Let’s see what you boys think about this...
- Thread starter Been Jammin
- Start date
How do you feel about a pregnancy that occurs when two parties agree to use birth control that is 99% effective, but they end up in the 1%?
Wow, this is actually one of the best abortion debates threads I have read and it started from one of the more absurd analogies I have read on it. No offense @Been Jammin. It did do what you intended though, so kudos. I am torn on this debate, when I used to be fully pro-choice. Mainly bc I know what losing our child in utero would have done to me and my wife, and what I’ve seen it do to so many patients of mine. That said, I don’t like the state stepping in and deciding what’s best for us, although they do it w most everything else. If it’s going to be legal at all, 6 weeks is ridiculously early. I’d say a vast majority (90%?) of people don’t know they are pregnant until 4-6 weeks at the earliest. A missed period means you are already at 5 weeks, so now you have a week to make that decision? Seems rushed. Anyway, it all comes down to when you believe life begins, obviously. If it’s at conception, then it should be completely illegal. If it’s at birth, then it should be completely legal. Is it at viability outside the womb? Who can truly answer this?
A group of adults who come to a rational bipartisan consensus?
I appreciate the reply.
Scientifically, there is no debate regarding when life begins. A zygote is genetically different from both parents and it will grow into the fetus that will be born approximately 40 weeks later. What is up for debate is at what point does that life have an equal status to those of us who have already been birthed.
Not necessarily true as far as scientifically. Tumors have a different genetic makeup, do they have life? You can argue zygotes have the ability to form a living human, so that sets them apart. What about the ones that are destined to stillbirth? Are those zygote “living” even though they do not have the potential to create a live human outside the womb? There are obviously many people alive now that would have not been able to be born 100s of years ago but can now because of medical (non natural) advancements. BTW, I’m just posing these questions, I don’t necessarily disagree w you, but they are compelling arguments.
So, when in vitro fertilization occurs, and some embryos are chosen for implantation, while others are discarded, are the discarders guilty of murder?
No matter where we draw the arbitrary line, the line is going to be arbitrary.
Tumors are the result of mutations of genes in existing humans. A zygote that is "destined for stillbirth" is alive until it isn't. We can throw thousands of scenarios into this discussion, but none of them will change what is scientifically known, a genetically unique living organism is the result of the fusion of a sperm and an egg.
The real debate is at what point should we recognize the fetus as a human with the same rights as birthed humans.
Infinitesimal sample size. Just like rape and incest arguments. My cop out answer is that I’m not sure. You’d have to prove to me that it was a failure of the contraception and not human error.
How you view in vitro embryos will probably determine if you see the discarders as murderers. The embryos are alive at the time the decision is made regarding which ones will be implanted, no? I don't think implanting dead embryos would create successful pregnancies.
I definitely don't disagree with you on this point, but we aren't drawing arbitrary lines based on when life begins. We are drawing arbitrary lines based on when we recognize the prenatal life as having an equal status to us.
I don't know what is so hard to understand about this issue. All most rational people want is a reduction in the number of abortion performed due to the lack of responsibility of women. Almost 700K abortions annually in the US alone? Is it to much to expect a women take responsibility for their bodies and protect themselves against an unwanted pregnancy? If women were on birth control the numbers would drop massively. Instead of making stupid controversial laws about when and why women can have an abortion, why don't we instead do something to promote and enforce sexual responsibility among women? And yes I mean women because they are the ones that can not avoid the consequences of their own irresponsibility. Don't misunderstand and think I'm discounting the man's role or responsibility in all of this, I'm just being real and cutting through all the politically correct thinking to find a solution that works.
Naturally the left will come back with the need to provide free birth control but all that does is perpetuate the lack of personal responsibility. These women have money to spend on their nails, hair, cloths, and in many cases drugs/alcohol but they can not afford $6 to $10 a month to protect against an unwanted pregnancy? BS.
IMO, society can solve this problem and many more, without government intervention, if we start supporting and teaching the idea/lifestyle of personal responsibility.
Naturally the left will come back with the need to provide free birth control but all that does is perpetuate the lack of personal responsibility. These women have money to spend on their nails, hair, cloths, and in many cases drugs/alcohol but they can not afford $6 to $10 a month to protect against an unwanted pregnancy? BS.
IMO, society can solve this problem and many more, without government intervention, if we start supporting and teaching the idea/lifestyle of personal responsibility.
I personally don’t think that’s a good reason to stop a heartbeat. It would suck at that moment but it would result in a son or daughter man.
I would probably be proud of them for beating the odds.
The average menstrual cycle is between 25-30 days (science). At this point, on average you are talking about not 1 missed period, but at least 2 if not 3.
Yes it fluctuates, but extending to 12 weeks would mean the termination of a human that has sex organs (can usually determine the sex at this time), has developed muscles and nerves enough to make a fist.
At this point (12 weeks), a woman has made the conscience choice not to take a pregnancy test compounded with having unprotected sex and not taking contraceptives. That irresponsibility doesn't mean she can terminate a pregnancy, you make choices in life and have to live with them. I'm sorry but I'm not terminating a child's life due to convenience or being irresponsible.
Why do most death row inmates challenge the ruling? Because one is worse.
Not arguing with all of your points, but, for the sake of clarification, not all women have regular periods every 25-30 days, and it is not impossible for a pregnant woman to have some “spotting” that might be confused for a lighter than normal period. In reality, what is written in the textbooks is sometimes a guideline rather than a hard and fast rule.
To quote the great @Been Jammin ”Life is not fair. Not everyone gets the same fair shake as others.”
I’d also like to add that my son Jake is a direct result of the scenario you brought up. Wasn’t expecting it and it’s been hard going from 2 to 3 (a whole nother ball game) but I can’t imagine killing him just because we found ourselves on the wrong side of the statistics
Last edited:
Death row inmates are mostly cowardly and evil individuals, who at times even think they are innocent. Death is a final destination for these folks and relieves them from being stuck in a prison cell for the rest of their lives.
Nah. Save the tax dollars and put’em down. Prison isn’t as hard on criminals as people make it out to be.
Last edited:
That's why I said on average, that's not me making up a figure. The average woman's period occurs every 25-30 days. Are there exceptions to the rule? Absolutely! But in my opinion you don't create laws due to fringe or rare occurrences.
4 weeks... of course some women could have inconsistent cycles. Hmm, let me wait
6 weeks, ok a woman can be late... maybe something is up...should I check it out? Maybe go to the doctor? When's the last time I had sex? Should I take a test?
8 Week (over a month from her usual time of the month), well...IDK... let me wait it out a little longer
12 Week (two months after the average menstrual cycle calculation)... well? I guess I'm pregnant?
A main question I have and think a focus should be shifted towards the lead up to creation of life. Sex education, the use of contraceptives, abstinence in some cases, etc. Where does personal responsibility come into play?
If a man or woman has been convicted of murder and has exhausted all of their appeals in a court of law, don't really have an issue.
I can 100% agree w this. I think your last comment is the most important. That’s why I tend to lean towards viability outside the womb, around 22-24 weeks. I’m not set on that by any means, just kind of what I fall on. Also, that’s basically the latest I can possibly see anyone can argue, cannot understand any argument other than maybe direct threat to the mother without viable baby (EXTREMELY rare). I understand both sides though more than I ever have otherwise.
The age of viability is where I'm at as well. I hear the arguments for later gestational age abortions for the health of the mother, but after the age of viability is reached, no ethical doctor aborts, they simply deliver early via cesarean or induced labor.
In my opinion, the only real argument for late term abortion is if the fetus has lethal defects and the risks of continued pregnancy outweigh the benefits of allowing it to continue naturally.
But at 12 weeks the baby still isn't viable. After that point, it starts to become iffy on viability up till the 3rd trimester where pre-mature births occur regularly enough to establish viability. I also recognize that while people (men and women) should have more personal responsibility, society has become stupid. I've even read the stories where someone who was significantly overweight went to the hospital about stomach issues to find out she was several months pregnant. Also, this provides time for parents (I don't believe that an abortion without knowledge of the father should be legal) to decide the right course of action. A 6 week cutoff (as noted above) doesn't do that. Rushing a hormonal kid to make a decision this heavy in a matter of a few days isn't realistic nor good for anyone involved. While I understand the positions of both sides, this is my pragmatic 'middle-ground' stance.
In addition, by using viability as the measure, then as science improves, that cutoff point will shift closer to conception naturally. 50 years ago, a baby born 2 months early was at extreme risk. Now that's relatively benign in the long run. In 50 years, I imagine our technology will be able to support (and grow) babies after only 3 or 4 months of gestation.
So I’m going to assume that you are okay with removing those with limited brain functionality off of life support because of their viability. Correct?
People being irresponsible and stupid doesn’t make it less cruel to end a baby’s life.
You might have missed my follow-up yo Been and flexibility and extend to 8 weeks on this faux proposed bill (I don’t like it but I did to come to some resolution).
My premise is still viability based which is 20+ weeks at this point, so coming down to 12 weeks is about the edge of my personal acceptance. As for your first question, yes. I'm a big believer in Euthanasia, and wished it would have been available for my father as he withered away due to early onset Alzheimer's. Nothing is more absurd than to think its acceptable to let a person starve to death because we can deny them a feeding tube (DNR) after he has lost the mental capacity to simply swallow food, but we can't give him a shot that would just put him to sleep peacefully. In either case, he survived for at least 6 months with zero mental capability of knowing anything around him. He could barely acknowledge that people were present, and was well past any point of recognizing people. Putting him to sleep would have been the most respectful and dignified thing I could have done for my father at that point.
Thank you for sharing that information about your father and your perspective, I think we can all agree that Alzheimer’s is a horrible condition and can see how your opinion on Euthanasia has been developed.
When it comes to my own view on life, it extends to not only those vulnerable in the womb but to those in situations where there life is in question to continue through severe health risks or challenged brain/mental capabilities. I think it’s our responsibility to find solutions to help those in need and look into any options to help a life.
One of the most challenging situations I’ve been through is sitting down with my dad and helping him talk through next steps with grandfather after he suffered multiple strokes in a span of a week and had serious complications with internal bleeding in the brain. Do we pull the trigger on a risky surgery and risk our loved one dying on the surgery table, or do we let him go peacefully?
Ultimately, we thought it was best to end life support. Our reasoning - he lived a really great and long life, 90+ years. He took full advantage of the opportunity at life.
My big point in this discussion is (which has been very cordial so appreciate you all) has been that a tiny human in the womb hasn’t had the opportunity at life and I believe we must protect that chance. It shouldn’t be ended due to economics or convenience, and we as humans need to be responsible for actions we take.
Life can suck at times but it’s ultimately beautiful and I want everyone to get a shot.
I agree with this take. Instead of abortion after viability a woman should be able to have labor induced and give the baby up for adoption.
Induce labor early so that babies are born prematurely so that they can be adopted?
That's the only way to avoid killing a viable fetus and maintain a woman's bodily autonomy.
I get what you are saying, but “viable” doesn’t mean you should deliver. Honestly I’d rather you abort than induce at 24 weeks. More and more babies are surviving but it’s an incredibly hard and expensive road. Usually ending in severe lifelong complications.
It is risky to induce too early. It is recommended not to induce prior to 39 weeks as the baby isn't fully developed. I'm not even sure if you could successfully induce labor much sooner than that as there are hormonal changes that need to take place before it is even possible.
