Abortion

[sugarmouse]

after 24 weeks is the method that partial birth abortion?

[Swim]

I believe so however the child can still not sustain it's own life yet

[sandra]

I'm sorry, but I can't see how the fact that a child cannot sustain it's own life, makes it ok to destroy it? There are a lot of humans on the earth today who can't sustain their own life and we don't think it is right to end their lives.

[sugarmouse]

well a baby cannot sustain its own life.can it.lol
Im not strictly against abortion though. I was just wondering about the partial birth method..I think that is very immoral and was just wondering under what circumstance that is used.

[sandra]

Is partial birth, when they dissect the foetus inside the womb and then remove it bit by bit?

[Swim]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_Birth_Abortion

[sandra]

Thanks Swim, I was basically right. It's a barbaric and disgusting practice. Something which as a human being and a vegan I could not in a million years agree with. I wouldn't want this done to any animal, human or otherwise. To use the argument that the foetus isn't aware of any of this is like a meat eater's view towards the animals he eats, 'They're only animals, with no thoughts or feelings'. I equate the two.

[Swim]

My only arguement infavour of this act is that, the foetus cannot yet support itself

[sandra]

Yes, but there are other considerations. Also why are there babies of 22/23 weeks being aborted in one area of the hospital and yet in another they are being loved, cared for and nutured to grow into healthy children and later adults.

[puffin]

It's a barbaric and disgusting practice. Something which as a human being and a vegan I could not in a million years agree with. I wouldn't want this done to any animal, human or otherwise. To use the argument that the foetus isn't aware of any of this is like a meat eater's view towards the animals he eats, 'They're only animals, with no thoughts or feelings'. I equate the two.


I agree.

[Swim]

Yes, but there are other considerations. Also why are there babies of 22/23 weeks being aborted in one area of the hospital and yet in another they are being loved, cared for and nutured to grow into healthy children and later adults.


Again biologically not true, the child is most likely brain damaged and handicapped. I'm not saying it's impossible but it's very unlikely

On the point it is wrong to take a life ?
does it not depend on your definition of "life" ?

Does something simply breathing make it alive ? or is there more to it , for example personality ? thought ?

[sandra]

I'm not sure I understand your first point. Are you saying that a premature baby will most likely be brain damaged? Firstly, this is not an inevitability and secondly, even if it were, does such a child not deserve to live?
If you believe that simply breathing is not good enough to justify being alive, then you would have to kill thousands of humans today who are doing just that. What about people on life support machines, or people with advanced Motor Neurone Disease [their mind alert but unable to move or communitcate] do they not deserve to live?
Life is a very complex thing and is made up of many components, I certainly don't begin to understand it so therefore I don't stand in judgement of who should or shouldn't have it.

[Swim]

Then why do you condemn the life of the mother ?

[sandra]

Hi again Swim, the mother is not going to die is she? I always had the view that if I thought I was ready to have sex then I should be ready for any possible consequences of it. I'm all for contraception and avoiding a pregnancy but not for destroying an already conceived life. From the moment I knew I was pregnant I felt responsible for the new life inside me and nothing would be allowed to harm that new life. I was 50% responsible for the life being there but 100% responsible for it's well being.

[Seaside]

I was 50% responsible for the life being there but 100% responsible for it's well being.
I love the way you have stated this, sandra. I've said before I would not feel comfortable making abortion illegal for others. What bothers me is the tendency of some to claim that there is nothing unethical or immoral about killing living things, for whatever reasons they find it necessary. A fetus is a living thing, for no reason other than that it is alive, and if you feel you must kill it, then accept the responsibility for what you have done. Don't go into denial by claiming that its ok because it isn't sentient, or your life is more important, etc. I find the arguments vegans use when justifying abortion very much like the ones omnis use when justifying killing animals for food. At the very least a person ought to own up to the wrongness of unnecessary killing, rather than trying to justify it, especially when it is their own child, because people are 100% responsible for the well being of the children they conceive, regardless of the stage of their development. :)

[forthebirds]

What bothers me is the tendency of some to claim that there is nothing unethical or immoral about killing living things

It comes back to the definition of "living." Clearly when it comes to pregnancy, not everyone agrees on just what that is. Cancer cells are technically "alive" for instance, as are plants. An embryo or a fetus is "something", but it is not yet a viable being. It's not black and white.

[sandra]

Thank you Seaside :)
As far as a baby not being viable forthebirds, I have already stated my views on that.

[forthebirds]

I'm curious for people who feel this is an ethical issue: how do you feel about invitro fertilization where eggs are fertilized but never implanted, and ultimately destroyed? Or when multiple embryos are implanted with the understanding that some will most likely not develop? Or people who do selective abortions to eliminate fetuses because so many embryos take? Are you against invitro then?

[sandra]

I'm not against it, just uneasy about certain aspects of it.

[Seaside]

It comes back to the definition of "living." Clearly when it comes to pregnancy, not everyone agrees on just what that is. Cancer cells are technically "alive" for instance, as are plants. An embryo or a fetus is "something", but it is not yet a viable being. It's not black and white.
That's true forthebirds. We kill lots of living things just by living ourselves. But that's why I qualitfied what I said with the word "unnecessary". If the mother's life is in danger, it may be necessary to kill her unborn baby. Looking further back in this thread statistics were given claiming that the primary reason for abortions in the USA is "I'm not ready to become a mother yet." Outside of the USA the primary reason for abortions is to select the sex of the baby. These are not good reasons, for vegans at least, to kill a living thing. World overpopulation is also not a good reason to kill a living thing. I can't advocate making abortion illegal, but it should be taken much more seriously than it is at present, when it is used for birth control and gender selection.

It is black and white for me personally, forthebirds, but I don't feel comfortable enforcing my personal views on other people's actions, or standing in judgement. I just feel strongly that people's attitudes about it could stand a little change. :o

[forthebirds]

Hi Seaside :)

What you see it as "killing an unborn baby", others see as terminating a "yet to be developed baby" and that difference isn't being acknowledged. Someone who thinks it's not "killing" won't suddenly have a reason to "change their attitudes" about it (and adopt your particular attitude), since they see nothing wrong with their attitude to begin with. Some of you seem to be transferring your own views about it onto others who don't approach the issue in the same way - as being an ethical or moral decision. So trying to appeal to someone on that basis - if they have no ethical or moral problem with it - falls on deaf ears.

Bringing this back to the issue of the legality of abortion, it shouldn't matter to anyone but the person having one as to why they are choosing to have one - just that they have a right to have one if they choose. And you have the right to choose not to.

I just don't understand this desire for people to dictate how someone else is supposed to feel about abortions, or tell someone else not to have sex because they have a problem with you having an abortion. It's simply no one else's business what someone else decides to do with their own pregnancy - and they certainly don't owe anyone an explanation or justification for their choice.

[Seaside]

I just don't understand this desire for people to dictate how someone else is supposed to feel about abortions, or tell someone else not to have sex because they have a problem with you having an abortion.
Sorry forthebirds. I didn't think I was doing that. I was just sharing my own view on the subject.

[sandra]

I wouldn't tell anyone not to have sex, but what I can't understand is someone thinking they are mature enough to have sex and then being incapable of dealing with the consequences!

[forthebirds]

Sorry forthebirds. I didn't think I was doing that. I was just sharing my own view on the subject.

It wasn't targeted at you. Just a general feeling. :)

[forthebirds]

I wouldn't tell anyone not to have sex, but what I can't understand is someone thinking they are mature enough to have sex and then being incapable of dealing with the consequences!

Abortion is one way of dealing with the consequences and has nothing to do with someone's maturity or capability. It just apparently isn't your way. ;)

You might as well be telling someone not to have sex if in the same breath you expect them to keep a pregnancy because you have a problem with abortion. How is it any different? And what does someone else's sex life or pregnancy have to do with you at all?