My New Stance on Abortion

[editec]

Sounds to me as if you still believe that abortion is wrong, regardless of a brain activity argument. Maybe you have yourself convinced otherwise but that's not how I'm reading it.

You are reading me correctly. I do believe that abortion is wrong. I am, however, willing to accept the definition of the cessation of life as the same standard for the beginning of life.

Sounds like a rational position to take

I'm informed that fetal brain activity starts around the 25th week, or roughly 6 months after conception.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

My New Stance on Abortion

It’s taken me quite a while to get here, but I have changed my stance on abortion. It’s been many an abortion debate on many message boards that caused me to think long and hard about the abortion issue. There have been many people from both sides of the debate that have inspired my introspective thought on this issue. I will however, give most of the credit to my altered opinion to one person that has challenged me, honestly debated me and truly forced me (intellectually speaking) to re-think my stance. That person would be Ms Coyote. (And some people say that you can’t influence changes in opinion over the internet).

That being said let me tell you how my opinion has changed.

I’ve decided that I am not against abortion 100%. I’m still against abortion and I think nobody should ever get an abortion, but it’s more about my view of when life actually begins.
To get there, I have to look at when life actually ends.
Within our commonly accepted view of medical life, pretty much everybody accepts cessation of brainwaves as the end of life. The cessation of brainwaves is the point that doctors legally declare a person dead. The end of brain activity is when doctors, courts and the common man have determined that life supporting equipment can be unplugged and a person can be declared dead. Even religions accept this.
Based upon that, I have decided (in my mind) that the beginning of life is the existence of brain waves. I believe that life begins when brain activity begins. Up to that point, I will accept abortion as an option. I won’t accept abortion as an option once brainwaves exist, at the point that brainwaves exist, the medical community and the courts have already spoken loudly and clearly that a person’s life is worth something.

So, my new stance on abortion is this;
If brain functions exist, abortion should not be allowed, prior to that, abortion can be allowed. I still think that prior to brain activity abortions should not be performed, but I am willing to accept abortion up to that point. I still disagree with abortion, and I don’t like it. I think that once brain activity has been achieved all abortion should be banned.

Sounds to me as if you still believe that abortion is wrong, regardless of a brain activity argument. Maybe you have yourself convinced otherwise but that's not how I'm reading it.

No, he has accepted it is LEGAL and can do little about it because of that. Abortion except to save a life is wrong. It is nothing more then State sanctioned murder. BUT it is legal and until it is made illegal we have little choice but to voice our opinions on it. We have no legal right to try to personally prevent it from happening except through the political process and the Courts.

 

[alan1]

Generally speaking, I would agree, but having had discussions with males on this issue, the responsibility of choice can be complicated -- if they disagree on the decision.

They often say "possession is nine tenths of the law." Sometimes men just have to realize that in this matter, they are not the ones in control. This is one of the few instances in which they are not effected by it as much as women, and therefore the woman would be the one to be taking on the responsibility, but at least the men could rest easy knowing they are not to blame if there is something bad about it.

The issue that Mountain Man seemed to be wrestling with was whether or not a life was being aborted. The Right to Choose aside, the issue of the other life is a legit consideration in feeling good or bad about this.

Again, Scott Peterson was tried for a dual homocide when he killed his wife who was carrying their unborn child. If there is no second life there, how could there be a second count of murder?

If the unborn child is alive, then the right to choose is not a mater of choice but rather a matter of life and death.

I don't know when brain activity begins, but this seems to be really good measure. I had never thought about defining pre-natal life by that measure. It makes sense and addresses the issue of life AND allows choice through a definable time period.

Anybody know when the brain activity starts?

About week 7.
Human Reproduction

 

[alan1]

So, my new stance on abortion is this;
If brain functions exist, abortion should not be allowed, prior to that, abortion can be allowed.

Gee, MM, I didn't know you get to decide...

I get to decide what my opinion on the matter is. Just as I cannot decide if my daughters should be sexually active or not, I can still have my opinion about it.

 

[MatthewAycock]

I wonder how many abortions would occur if they were instead called "Premature Baby Destruction".

I am diametrically opposed to the thought of abortion and feel that there are only rare instances where it is warranted. That being said, I can accept the current laws in place that govern abortion. Even though the Roe v Wade ruling was grasping at straws from a legal perspective, the result was a fair compromise.

 

[alan1]

Sounds to me as if you still believe that abortion is wrong, regardless of a brain activity argument. Maybe you have yourself convinced otherwise but that's not how I'm reading it.

You are reading me correctly. I do believe that abortion is wrong. I am, however, willing to accept the definition of the cessation of life as the same standard for the beginning of life.

Sounds like a rational position to take

I'm informed that fetal brain activity starts around the 25th week, or roughly 6 months after conception.

Thank you, I feel it is a rational position also.

However, fetal brain activity begins way before week 25.
Human Reproduction

 

[Immanuel]

Thank you, I feel it is a rational position also.

However, fetal brain activity begins way before week 25.
Human Reproduction

According to the sites I found, week 25 was when brain waves were actually detectable, or something like that, but at least the first one was extremely pro abortion and appeared to be very biased. The Answer.com site stated 25 weeks as well. The first one stated that there was some brain activity, but not "brain waves".

I am not sure what the difference is between brain activity and brain waves or even if there is a difference.

And although, as stated above, I don't agree with your point of view, I do think it is rational and well thought out.

Immie

 

[ItsFairmont]

I read the original post, and haven't read but one of the responses, so I'll give mine:


Schmuck!


Abortion, other than total rape or disgusting incest, is WRONG.


Heck, even in the above odd circumstances, you might as well have the child and put it up for adoption.


Pregnancy leads to life. So abortion is the ending of life.


It really is that simple.

 

[alan1]

Thank you, I feel it is a rational position also.

However, fetal brain activity begins way before week 25.
Human Reproduction

According to the sites I found, week 25 was when brain waves were actually detectable, or something like that, but at least the first one was extremely pro abortion and appeared to be very biased. The Answer.com site stated 25 weeks as well. The first one stated that there was some brain activity, but not "brain waves".

I am not sure what the difference is between brain activity and brain waves or even if there is a difference.

And although, as stated above, I don't agree with your point of view, I do think it is rational and well thought out.

Immie

Sometimes we just have to agree to disagree.

P.S.
The link I posted is from a university.

 

[Immanuel]

Thank you, I feel it is a rational position also.

However, fetal brain activity begins way before week 25.
Human Reproduction

According to the sites I found, week 25 was when brain waves were actually detectable, or something like that, but at least the first one was extremely pro abortion and appeared to be very biased. The Answer.com site stated 25 weeks as well. The first one stated that there was some brain activity, but not "brain waves".

I am not sure what the difference is between brain activity and brain waves or even if there is a difference.

And although, as stated above, I don't agree with your point of view, I do think it is rational and well thought out.

Immie

Sometimes we just have to agree to disagree.

P.S.
The link I posted is from a university.

But for the most part we do not disagree. I simply think that since there is life still to come during pregnancy that even though there may not be "brain waves" then abortion is still wrong even before brain waves begin.

I saw your link and prefer it to the one I presented, however, the one I presented, despite her bias, was not only well written but well documented. My feeling is that just because I don't like her thesis doesn't mean she's wrong.

Immie

 

[ItsFairmont]

Here's an idea: Don't get an abortion.


Problem solved.


There are people on years-long waiting lists to adopt children.

 

[Seraega]

I'm not sure about the brain waves justification, but my personal stance on abortion is that I absolutely loath the procedure though I refuse to stick my nose into another woman's business. If it's some kind of evil sin she'll pay in the next life... let he who is without sin cast the first stone, eh?

 

[alan1]

Here's an idea: Don't get an abortion.


Problem solved.


There are people on years-long waiting lists to adopt children.

I agree that abortion is wrong.
It took me many years to come to the position I now hold.
It didn't take me as long to come to the decision that a brain dead adult is not living.

 

[alan1]

I'm not sure about the brain waves justification, but my personal stance on abortion is that I absolutely loath the procedure though I refuse to stick my nose into another woman's business. If it's some kind of evil sin she'll pay in the next life... let he who is without sin cast the first stone, eh?

That's so easy to say when you are counting upon some mystical god to dish out the ultimate reward or punishment.

 

[Coyote]

why do people continue to deny that abortion is the stopage of a possible life? why do pro lifers continue to pretend this is anything more than a "hot button" issue for them? if anyone wanted to outlaw abortion it would have been done by now....the ussc has not been stacked anti abortion and no matter how hard they attempt to nail down a personal that issue, they, the medica etc. never seem to do it well.

does anyone really thing they can turn back the clock on abortion. women can purchase menstral extraction kits to perform abortions on themselves. many herbs will induce abortions if introduced quick enough. women will risk their lives with bad alley abortions..why drive women back to that?

I think many pro-lifers deeply and sincerely regard abortion as the deliberate killing of a human being. For the same reasons many of them also oppose the death penalty.

I can respect that. It's a complicated issue - complicated by the fact that science can now detect the beginnings of human life much earlier then "quickening" and that opens up a can of worms philosophically and ethically difficult to deal with - when does human life begin and when does it have value? When does the taking of it become "wrong"?

In debating this issue elsewhere (with MM) I've come to differing conclusions myself. Where before I regarded it as solely a right of a woman to determine what happens to her own body, I am no longer so sure.

I see it as a case of competing rights. At all points - the mother's right to life and health comes first as does her right to terminate a pregnancy forced on her by rape. But at some points, the developing fetus within begins to have some rights to life too. Because of that I can't agree anymore with abortion on demand at any stage. By the act of consenting to sex we consent to the risk of pregancy even with the best of protections it can happen. At some point the babie's rights equal that of the mother, short of her life. Perhaps that is the point at which it develops brainwaves or, the old fashioned idea of "quickening".

 

[Coyote]

I'm not sure about the brain waves justification, but my personal stance on abortion is that I absolutely loath the procedure though I refuse to stick my nose into another woman's business. If it's some kind of evil sin she'll pay in the next life... let he who is without sin cast the first stone, eh?

I can agree with that. She is the one who must walk in those shoes and live with her decision - not me, you or anyone else.

If a friend of mine became pregnant...I would counsel her to keep it and offer all the support I could to help her...but it she felt she couldn't - it is her life, and she must deal with it. I would still support her.

 

[DamnYankee]

My stance is simple, it should be up to the woman who gets pregnant, right or wrong, it is their responsibility to make that choice, not mine, not anyone else's. If it's wrong I wouldn't want to be blamed for it, so I would never be in a situation to get involved, in any way. But if it's not wrong then I would have no spiritual right to interfere should they make the choice.

Generally speaking, I would agree, but having had discussions with males on this issue, the responsibility of choice can be complicated -- if they disagree on the decision.

They often say "possession is nine tenths of the law." Sometimes men just have to realize that in this matter, they are not the ones in control. This is one of the few instances in which they are not effected by it as much as women, and therefore the woman would be the one to be taking on the responsibility, but at least the men could rest easy knowing they are not to blame if there is something bad about it.

True, if the issue were only about the woman's decision to terminate and the man's desire not to. What if it were the other way around? Doesn't the father have as much right to say "no, I'm not ready to be a dad"? Or is that to be dismissed as not problematic so long as he isn't being "hit up" for support? (Please note that I'm playing devil's advocate here...)

 

[TofuDog]

Life starts when the baby comes out of the mother and starts breathing. Anything before that, the baby is not breathing on its own and is on life support inside the mother.

So in other words, because terri schievo had brain waves, they should have kept her alive like a vegetable forever? Hmmm... And you all say that torture isn't ingrained into America's values?

 

[DamnYankee]

Life starts when the baby comes out of the mother and starts breathing. Anything before that, the baby is not breathing on its own and is on life support inside the mother.

That would be where the issue of "viability" comes in, since a premmie can survive at a certain point in time.

So in other words, because terri schievo had brain waves, they should have kept her alive like a vegetable forever? Hmmm... And you all say that torture isn't ingrained into America's values?

We, of the age of majority, have the opportunity to sign Advanced Directives in order not to complicate the issue.

 

[TofuDog]

"That would be where the issue of "viability" comes in, since a premmie can survive at a certain point in time." So when the baby is pulled out prematurely, that's when it's life begins.

"We, of the age of majority, have the opportunity to sign Advanced Directives in order not to complicate the issue." As with everything in the US, there were people going to court to try to force her to stay a vegetable forever. Like abortion, gay marriage and legal pot, Americans like to try to tell other people how to live, because you think it's "freedom" to take away other people's rights.