Guest amberdiann Posted July 29, 2004 Share Posted July 29, 2004 Currently' date=' in the states, it is legal throughout all 9 months. Ok, it seems we all think that it becomes unethical at some point, but should there be a law forcing this opinion on other people?[/quote'] I'm not sure when you posted this, or when you last looked into it - so let me brief you. In Texas, part of the states, abortion can be done in a clinic from 2-16wks gestation. From 16-24 weeks gestation you must be refered to a surgery center. There is only one surgery center in Texas, forcing women to go outside of the state for medical attention or pay a very high cost. Moreover, during the third semester abortions are legal until 32 weeks. After 32 weeks, it is on a case by case basis on the medical needs of the patients. Therefore, ethically, it would be unethical to say a patient could not terminate pregnancy after 32 weeks even if there was a risk of death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SurfSciGuy Posted July 30, 2004 Share Posted July 30, 2004 I think you have to take each individual case on its medical grounds. Sadly for the anti-abortion lobby, they fail to realise that there is not "another" side to this debate as can be seen be the way people on this thread have drawn the line in various places. If we do want to make generic laws (which is the want of our "civilised" societies) I think we should make abortion allowable until the foetus is externally viable (whenever that is), until that point I consider it part of the woman's body and should thus be under her control. Basically the rights of the unborn child and those of the mother must be carefully balanced as neither takes clear-cut precedence throughout pregnancy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pulkit Posted July 30, 2004 Share Posted July 30, 2004 I think we should make abortion allowable until the foetus is externally viable (whenever that is) That is probably the hardest thing to ascertain ! Different people will think differently about when exactly it is "viable". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheProphet Posted July 30, 2004 Share Posted July 30, 2004 Well here in sweden u aren't adult enough too judge over your selve untill your 18! So i still strongly go with it's the females decision and also her body untill the baby is born! But as said, abortion is a have to be alowed and every situation calls for a it's special treatment! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted July 30, 2004 Share Posted July 30, 2004 the destruction of a valid life (any age) is wrong, except where it endangers more lives. Hovever, where destruction is inevitable, then all efforts should be made to salvage usable parts to save others where applicable that`s my 2 Euros worth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodhound Posted July 31, 2004 Share Posted July 31, 2004 well, new abortion laws over here allowing gals under 16 to have abortions without the knowledge of their parents http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3941573.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavajoEverclear Posted July 31, 2004 Share Posted July 31, 2004 I think you have to take each individual case on its medical grounds. Sadly for the anti-abortion lobby, they fail to realise that there is not "another" side to this debate as can be seen be the way people on this thread have drawn the line in various places. If we do want to make generic laws (which is the want of our "civilised" societies) I think we should make abortion allowable until the foetus is externally viable (whenever that is), until that point I consider it part of the woman's body and should thus be under her control. Basically the rights of the unborn child and those of the mother must be carefully balanced as neither takes clear-cut precedence throughout pregnancy. Thats not true in many cases--- read my last post. There are several factors involved that would make it mor ethical to abort---- but all of them (unless you have an example) can be identified pretty early on, so the abortion should be done as soon as possible. Of coarse there is another side, but is it a real reason, or just liberal bullshit about it being the womans right? Rights come with responsibility, she had the right to have sex, she should have taken the responsibility either to prevent fertilization, or to carry out the baby and give it the nurture it deserves. If the reason for abortion an attempt to weasel out of these responsibility, is the only time it should be considered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SurfSciGuy Posted August 2, 2004 Share Posted August 2, 2004 Thats not true in many cases--- read my last post. What is not true? There are several factors involved that would make it mor ethical to abort---- but all of them (unless you have an example) can be identified pretty early on, so the abortion should be done as soon as possible. Of coarse there is another side, but is it a real reason, or just liberal bullshit about it being the womans right? What you consider to be liberal bullshit mght be considered by other to be a perfectly valid viewpoint - why should women not have certain rights over their bodies? It is easy for men to discuss this issue with impunity because they will never get pregnant and sadly men form the majority of the political class (well at least in my country anyway). I agree that, whilst an abortion should be carried out as soon as possible, the law has to make sure that it takes into account all aspects of the issue (which is why it is so difficult to create a generic law). A woman may not discover she is pregnant until later on (this does actually happen). A women may suffer from illnesses both mental and physical during pregnancy. A woman many suffer injury at any time during the pregnancy. A woman that does not want a child will resent that child if she is forced to have it - post-natal depression is serious and the child could be at great risk and may suffer psychological and physical trauma. Rights come with responsibility, she had the right to have sex, she should have taken the responsibility either to prevent fertilization, or to carry out the baby and give it the nurture it deserves. If the reason for abortion an attempt to weasel out of these responsibility, is the only time it should be considered. I'm guessing that your a bloke? I hope I'm right or I've just found the world's first chauvanist woman. For a start it takes two people to make a child. Why should the woman be the one to protect against fertilization? Surely it is equally the man's responsibility. It is also not just the woman's job to nuture the child - you seem to have a bit of a victorian attitude there. Woman have abortions for lots of reasons, one is the failure of contraception (it's not 100% effective). Also, a woman can only have one or possibly two abortions without the risk of serious complications being high - there is always the risk of complications and secondary infections. In order to get an abortion in most civilised countries you have to go through medical exams and the procedure itself is quite a harrowing one apparently. Abortion is not an easy choice and it's not one that can be repeated everytime a woman falls pregnant - it is a last resort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lance Posted August 3, 2004 Author Share Posted August 3, 2004 What is not true?What you consider to be liberal bullshit mght be considered by other to be a perfectly valid viewpoint - why should women not have certain rights over their bodies? Because it's NOT her body. or a start it takes two people to make a child. Why should the woman be the one to protect against fertilization? Surely it is equally the man's responsibility. It is also not just the woman's job to nuture the child Then I suppose the father should have the right to make the woman have an abortion? To veto the mothers wish for an abortion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheProphet Posted August 3, 2004 Share Posted August 3, 2004 Because it's NOT her body. And the kid may not decise anything untill they are 18... so for many it still is her body... they are altough conected... Im still with Scifiguys point! Then I suppose the father should have the right to make the woman have an abortion? To veto the mothers wish for an abortion? Well shy not? He should be able to say somethuing but altough not really be able to stop it.. but u are 2 in a such decision.... Why are u so black and white in all these questions Lance? There are in betweens u know! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lance Posted August 3, 2004 Author Share Posted August 3, 2004 Because if we have a gray line its very easy for it to shift in one direction without warning. If a partial birth abortion is ok then it’s not unlikely that killing babies one hour after birth is wrong. And if that’s not wrong what is? It’s not about having in-betweens it’s about drawing a line somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted August 3, 2004 Share Posted August 3, 2004 I can't really tell who's arguing on what side here... It is my opinion that you should be able to have an abortion up to about the last 3 months. Let's say that you are a poor family and don't even have enough money to support yourself, let alone a baby. If you accidentally got pregnant, would you really want to be forced into spending even more money that you don't have for a baby? I doubt it. The child would be malnourished, not get a good education, etc. And that means the baby will probably (PROBABLY! not surely) be just as poor as it's parents in the years to come. If you have no education, you don't get good jobs. Thus the child will be poor, starving, in ragged clothes, with a job at McDonalds flipping burgers. And it's my opinion it would be much better to not have the baby at all and instead wait until you have the money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheProphet Posted August 3, 2004 Share Posted August 3, 2004 Because if we have a gray line its very easy for it to shift in one direction without warning. If a partial birth abortion is ok then it’s not unlikely that killing babies one hour after birth is wrong. And if that’s not wrong what is? It’s not about having in-betweens it’s about drawing a line somewhere. Of course your right.. but we do need to have a grey line altough not to big and blury! But still i canät give an definit answer to your original questions... Since there arejust too meny factors that need to be know before giving a finite decision! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SurfSciGuy Posted August 6, 2004 Share Posted August 6, 2004 Because it's NOT her body. Bringing a pregancy to term poses serious risks of fatal complications for the female - surely we should allow women the chance to decided whether to take those risks or not? Given that as a society we provide only one route of ensuring 100% against conception and that is abstinancy, which is a) not a realistic expectation of all individuals and b) denies women sexual equality with men. Then I suppose the father should have the right to make the woman have an abortion? To veto the mothers wish for an abortion? No to the first one. possibly yes to the second one (however as the point I made above is that it is the woman who bares the risks not the man so maybe her opinion carries more weight). I agree that abortion is not a good thing, I argue that it is a neccessary evil in a society where we wish to promote equality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now