Abortion

[sunnyside]

razor thin threshold

Here's the problem. In your initial resposne in this trhead

Just as something to clarify, I didn't actually respond to this thread. I was responding to a different thread, and it got tossed over here.

if I understand you properly

Which, apparently, you do not - or are being hyperbolic in order to make a point and not answer the meat of the matter. If you had read through the thread, you would have seen me profess my abhorrence for late-term abortion.

I had to review it a second time to catch it, but there it is. Though you say that your abhorance is a "different matter".

You also say that you're not the best person to debate this because your opinions are well defined and not based on a philosophical opinion on the fetus. Which is perhaps a warning I should have heeded because:

I have made my opinions on the morality and legality of abortion perfectly clear.

Is simply not true, despite how angry you seem to have gotten that I haven't read your mind. You've stated that you are pro choice, that you find late term abortion abhorrent, and that if the two are mutually exclusive, that you'd favor the life of a mother over an infant (which is an entirely different discussion really, even the pro-lifers might not disagree on that point).

Though you did add that "zero implication involving anything to do with reproductive rights" comment, which seems an odd context given that we are in the "abortion" thread, and the topic clearly indicated in the OP is "So what should be a determination as to whether a fetus can live or not?"

[Mikey]

Just as something to clarify, I didn't actually respond to this thread. I was responding to a different thread, and it got tossed over here.

Very well. I should have said "in this discussion."

...Is simply not true, despite how angry you seem to have gotten that I haven't read your mind.

I beg your pardon; I had expressly stated my position here, but it was in a much older thread. I apologize. In a nutshell -
Credo:
- abortion should be allowable in the case of a pregnancy resulting from rape or incest
- abortion should not only be allowable, but positively indicated, in a case in which carrying to term will endanger the life of the mother
- everything is out the window past the second trimester. 24 - 26 weeks is more than enough time to determine the applicability of the second criterion above, while the first criterion obviously doesn't take much time at all to determine.
I suppose the next question will be why I use that cut-off. It's not arbitrary; as has been mentioned, the nervous system of a fetus is developed enough at that point to make abortion inhumane, and as I noted above there really shouldn't be any reason for a question to persist into that time frame. Combine these factors, and there we are.

you'd favor the life of a mother over an infant

This is a blatant falsehood. I've never said anything of the sort. I said I'd favor the life of a mother over that of a fetus. You are obviously intelligent enough to understand the difference, despite repeated attempts to gloss over the strong line of demarcation in stages that birth represents. Therefore, I can only assume that your choice of the word "infant" in this instance is an attempt to make my position sound arbitrary when it isn't. "Infant" refers to a neonate, not to an unborn fetus. Even if there seems to be some discrepancy there, I have also stated my belief against late-term abortion as well as my reasoning for such.

even the pro-lifers might not disagree

I'm not so sure. Some pro-lifers (though not the majority, to be fair) are willing to murder an adult human to further their "pro-life" (ironic, no?) stance.

which seems an odd context given that we are in the "abortion" thread, and the topic clearly indicated in the OP is "So what should be a determination as to whether a fetus can live or not?"

Perhaps. However, in these last few posts I have been attempting to respond to some of the question you have levelled towards me and the criteria of my belief, rather than to address the overarching topic.

[stitch626]

Some pro-lifers (though not the majority, to be fair) are willing to murder an adult human to further their "pro-life" (ironic, no?) stance.

And this angers me much more than the abortion issue.

I mean, I am against abortion. Simple as that.
But taking another life to show that your against killing an unborn child is just stupid and doesn't further your point, it just means you a murdering moron.

[The piman]

is anything law wise supposed to be made anytime soon regarding any aspect of abortion? if there was, I would love to here the reasoning behind it.

[sunnyside]

is anything law wise supposed to be made anytime soon regarding any aspect of abortion? if there was, I would love to here the reasoning behind it.

In the US I think there is an ongoing battle over parental notification when high schoolers want to get abortions on the sly and other details like that.

The only "major" bit of law was that the health care bill could have been used to fund abortions, but Obama used an executive order to prevent that. Of course it's just an executive order, and he or any future president could change it on a whim.

[The piman]

true dat. who knows how far that will go...

[Tsukiyumi]

I think more efforts should be made in getting teenagers to understand the real repercussions that will haunt you forever (if you have any form of conscience, that is), rather than requiring the parents to be involved. If someone is 16 and they can drive a car that can potentially kill adult, living people, I'd say it should be their choice what to do with something else they are totally unprepared for.

For the record, I'm personally against abortion, but still pro-choice. I don't let my personal feelings on the matter blind my judgment on the subject; I realize what's in the greater interest. I'm still perplexed at people who are against abortion and also against social programs to help people who have ten kids.

One or the other, folks. You can't have both.

[The piman]

If someone is 16 and they can drive a car that can potentially kill adult, living people, I'd say it should be their choice what to do with something else they are totally unprepared for.

The difference could be that if some stupid kid does something to hurt the life of an adult (hopefully) the adult or even young adult would have some sort of knowldge of how best to react. This is different from going and getting pregnant which would involve the LIFE of an unborn human who, therefore, has no idea how to react. if the baby does not get aborted, they will be brought up in (more than likely) a less than best atmosphere.

[Tsukiyumi]

A good point. But, as adults are awarded choice over their medical decisions, why not someone who society has decided fit to hold other people's lives in their hands already?

Seriously, a teenager in an out of control car could kill dozens of people, yet the same individual is denied the right to decide what happens in their own body? If the individual is given the same responsibilities as an adult, they should be granted the same freedom of choice.

[Graham Kennedy]

I think more efforts should be made in getting teenagers to understand the real repercussions that will haunt you forever (if you have any form of conscience, that is)

It's rather presumptuous to think that a person who isn't bothered by abortion must lack a conscience.

[Reliant121]

For my two cents, I think its entirely up to the parent of the soon to be born baby. The primary reason is whether or not that baby will have a decent standard of living. If its a highly religious family, and the baby was born to a younger daughter out of wedlock, the baby's life is going to be hell because the family will not support the parent. If its an underage pregnancy, how on earth can the parent really support the child when theres school and family concerns to look out for. If its a really disadvantaged family, how good is the child's standard of living going to really be if they can barely afford to feed the family they have?

Inevitably, in my limited experience at least, a child born to a family underage in particular is going to have a really shitty childhood. I'd rather abort the pregnancy, then birth a child into a crap life.

[Tyyr]

The primary reason is whether or not that baby will have a decent standard of living.

Standard of living isn't fixed at birth. Parents can improve their standing and later on the children can as well.

If its a highly religious family, and the baby was born to a younger daughter out of wedlock, the baby's life is going to be hell because the family will not support the parent.

That's incredibly presumptuous. Yes, it happens sometimes but it's not even close to being universal. I've known more than a few unwed mothers from religious families and while the family was never happy about it I've yet to personally see one throw their daughter and grandchild out on their ass over it.

I'd rather abort the pregnancy, then birth a child into a crap life.

I'd rather see the child born and have a fighting chance to make it's life better.

[Tsukiyumi]

I think more efforts should be made in getting teenagers to understand the real repercussions that will haunt you forever (if you have any form of conscience, that is)

It's rather presumptuous to think that a person who isn't bothered by abortion must lack a conscience.

Okay, slight exaggeration on my part. You'd have to be a pretty cold individual to not feel the loss.

[Graham Kennedy]

If the person genuinely believes that the fetus is not in any sense a person, then they might easily believe there's very little loss involved.

[Tsukiyumi]

If the person genuinely believes that the fetus is not in any sense a person, then they might easily believe there's very little loss involved.

Maybe it's different if it's your own, but you have a point.