Originally posted by puzzlesphere
Good to see some level headedness! I am on the other side of the argument, but it is nice to see some reasoned response rather than many of the highly
emotional responses being presented here.
Wow, in the few seconds it took me to get into my messages to check for responses I was already armoring myself against disappointment. Well, you
surprised me and I sincerely thank you for that. I think the rationality comes from my atheist position, so I have to come at things logically, but I
do appreciate a reasoned response and am very happy to discuss this with you.
So, LET'S DO IT! (in best WWE voice)
Concerning your point 4), (to me this is the most important aspect of this argument) can you provide any sources for that? I have spent a fair
amount of time over the last few days combing through the available literature, and almost categorically the literature for this issue is from before
the 1990's, mostly from the 60's and 70's, there just isn’t much research being done in this area anymore. I did come across one more recent
paper that was looking at viability of the foetus, but it was dealing specifically with the 2nd and 3rd trimester.
Your research doesn't need to be reposted for me to tell you that you are correct. There seems to be a brick wall in terms of viability before 21
weeks of gestation. However once 24 weeks come, the viability jumps to between 54% and 80% depending on which nation you base the numbers on (these
two came from the british and american numbers respectively). We could get into a technical discussion if you want, but this weekend is a bit busy
for me so it'll have to wait until at least monday.
I don't agree with 3rd trimester abortion, I am dubious about 2nd trimester abortion, especially in the mid to late stages, but in no way are
1st trimester foetuses viable beings.
This is not an unreasonable assumption, albeit one I disagree with. Viability is not the lynchpin of my position, only one facet. At some point our
technology and ability will remove the viability factor, even if we just look at the advances in the past 30 years or so.
Once the foetus is viable, that is the first point at which we can start attributing "rights" to the foetus, before that it is a purely
parasitic dependent organism (by definition), so any rights are still solely the woman’s. There is a huge difference between parasitic dependency
and post-viability dependency.
In terms of the parasitic nature, a rational case can be made that children outside the womb can not survive alone. This idea does not diminish the
humanity of the born children, so I put less emphasis on this point. I think getting into a discussion of where humanity or life truly begins is a
losing one for both sides. In my view, it seems reasonable that when discussions of human life are concerned, if there is a disagreement it serves
our species best to err on the side of more life.
This is part of the reason why abortion is generally legal, and has been for decades, ever since the academic community came to a consensus on
the definitions for life, death and viability decades ago.
I've said for many years that legislative action does not seem to be the best approach to the elimination of abortion for the main reason that
forcing women doesn't only seem like something that should be done, but it also doesn't seem like something that really can be done. I feel a
cultural shift needs to occur to increase the value of human life.
I shake my head when I read the arguments by each side as Pro-Life, to me, should be a position based on love and not on force or hate (which it has
become). I am adamant that seeking to limit abortion as much as possible through positive social change, support, and action will do more to aid
these women than anything else. Condemnation is a fruitless tree that is better left unplanted.
I hope I answered your question, but would be happy to discuss it further. Thanks for your thoughtful response.