most important factor is what side of the birth canal it is on. If it's on the inside you can't hear it scream, if it's on the outside you can. Plenty of the fetuses in the third trimester can breathe on their own, but while they're in the womb they can't scream. Not so you can hear them anyway.
Everything we do regarding abortions is designed to help us live with what has been done. Call it a fetus and deny it it's humanity. Make sure it is still inside the womb so if it screams we can't hear it. We may decide to kill it but we still want to be civilized about it.
Exactly. Justification, rationalization, move the goal post, change the argument, deny biology, rename and redefine so they can hide behind words, claim it's LEGAL!!!! so that makes it OK, all tactics so they can tell themselves: yes, killing babies in the womb is OK.
And at what point does an abortion become c-section?
That's not the most important factor. The most important factor is what side of the birth canal it is on. If it's on the inside you can't hear it scream, if it's on the outside you can. Plenty of the fetuses in the third trimester can breathe on their own, but while they're in the womb they can't scream. Not so you can hear them anyway.
Everything we do regarding abortions is designed to help us live with what has been done. Call it a fetus and deny it it's humanity. Make sure it is still inside the womb so if it screams we can't hear it. We may decide to kill it but we still want to be civilized about it.
Actually I would say the most important factor is point of viability.
Most abortions are done in the first trimester 89-92%, 1.1% performed greater than 21 weeks.
Then why are their exceptions for the termination in cases of rape and incest?
If the father is involved enough to know there is a baby and care anything of it, yes he most certainly does have paternal rights.
No he really doesn't. If his name does not appear on the birth certificate, he has no rights. He can pursue obtaining those rights through lengthy and costly legal action, but in the meantime he has no parental rights. Mommy can put the child up for adoption, thereby absolving herself of all responsibility for the child. The reverse is not true. If mommy keeps the baby, daddy is on the hook for child support. He doesn't get to opt out.
Women are also under no legal requirement to identify the father of their child and if the father is not listed on the birth certificate, he has no legal rights at all.
Women can, and do, surrender infants for adoption without notifying or identifying the father of the child.
women can, once again, relieve themselves of all social, legal, financial and moral responsibility for a child they do not want. Men cannot do any of those things.
We could, theoretically, allow women abortions, so they can avoid pregnancy, but still require them to legally adopt a child from the foster care system, for example, for every abortion they have. This is rather like the situation men find themselves in. Would we ever in a million years suggest this is a rational or sane thing to do?
There is a word for forcing men to accept responsibility for a child they did not intend and do not want: coercion.
What are your feelings on that side of the coin? Presently, men do not have the right to opt out and women do. Is that right?
Exactly. Justification, rationalization, move the goal post, change the argument, deny biology, rename and redefine so they can hide behind words, claim it's LEGAL!!!! so that makes it OK, all tactics so they can tell themselves: yes, killing babies in the womb is OK.
And at what point does an abortion become c-section?
Actually, a c-section is far riskier than an abortion, so I am going to go with "never."
I lost a pregnancy to what is referred to as "intrauterine fetal demise" (IUFD) when I was 6.5 months pregnant (that's about 26 weeks, past when abortions are typically performed unless the mother's life is in imminent danger or the fetus is rapidly declining due to incurable disease).
The demise was the result of an umbilical cord accident. It choked my daughter (I refer to her as such because I know it was a girl... I held her after I delivered her).
Even at 26 weeks, my obstetrician informed me that, had they discovered her distress sooner, they could not actually have prevented her passing. 26 weeks is just entirely too small for a fetus to survive outside the womb in most cases. In others, the fetus that survives this early usually does so with some serious defects that are lifelong, such as diminished brain capacity due to lack of proper brain development in utero. Blindness, deafness... all fairly common in ones born before they're at/near full term.
I loved her, though. I held her after I delivered her and it broke my heart to lose her like that.
Bear in mind that I wanted this child. To go through delivering without simply having her REMOVED, I had to stay in hospital for 3 days and it took 2 of those to ever stimulate labor. I had panic attacks because the drugs they give you to do that so early in pregnancy are likely to cause that sort of reaction. It was horrible. I would not want to put anyone through all that to save a pregnancy they didn't want where the fetus would not survive outside the womb, but that's how it goes when you're past the date of viability for everyone, whether they planned to give up a baby once it was born, wanted to abort but didn't know they were pregnant until it was too late, or were planning to add to their family and very excited over being pregnant.
Where I am going with this is that even at 26 weeks, my daughter was crudely formed. A 26 week fetus is nothing at all like a full-term baby, and I had had 2 of those before this tragedy occurred.
It's quite sobering to hold one so underdeveloped in your hands. Puts so much in perspective, truly.
This is about choices for women. Abortion is the safest option for a woman who finds herself pregnant and does not want a baby.
Forced birth is a terrible idea. So much can go wrong.
Until you are able to carry one yourself, you cannot be deciding these things for women. Even then, if you are a woman who can reproduce, you cannot be deciding this for OTHER women. We simply do not all have the same circumstances and desires in life.
If you are a woman who is past your reproductive years, you need to leave women alone who must make these tough choices for themselves.
Quit trying to force people to see your religion as science or your emotions as logic.
It's cruel. And, no... fetuses with barely formed neural tubes are not more important than the women who are carrying them. They are just not.
I say this as someone who loves my children very much. Those of us who want a woman's right to choose preserved aren't all baby haters. We are people who respect the rights of our fellow women.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
No he really doesn't. If his name does not appear on the birth certificate, he has no rights. He can pursue obtaining those rights through lengthy and costly legal action, but in the meantime he has no parental rights. Mommy can put the child up for adoption, thereby absolving herself of all responsibility for the child. The reverse is not true. If mommy keeps the baby, daddy is on the hook for child support. He doesn't get to opt out.
Not true. My sister-in-law wants to put her baby up for adoption. As the father was not listed on the birth certificate, the state has made her identify the father and get him to waive his rights to the child. He has been served with legal papers to show up in court later this month to have his say. This is in Colorado.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
