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.
"probably not to far ahead in the future" doubtful even 100 years from now. even if it were a possibility it's doubtful you would get women to have their unwanted pregnancy harvested and transplanted. so abortion would still be preferable than the fake uterus
The second part of what you said is exactly inline with the argument I am making, which is that viability is related to technology and shouldn't be considered in an ethical model of abortion.
It is clear that you either didn't read or didn't comprehend what other posters and myself have said. Viability is directly correlated to technology, at some point, probably not too far ahead in the future, a fetus will be able to develop completely outside of the mother. If viability is what is important for you, then at this point, you would be against all abortion. Is this the case?
Using words like mansplain only further the notion that you aren't up to a rational discussion.
Yes I did. Because you said it doesn't make it true or relevant, hence the mansplain reference. The fact is viability is an ethical basis of concern and just as important and, relevant as consciousnesses, religious belief or any other ethical basis. The ethics of viability has changed considerably within the medical field from its beginning in 400BC to present. Today we still have that question of ethics concerning life and viability more so today with euthanasia and post viability abortion but one can also legitimately have ethical objection to abortion within the medically defined confines of non-viability. The technology is not relevant. If you cant comprehend that, it is you who is not up for rational discussion.
The fact that our current technology defines the viability of a fetus outside the womb in no way removes the ethical component of using viability to justify abortion, as well the prediction that in the future viability could be redefined has no relevance to the knowledge and ethical dilemma of the present. If in the future a fetus can gestate fully outside the womb we will still have ethical questions concerning the legal responsibilities of the developing fetus and whether the mother still should have the right to chose to terminate or allow the fetus removed from her body and brought to fruition.
The point is that the majority of our current society is comfortable ethically with using viability as justification for ending potential life. We are still struggling with defining viability in regards to quality and duration of life.
Viability is important to me but in no way means I would be against all abortions. I dont even see how you could even come to that conclusion. A fetus has been determined to be viable at ~23-24 weeks gestation, so I have no ethical problem with abortion at this point. Post viability abortions to save the mother, no problem. Ethically, post viability abortions for genetic abnormalities, birth defects, etc., meh, kind of bothers me but even so I still feel that is between the woman and her doctor. I do not know her state of mind, what is going on in her life, or the specifics of her condition and circumstances, so not my business and not the governments business.
A "healthy function" that can irreversibly damage a woman's health.....or kill her.
A woman gets to decide what risks she is willing to take with her health, her very life......hence, HER body, HER choice.
Women were made to conceive and carry children, it's the natural function of her body. Pregnancy is not organ and blood donation. The fetus takes *nothing* from a woman, pregnancy is not a permanent situation it's a temporary situation. You talk like pregnancy lasted 20 years and after the child was born the woman would be left without her legs and arms..You talk like if pregnancy was abnormal, like if a fetus took the organs of his mother.
Women were made to conceive and carry children, it's the natural function of her body. Pregnancy is not organ and blood donation. The fetus takes *nothing* from a woman, pregnancy is not a permanent situation it's a temporary situation. You talk like pregnancy lasted 20 years and after the child was born the woman would be left without her legs and arms..You talk like if pregnancy was abnormal, like if a fetus took the organs of his mother.
Do your research, pregnancy is DANGEROUS for a woman and the fetus. A "temporary" situation? A woman's body is never the same after giving birth. It might get close, especially with surgery, but it changes.
Every day, approximately 830 women die from causes related to pregnancy and childbirth. WHO | Maternal mortality
*WARNING, TMI*
Personally, with my last pregnancy, the placenta was close to my cervix. Through the last two trimesters, I could not raise my arms above my head or lift anything over 5 pounds or even do housework. How natural is that? Then, my placenta DID detach. If I had not been in the hospital waiting to be induced, I would have bled out and died. Which also means my baby would have died. After the C-Section, I had to have a hysterectomy to stop the bleeding. THAT IS NOT TEMPORARY. That took one of my organs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDC
Maternal morbidity includes physical and psychologic conditions that result from or are aggravated by pregnancy and have an adverse effect on a woman’s health. The most severe complications of pregnancy, generally referred to as severe maternal morbidity (SMM), affect more than 50,000 women in the United States every year. Based on recent trends, this burden has been steadily increasing.
Some common maternal health conditions or problems a woman may experience during pregnancy—
Anemia
Urinary Tract infections
Mental Health Conditions
Hypertension
Gestational Diabetes
Obesity and Weight Gain
Hyperemesis Gravidarum
All of the above is why I feel that an abortion should be legal, and it should be a decision between a patient and her doctor. Government/ignorant people should stay out of this medical decision because they don't have the facts and knowledge needed to make these decisions.
Women were made to conceive and carry children, it's the natural function of her body. Pregnancy is not organ and blood donation. The fetus takes *nothing* from a woman, pregnancy is not a permanent situation it's a temporary situation. You talk like pregnancy lasted 20 years and after the child was born the woman would be left without her legs and arms..You talk like if pregnancy was abnormal, like if a fetus took the organs of his mother.
Annie53 said nothing of the sort. She pointed out there are risks to pregnancy, including the risk of death, and women should have the right to choose whether to accept that risk, which is much lower than the risk of death from an abortion. In the US, 700 to 800 women die annually during pregnancy or soon after delivery.
A woman who delivers a baby in the US has a 1 in 3 chance of having a Cesarean section. That's major surgery with its attendant risks.
Women who have been pregnant often develop bladder and rectal problems related to childbirth due to stretching and tearing of the vagina and loss of support of the bladder and uterus. Sometimes the uterus even prolapses - falls out of the vagina. Repairing all that can mean major surgery, including hysterectomy and repair of the bladder, rectal, and vaginal damage. Should I mention the effects those problems might have on a woman's sex life? Maybe the fetus does not "take" his mother's organs, but he sure can play havoc with them.
Your statement that the fetus "takes *nothing* from a woman" demonstrates a profound ignorance of female reproductive physiology and makes me think you have probably never been pregnant. Apart from the single cell contributed by the father, every atom in the fetus comes from the mother.
Like Annie53 said, "A woman gets to decide what risks she is willing to take with her health, her very life......hence, HER body, HER choice."
The second part of what you said is exactly inline with the argument I am making, which is that viability is related to technology and shouldn't be considered in an ethical model of abortion.
a drawing doesn't make an artificial uterus possible in the near future, even Leonardo Da vinci drew a flying machine. again most people, medical and legal find viability considerations to be "ethical" in the discussion. you can dismiss them if you will.
Women were made to conceive and carry children, it's the natural function of her body.
Then why so much infertility, miscarriage, complications and death.
Why all the prenatal care, doctors, nurses, hospitals, medications, tests, procedures and machines the go bbeeeeeeeeeeeeep?
Yes I did. Because you said it doesn't make it true or relevant, hence the mansplain reference. The fact is viability is an ethical basis of concern and just as important and, relevant as consciousnesses, religious belief or any other ethical basis. The ethics of viability has changed considerably within the medical field from its beginning in 400BC to present. Today we still have that question of ethics concerning life and viability more so today with euthanasia and post viability abortion but one can also legitimately have ethical objection to abortion within the medically defined confines of non-viability. The technology is not relevant. If you cant comprehend that, it is you who is not up for rational discussion.
The fact that our current technology defines the viability of a fetus outside the womb in no way removes the ethical component of using viability to justify abortion, as well the prediction that in the future viability could be redefined has no relevance to the knowledge and ethical dilemma of the present. If in the future a fetus can gestate fully outside the womb we will still have ethical questions concerning the legal responsibilities of the developing fetus and whether the mother still should have the right to chose to terminate or allow the fetus removed from her body and brought to fruition.
The point is that the majority of our current society is comfortable ethically with using viability as justification for ending potential life. We are still struggling with defining viability in regards to quality and duration of life.
Viability is important to me but in no way means I would be against all abortions. I dont even see how you could even come to that conclusion. A fetus has been determined to be viable at ~23-24 weeks gestation, so I have no ethical problem with abortion at this point. Post viability abortions to save the mother, no problem. Ethically, post viability abortions for genetic abnormalities, birth defects, etc., meh, kind of bothers me but even so I still feel that is between the woman and her doctor. I do not know her state of mind, what is going on in her life, or the specifics of her condition and circumstances, so not my business and not the governments business.
Sure, viability can be used in ethical theory of abortion, but it is simply idiotic to do so. So I will not entertain it. Anyone with any rational thinking ability will come to the same conclusion. I do not care in the slightest what makes the majority of the population comfortable.
The second part of what you said is exactly inline with the argument I am making, which is that viability is related to technology and shouldn't be considered in an ethical model of abortion.
OK, if we are going to go there........ is it ethical to bury or cremate someone who, if they were frozen, could be brought back to life someday?
Should it be considered murder if we don't freeze people when they die?
Sure, viability can be used in ethical theory of abortion, but it is simply idiotic to do so. So I will not entertain it. Anyone with any rational thinking ability will come to the same conclusion. I do not care in the slightest what makes the majority of the population comfortable.
No, it is not idiotic. The issue of viability directly relates to termination of a second trimester pregnancy when the fetus is found to have a lethal anomaly.
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.
doubtful even 100 years from now. even if it were a possibility it's doubtful you would get women to have their unwanted pregnancy harvested and transplanted. so abortion would still be preferable than the fake uterus
