A conversation of abortion and Down Syndrome

[Saltwater60]

See, now we get a bit deeper. Is the fetus less because of how it got there?

Also, the health of the mother? Physical or mental health? Deeper and deeper we can get.

Or, like in the Op, do we allow the government to get involved?

I agree with what he said. I don’t think mental health normally matters since the child can be removed and given to others.

My other thought is to stir this whole thing ul should invetro be allowed if we got rid of abortion? It could helpget kids adopted if we didn’t allow extreme cases of fertility treatments.
I know a lady who wanted a kid in the worst way. Went through all that stuff and the pregnancies still failed. We were pretty close and I said why don’t you just adopt a baby. She got horribly offended and said o don’t want some one else’s baby I want my own. I thought how selfish of you.
We had talked about adopting a theirs child but then my sons health issues cropped up.

 

[Saltwater60]

Another point to go deeper and stir the pot. It’s half my DNA and I didn’t rape the women so why don’t I have a say if the baby is born or not? We had consensual sex right we deep the benefits and the issues that come along with it together.
Also on the flip side I can’t sign a piece of paper and say I want the baby aborted or I’m not financially responsible for the kid ever right? You can’t have it both ways IMO.

 

[spat]

These are personal opinions.

The people who only agree when the exceptions are meet feel the mother did not have a choice and or the circumstances could put the mother in a position to not love the child and or the child we always be a reminder of a traumatic event.

What you say is true, but what about what the child wants ?

We would never execute a child after it's born because it's a painful reminder for the mother. Why would we allow it before the birth ?

 

[71velle]

What you say is true, but what about what the child wants ?

We would never execute a child after it's born because it's a painful reminder for the mother. Why would we allow it before the birth ?

I was not speaking my feelings, just the common ideas of those who are antiabortion unless certain conditions are met.

For the record I am not anti-abortion.

 

[Saltwater60]

What you say is true, but what about what the child wants ?

We would never execute a child after it's born because it's a painful reminder for the mother. Why would we allow it before the birth ?

I’m not so sure about that. A lot of times during a late term abortions the babies is born alive then “finished off” after what I would call a birth. NYS abortion laws allow this. Remember the Republicans tried to pass a law banning this.

 

[Grimscale]

We don't allow infanticide in cases of rape or incest, if we decide than an 8 month old foetus is a person, why would you be allowed to murder them because of a circumstance they had no control over ?

Hence why I suggested no-holds-barred for the first trimester.
Seriously, if a woman doesn't know within 3 months if she wants to keep the fetus she is carrying due to rape, I start to question her mental capacity to have a child in the first place.
But she'll also have an additional 3 months if she can get her doctor to agree that her mental health would be compromised by carrying to term.

so 6 months (essentially) to decide she won't be able to face taking care of a rape baby.


There should VERY rarely ever be a situation where a child is "born" alive and then killed. And I mean VERY VERY rare.

Quite frankly, if the child comes into the world alive it should automatically be considered a separate entity afforded the Rights due any live person. If the mother doesn't want it, put it up for adoption.

Birth seems pretty arbitrary to me.

Birth was look at as the point where the child no longer is dependent on the woman's body for life. At that point, it was decided, the child lived and breathed on its own. Ignoring the fact that the child is helpless and requires feeding and care by another creature.

If we include the requirement of care by another I know some politicians that can be legally "retroactively aborted"

 

[spat]

Hence why I suggested no-holds-barred for the first trimester.
Seriously, if a woman doesn't know within 3 months if she wants to keep the fetus she is carrying due to rape, I start to question her mental capacity to have a child in the first place.
But she'll also have an additional 3 months if she can get her doctor to agree that her mental health would be compromised by carrying to term.

so 6 months (essentially) to decide she won't be able to face taking care of a rape baby.


There should VERY rarely ever be a situation where a child is "born" alive and then killed. And I mean VERY VERY rare.

Quite frankly, if the child comes into the world alive it should automatically be considered a separate entity afforded the Rights due any live person. If the mother doesn't want it, put it up for adoption.




Birth was look at as the point where the child no longer is dependent on the woman's body for life. At that point, it was decided, the child lived and breathed on its own. Ignoring the fact that the child is helpless and requires feeding and care by another creature.

If we include the requirement of care by another I know some politicians that can be legally "retroactively aborted"

Birth is no longer the point where the child can't survive on it's own.

Modern medical science will allow very young children to survive now. It won't be long before that gets pushed back to near conception.

I can see one solution being that abortion per se isn't allowed, but the mother can "evict" the child anytime she wants, and if it's viable outside the womb it needs to be kept alive if possible.

 

[Robin]

Hey!!!! Lets morph this into cannibalism too!!!!! You're pro organ transplant but against cannibalism. A bit of a conflict?
Robin

 

[Saltwater60]

Hence why I suggested no-holds-barred for the first trimester.
Seriously, if a woman doesn't know within 3 months if she wants to keep the fetus she is carrying due to rape, I start to question her mental capacity to have a child in the first place.
But she'll also have an additional 3 months if she can get her doctor to agree that her mental health would be compromised by carrying to term.

so 6 months (essentially) to decide she won't be able to face taking care of a rape baby.


There should VERY rarely ever be a situation where a child is "born" alive and then killed. And I mean VERY VERY rare.

Quite frankly, if the child comes into the world alive it should automatically be considered a separate entity afforded the Rights due any live person. If the mother doesn't want it, put it up for adoption.




Birth was look at as the point where the child no longer is dependent on the woman's body for life. At that point, it was decided, the child lived and breathed on its own. Ignoring the fact that the child is helpless and requires feeding and care by another creature.

If we include the requirement of care by another I know some politicians that can be legally "retroactively aborted"

The baby inside a mother is always a separate entity hence why we all have different dna.

 

[Saltwater60]

Birth is no longer the point where the child can't survive on it's own.

Modern medical science will allow very young children to survive now. It won't be long before that gets pushed back to near conception.

I can see one solution being that abortion per se isn't allowed, but the mother can "evict" the child anytime she wants, and if it's viable outside the womb it needs to be kept alive if possible.

Agreed the kid down the street is 14-15 years old and he was born at 22 weeks. He’s essentially perfect other than some slight signs of fetal alcohol syndrome and a funny gate when he walks. Back then it was nearly impossible to keep kids at 22 weeks alive. He did great.

 

[Grimscale]

and he was born at 22 weeks

So my statement is still accurate.

Spat's statement is also accurate in that babies are more often kept alive if born prematurely.
But I doubt our medical abilities at keeping 1st trimester fetus' alive long enough to be "born" will advance fast enough to be an issue. But if it is, then, when they are "born" they would have the same designation.

You're pro organ transplant but against cannibalism. A bit of a conflict?

Not really.
Organ transplant helps maintain life in others. Cannibalism messes you up and ultimately kills you.

"Human prion disease"

 

[Robin]

Just don't eat the brain.
Robin

 

[Saltwater60]

So my statement is still accurate.

Spat's statement is also accurate in that babies are more often kept alive if born prematurely.
But I doubt our medical abilities at keeping 1st trimester fetus' alive long enough to be "born" will advance fast enough to be an issue. But if it is, then, when they are "born" they would have the same designation.





Not really.
Organ transplant helps maintain life in others. Cannibalism messes you up and ultimately kills you.

"Human prion disease"

Hence the opening statement of agreed and then followed by the story.

 

[spat]

So my statement is still accurate.

Spat's statement is also accurate in that babies are more often kept alive if born prematurely.
But I doubt our medical abilities at keeping 1st trimester fetus' alive long enough to be "born" will advance fast enough to be an issue. But if it is, then, when they are "born" they would have the same designation.





Not really.
Organ transplant helps maintain life in others. Cannibalism messes you up and ultimately kills you.

"Human prion disease"

So, that brings up the question, is there any moral defense to killing someone who could survive outside the womb simply because they haven't crossed that line in the abdomen yet ?

Also, I think we will see the ability to save 1st trimester babies in our lifetime, provided we don't blow up civilization with global socialism first.