Dr Guy Dr Guy

Abortion: Rights vs. Life

▼

Abortion: Rights vs. Life

Another Alternate timeline

from JoeUser Forums
After Myrannder's excellant post on his reasons for voting Kerry, and his reservations, I was struck by one particular comment he made. Or actually that he attributed to Kerry. SO I would like anyone interested to answer this purely hypothetical question.

For the record, I doubt that we will ever get this finite an answer, but for this hypothetical, here are the facts:

Medical Science has finally answered the question about when life begins. They are able to read the distinct unique thoughts of a baby that has just been concieved, and have determined, beyond any doubt, that life begins at conception.

For those who now support abortion, would this revelation have any impact on your views of abortion?

I am mostly interested in those who support abortion, and believe that life begins at birth.

Any takers?
3,476 views 35 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top

I neither pro life or pro choice but for the right to choose. I do not want some asshat telling me what I can and can't do to my body.


That's called "pro-choice."

Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
I am strongly opposed to late term-partial birth abortion. That being said, I have a hard time claiming the right to make the choice for a rape victim. I can't say that I can think of anything that would force me to choose an abortion (and I have been through a lot) but I am still unwilling to force my personnal beliefs on others.

Food for thought...A baby born at 23 weeks has a 25% chance of survival. If I had at that much, I would beg you not to write me off. So I cannot condone abortion after there is ANY chance of survival. That means because micropremies can live at 20 weeks, therefore no more abortions at that point.

One more thought, regardless of whether life starts at conception or not, the baby cannot survive. Neither can a patient on life support. Is it murder for a family to disconnect a breathing tube?

So would that change my mind? I don't know. I may never know. The grey area is too large for me to try to place a judgement on it.
Fences - Organize your desktop icons today!
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
A bit off topic perhaps but.....for those who support abortion as a valid and legal form of terminating a life, supported and nurtured by its mother, for any reason then it would be logical to assume that they would feel that until the child is born it is not yet "ready" for life. I understand that there are many differing opinions on abortion among pro-life advocates. But, if you are following the Scott Peterson case, he is being charged with TWO murders. His wife and unborn child.
Now one could argue that the childs death, upon the death of its mother, was an unitnentional form of abortion, but an aborted life nontheless.
Or one could argue that since it wasn't the mother's choice, it was murder.
If you take the point of view that it was murder, weither or not it was the mother's choice, then what is the difference between a murder "by proxy" ( by killing the mother) or the mother's specific decision to murder thier child.
Is it murder only if the mother didn't chose it or not. If it is murder if the mother does not chose it, then it would have to be murder even if she did.

I may be confusing in my statement, hell sometimes I confuse my self but I hope that you get the jist of my point.
At conception life begins, it is an entity, really, upon the conception, a type of forigen entity, that is being nurtured by its environment. If this "entity" is left alone, eventually it will develop fully into a functional human being. But being a functional human being is not the requirment to be a life. For an organism to simply exist is life.
ehh.........ok?
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
Ok............i guess it settles it then? Sort of?
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
If it could be definitely proven, then I would be on the pro-life bandwagon in an instant
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
Long ago much that we now concider "proven" was not even thought of. Germs, Viruses, the make-up of the universe, the rotation of the planet, anti-biotics and so on. Apparently things that arent concidered proven, well some things, turn out to be true. And one would think with all of the advances in our science we would be able to prove when life actually begins. The scientific community is just as split on the issue as regular people are, not withstanding any religious influence on the issue.
I guess its a personal choice, at this point, as to what you want to believe.
You don't need proof to know that I have the ability to type, you have it right here in front of you.
But you would need "proof" to know if I can write. Now one could say "if you can type then of course you can write" it would be a logical assumption.
But not always a fact ( Dr. Hawkins)
Does life begin only at a specific time during pregnancy?.......well it would also be safe to assume that, if left alone, the little, fertlized egg is in fact a liveing organism because if not, then it would not be able to develp into a fully functional human being.
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
Pro-life people are more than welcome to take the fetus out of me at the earliest stage I discover it and keep it alive in a tube. I do believe it is wrong to abort a child that can live outside the mother... so just take it out of the mother and keep it alive. Basically, what I see the pro-choice movement saying is, "The woman should not be forced to carry a fetus and continue to support its existance." So, if doctors will be so kind as to develop a way to take a "blob of cells" out of a woman and allow it to develop in some kind of gloopy stuff (actual scientific term: gloopy stuff) A woman's choice is not "kill fetus or let fetus live" it is "keep fetus inside or take it out". This is the opinion I hear most often.

Now, if I can find my pitchfork, I'll go play Devil's Advocate somewhere else.
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top
lol, "gloopy stuff"
well all threads need a devil's advocate I guess.
I would be all for taking the child out of the mother in order to keep it alive, but, of course it would cost a hullava lot more money than letting the child develop natturaly. Who would pay for it? well the taxpayer i assume, ( since we pay for just about everything in one way or another).
I guess the more important question is, if the mother's life was in danger then I assume the mother would keep the child if it was at all possible. Or if the mother simply does not want to go through the rigors of a full term pregnancy, for whatever reason, she would put the child up for adoption. To me, either way is ok, just as long as the child has a chance of living and becoming a member of society.
Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top
You know, we don't force mothers and fathers to take care of their children, they aren't forced to take responsibility for them... if we think they can't hack it, we take the child away and put them in foster care. They can give up the child at the beginning, or just not care for the child as it is growing. You can hire other people to care for your kids and still complain about how hard it is to take your child to the daycare at 7:00am and pick them up at 8:30pm while they're still asleep. So, why should we force women to carry the fetus? The taxpayers already pay for kids who are left in foster care, most kids over age 5 never get adopted. Then, after they turn 18 we turn them out to try and live on their own (most of the time) Most of these kids end up on drugs, pregnant, on the street and they end up back in the system with us taking care of them. Then there are those who do well for themselves, but must do it alone, because we don't help those that succeed. Whoa! Hijack rant! Terribly sorry. The point is, if people want to ban abortion, they must be prepared for a raise in taxes to help support these children and the support system must be changed to help better and longer. That's fine, if you want to bring more kids in the world, be prepared to help them. I'll be happy to help foster kids.... will YOU? (the universal you, btw)

Now, before I get killed on here... people who put their kids in daycare are not evil and I admire their obvious attempt to make enough money to actually feed the kiddies. Some, if not most daycare kid's parents try their very best to make sure their kids still feel important and loved. Keep up the hard work. I was reffering to the 1% maybe less who are too busy to raise kids and let others raise them so they can still call themselves parents.
Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top
Of course its my experiance that the vast majority of parents who bring their children to daycare so they can work, end up working to pay for daycare and IF there is any money left over it has very little pratical use. Proffesionals in which their job earns them a lot of money, or more importantly professions such as Civil Servant positions, Doctors, EMT's and the like not withstanding.
Off topic though Dr. Guy, my apologies