abortion poll

[Stevil]

I think that if the attacker knows (or can see) that the women is pregnant then it should be murder. If that is not the case then it should be manslaughter.

Why would an attacker get murder when the woman who knows that herself is pregnant does not get murder for committing abortion?

[Stevil]

My position may seem absolutist, and I suppose it is, but my position is both one rooted in my principles and in the political reality of the slippery slope. Disallowing abortions of any kind opens the door to more and more restrictions, most of which are based in religious doctrine, not medicine or principle. The right to choose is as fundamental a human right in my mind as freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and the right to a fair trial. It is the freedom of privacy.

What about your own child's right to live? Do you think they don't have that right until the point they are born?

Trying to define rights is a very tricky business.

[Asmodean]

What about your own child's right to live? Do you think they don't have that right until the point they are born?

I think human rights should apply when it gets promoted from fetus to child. Before that, it has no right to live, but has that privilege as long as the mother is willing to grant it.

[Stevil]

I think human rights should apply when it gets promoted from fetus to child. Before that, it has no right to live, but has that privilege as long as the mother is willing to grant it.

Nice call.

In my amoral philosophical world, I don't believe in rights. Rights assumes that some of our actions are untouchable, that we ought to always be allowed to do those, which leaves other actions free range for someone or even a governing body to infringe upon.

Amorally the government can only infringe on any of our actions when absolutely necessary in order to support a stable and functional society, otherwise the oppressed society might rebel, given the opportunity, against the government (they probably wouldn't rebel with force against the government, but defiantly they will seek unsafe underground abortions)

With regards to a mugger attacking a pregnant woman and in the process killing her child, society is likely to seek revenge by force, this will create instability, hence government needs to protect the pregnant woman and her fetus.
With regards to a pregnant woman terminating her own pregnancy, society allows it, thus government ought not to infringe on the mother's choice.

[Guardian85]

I'm in the "independent lifeform" camp. When there is a reasonable expectation that the fetus could survive outside the womb, with medical support, the right of the child as an independent life form kicks in. The parents can give it up if they don't want to be parents, but at that point the baby can get along without them, and be adopted.

[Ali]

I'm in the "independent lifeform" camp. When there is a reasonable expectation that the fetus could survive outside the womb, with medical support, the right of the child as an independent life form kicks in. The parents can give it up if they don't want to be parents, but at that point the baby can get along without them, and be adopted.

I agree with this, except in the case where a devastating medical problem is found with the child or medical emergencies to save the life of the mother.  I just read a really touching article on Slate written by a mother whose son has Tay Sachs and at 2 is deaf, blind, paralyzed, and becoming more and more unresponsive.  They expect he will die within the year.  And she says that if the prenatal testing had revealed that he had Tay Sachs when he was in utero, she would have aborted.  Not because she doesn't love him or isn't able to deal with his disability, but because she loves him so much that she would have wanted to save him from the suffering that he has had to go through in his very short life.   

But otherwise, in a healthy baby and a healthy mom, I don't see a strong case for terminating past the point of viability.  This is crude, but regardless of if the baby is alive or dead, they would have to "get it out", so the mom isn't really going to be saved from either induced labor or surgery by killing the baby.  It makes more sense to me to deliver the baby alive and then adopt it out if the parents don't want it.

[Amicale]

I'm in the "independent lifeform" camp. When there is a reasonable expectation that the fetus could survive outside the womb, with medical support, the right of the child as an independent life form kicks in. The parents can give it up if they don't want to be parents, but at that point the baby can get along without them, and be adopted.

I agree with this, except in the case where a devastating medical problem is found with the child or medical emergencies to save the life of the mother.  I just read a really touching article on Slate written by a mother whose son has Tay Sachs and at 2 is deaf, blind, paralyzed, and becoming more and more unresponsive.  They expect he will die within the year.  And she says that if the prenatal testing had revealed that he had Tay Sachs when he was in utero, she would have aborted.  Not because she doesn't love him or isn't able to deal with his disability, but because she loves him so much that she would have wanted to save him from the suffering that he has had to go through in his very short life.   

But otherwise, in a healthy baby and a healthy mom, I don't see a strong case for terminating past the point of viability.  This is crude, but regardless of if the baby is alive or dead, they would have to "get it out", so the mom isn't really going to be saved from either induced labor or surgery by killing the baby.  It makes more sense to me to deliver the baby alive and then adopt it out if the parents don't want it.

Good post, Ali. Makes more sense to me, too -- since the birth mother would have to go through surgery/induced labor anyhow, it makes more sense to deliver the baby and give the baby up for adoption to parents who very badly want to adopt, if the birth parents can't keep the baby. That's assuming the baby and mother are both healthy, of course. I know it's been said before, but most (majority) of 3rd trimester pregnancies are 'voluntarily' ended for extreme medical reasons, not because someone doesn't want a baby. I mean, if you're 7 or 8 months into a pregnancy and you suddenly realize 'I can't raise this child'... at that point, almost every doctor and counselor you talk with will suggest adoption, not abortion. It's the viability issue.

[pytheas]

are you against single parents too? i mean, sheesh...

sheesh?
Ha-sheesh?
Sheesh kebab?

I am not against anyone apart from 3D stupidity. As we are limited to 2D, being against- or for- is rather desperate

the worst is a "no parent" situation, orphans and institutional depersonalised abuse or/and extreme peer pressure

Second from worst is INTENTIONAL single  genetic parent/guardian. The 1 to 1 with kids is unhealthy for both

Third from worst is the nuclear family 2 to 1, either both genetic parents or both guardians, or one and one, mixed/ single gender it does not matter. The jury of 2 adults and one child is the usual ego pump, pride and division, but workable

Things get brighter with the more the merrier, switching guardians,  switching perspectives, community bringing up community's children

The Island, by Aldous Huxley. Worth the read

[Amicale]

are you against single parents too? i mean, sheesh...

sheesh?
Ha-sheesh?
Sheesh kebab?

I am not against anyone apart from 3D stupidity. As we are limited to 2D, being against- or for- is rather desperate

the worst is a "no parent" situation, orphans and institutional depersonalised abuse or/and extreme peer pressure

Second from worst is INTENTIONAL single  genetic parent/guardian. The 1 to 1 with kids is unhealthy for both

Third from worst is the nuclear family 2 to 1, either both genetic parents or both guardians, or one and one, mixed/ single gender it does not matter. The jury of 2 adults and one child is the usual ego pump, pride and division, but workable

Things get brighter with the more the merrier, switching guardians,  switching perspectives, community bringing up community's children

The Island, by Aldous Huxley. Worth the read

Seriously? How in the hell is it unhealthy for a loving single person to want a child, even if they're not in a committed relationship? Assuming they have the time, the energy, resources etc to raise the child, then how on earth is it unhealthy? Families DON'T live in a bubble. It's never JUST the mother and her child, or father and his child, alone all the time. There are other family members, friends, the greater community. It balances out. You can have a happy, healthy, adorable, well adjusted child. Trust me, I know. I have one.

[Ali]

are you against single parents too? i mean, sheesh...

sheesh?
Ha-sheesh?
Sheesh kebab?

I am not against anyone apart from 3D stupidity. As we are limited to 2D, being against- or for- is rather desperate

the worst is a "no parent" situation, orphans and institutional depersonalised abuse or/and extreme peer pressure

Second from worst is INTENTIONAL single  genetic parent/guardian. The 1 to 1 with kids is unhealthy for both

Third from worst is the nuclear family 2 to 1, either both genetic parents or both guardians, or one and one, mixed/ single gender it does not matter. The jury of 2 adults and one child is the usual ego pump, pride and division, but workable

Things get brighter with the more the merrier, switching guardians,  switching perspectives, community bringing up community's children

The Island, by Aldous Huxley. Worth the read

Seriously? How in the hell is it unhealthy for a loving single person to want a child, even if they're not in a committed relationship? Assuming they have the time, the energy, resources etc to raise the child, then how on earth is it unhealthy? Families DON'T live in a bubble. It's never JUST the mother and her child, or father and his child, alone all the time. There are other family members, friends, the greater community. It balances out. You can have a happy, healthy, adorable, well adjusted child. Trust me, I know. I have one.

Don't feel bad Amicale.  I believe my family is "third from worst" because we only have one child.    

[Amicale]

Seriously? How in the hell is it unhealthy for a loving single person to want a child, even if they're not in a committed relationship? Assuming they have the time, the energy, resources etc to raise the child, then how on earth is it unhealthy? Families DON'T live in a bubble. It's never JUST the mother and her child, or father and his child, alone all the time. There are other family members, friends, the greater community. It balances out. You can have a happy, healthy, adorable, well adjusted child. Trust me, I know. I have one.

Don't feel bad Amicale.  I believe my family is "third from worst" because we only have one child.    

Sigh.  Yeah, true, I mean clearly your family's going to descend into chaos because you have one.  Heck, I'm an only child.

Hmm... chaos... dysfunction... oh wait.... Look out T!! 

[Stevil]

the worst is a "no parent" situation, orphans and institutional depersonalised abuse or/and extreme peer pressure

Second from worst is INTENTIONAL single  genetic parent/guardian. The 1 to 1 with kids is unhealthy for both

Third from worst is the nuclear family 2 to 1, either both genetic parents or both guardians, or one and one, mixed/ single gender it does not matter. The jury of 2 adults and one child is the usual ego pump, pride and division, but workable

Things get brighter with the more the merrier, switching guardians,  switching perspectives, community bringing up community's children

Would you want the law to intervene on such things? e.g. not allow single parents to adopt or get invetro? not allow parent to adopt only one? Provide penalties for parents of only one child?

How far would you go, if you had all the power?

[Sweetdeath]

Seriously? How in the hell is it unhealthy for a loving single person to want a child, even if they're not in a committed relationship? Assuming they have the time, the energy, resources etc to raise the child, then how on earth is it unhealthy? Families DON'T live in a bubble. It's never JUST the mother and her child, or father and his child, alone all the time. There are other family members, friends, the greater community. It balances out. You can have a happy, healthy, adorable, well adjusted child. Trust me, I know. I have one.

Don't feel bad Amicale.  I believe my family is "third from worst" because we only have one child.    

Sigh.  Yeah, true, I mean clearly your family's going to descend into chaos because you have one.  Heck, I'm an only child.

Hmm... chaos... dysfunction... oh wait.... Look out T!! 

I'm going to just ignore Pytheas' inane posts from now on...
If he speaks like a crazed fundie--

I'm not even going to bother responding.

[Tank]

Oh, and the other dilemma.

What if a pregnant woman gets mugged and her unborn baby dies?

Does the attacker get done for murder?

If the mugger knows the woman is pregnant it's murder. If not it's manslaughter.

[Ali]

the worst is a "no parent" situation, orphans and institutional depersonalised abuse or/and extreme peer pressure

Second from worst is INTENTIONAL single  genetic parent/guardian. The 1 to 1 with kids is unhealthy for both

Third from worst is the nuclear family 2 to 1, either both genetic parents or both guardians, or one and one, mixed/ single gender it does not matter. The jury of 2 adults and one child is the usual ego pump, pride and division, but workable

Things get brighter with the more the merrier, switching guardians,  switching perspectives, community bringing up community's children

Would you want the law to intervene on such things? e.g. not allow single parents to adopt or get invetro? not allow parent to adopt only one? Provide penalties for parents of only one child?

How far would you go, if you had all the power?

And for the parents with only one child, would it matter if they wanted more but were unable to have them?