reply to post by KrazyJethro
Sorry for not replying sooner, I have had a fairly busy weekend myself.
I think your posts are excellently articulated and constructed arguments. It shows that reason can reign supreme, that there can be a middle ground
achieved and that except for the extreme sides of the discussion (that many revert to as their default position) generally most people agree and share
similar views about humanity and moral imperatives, even if they do differ on key points.
I actually agree with most of what you say, which highlights that opposite sides most likely have more in common than heated discussion allows us to
Originally posted by KrazyJethro
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%... ...We could get into a technical discussion...
In my opinion, once brain waves are detected (from week 20 onwards), then viability has been established and at that point abortion becomes very
contentious, and shouldn't be allowed unless the life of the mother is threatened. No need to get technical
, I think we generally agree on this
... 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
This will be a turning point for this whole discussion. When technology reaches the point where it can maintain a foetus externally from the womb (or
even be transferred to another willing woman's womb for the remainder of embryonic development) the need for abortions will become almost
non-existent. If a woman finds herself with an unwanted pregnancy, it can be removed and sustained through other means. This seems like an ideal
ultimate situation. Unfortunately we are not there yet, and so the issue of abortion has to be addressed in a compassionate way that takes into
account all sides of the argument. Given that abortions have been around for probably as long as we have had society it is worth legislating around
the issue, which is what most progressive societies have done.
In terms of the parasitic nature, a rational case can be made that children outside the womb cannot survive alone.
Agreed... which is why I made a distinction between parasitic dependency and post-viability dependency. The parasitic stage of dependency (up until
week 20) is when the foetus is totally dependent on the woman's physiology. After that, while a foetus/baby/child still most likely requires care to
survive, there is a chance that care can be transferred to another, eliminating the need for the original woman. This is an important distinction as I
believe as a collective we have to do our best to care for all viable beings. Even if one believes a pre-viable foetus holds humanity (and this comes
down to morals and opinions), I believe the rights of the woman take precedence over an un-viable organism that is attached to her body.
...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.
While I agree that the discussion around where human life truly begins is a slippery slope leading to irresolvable points of view, as shown by this
and other threads on abortion, It is key to the issues at this point in time. It is the current scientific definition of this fairly arbitrary line
that has partially been used by legislators to define the legality of abortions. Erring on the side of life is commendable, but I believe the right to
abort comes back to the viability argument.
The question arises of "do the rights of the woman take precedence over the rights of an un-viable entity". My answer to this is, they have to, though
I completely understand that there are those who have a different opinion on this.
Given that disagreement, it has to come down to the majority making the decision, and everyone else has to accept that decision, just as we accept
many laws that we don’t necessarily agree with. This is the current state of affairs in most legislation on abortion. Though as with everything, it
may change in the future.
I feel a cultural shift needs to occur to increase the value of human life.... Condemnation is a fruitless tree that is better left
I don’t have the space to fully quote the final section (or other sections) of your post, but just let me say this...
You are indeed a scholar and a gentleman! If more people had your reason, the world would be a better place!
You have indeed answered my questions, and i thank you for an enlightening discussion.
There is hope for the world yet!
edit on 13-11-2011 by puzzlesphere because: (no reason given)