Question about abortion. OH NOES!

[EvilDarkMagicians]

Ok, so the maximum date for abortion is twenty-four weeks into the pregnancy for women in England.
At the time of twenty-four weeks a baby can be given birth too and survive.
The thing I don't understand is - (Hypothetical situation): This takes place in England.

A woman has a baby at twenty-four weeks, she had this baby at home. She is in a tight financial situation
and doesn't want this baby, when she has finally given birth to this baby. She kills it. The police find out
and then later prosecute her for murder. Why if she went to a doctors the day before instead and terminated it,
would it not be considered murder?

This is not a discussion of whether abortion is murder, or whether it is right or wrong.
So please don't hi-jack it....

[Acadzia]

Good question, and one of the reasons I'm pro-life. Vaginas, while awesome, aren't magic, and exiting one does not change the overall make-up of the baby.

[EvilDarkMagicians]

Good question, and one of the reasons I'm pro-life. Vaginas, while awesome, aren't magic, and exiting one does not change the overall make-up of the baby.

In my opinion twenty-four weeks is to high, I personally think it should be reduced.

[Tokos]

This is indeed the case. Our laws are very inconsistent. They are based on how good current medical science is (24 weeks being the youngest a baby has survived being born at), which is certainly odd to my mind. Surely if someone constructed a perfect incubator/artificial womb, that would necessarily cut down the abortion limit to 0 weeks?

[Getbrett]

The being is equivilent to a tapeworm until birth occurs. There is no contradiction here; abortion is self-defence.

[EvilDarkMagicians]

This is indeed the case. Our laws are very inconsistent. They are based on how good current medical science is (24 weeks being the youngest a baby has survived being born at), which is certainly odd to my mind. Surely if someone constructed a perfect incubator/artificial womb, that would necessarily cut down the abortion limit to 0 weeks?

Why would it cut it down to 0 weeks?
A baby cannot develop that fast?

[EvilDarkMagicians]

The being is equivilent to a tapeworm until birth occurs. There is no contradiction here; abortion is self-defence.

Abortion is self-defence....?

[The Beautiful Darkness]

The being is equivilent to a tapeworm until birth occurs. There is no contradiction here; abortion is self-defence.

And how is it not self defence once it is out of the womb, given that it is still a dependant creature?

[Zandan]

The doctor aborts it before it is born, she killed it after it was born(hypothetically). Once a baby takes a breath on it's own then killing it is murder.

[Getbrett]

The being is equivilent to a tapeworm until birth occurs. There is no contradiction here; abortion is self-defence.

And how is it not self defence once it is out of the womb, given that it is still a dependant creature?

It is dependant, but not neccessarily upon the mother. Within the womb, a fetus is a parasite.

[Tokos]

This is indeed the case. Our laws are very inconsistent. They are based on how good current medical science is (24 weeks being the youngest a baby has survived being born at), which is certainly odd to my mind. Surely if someone constructed a perfect incubator/artificial womb, that would necessarily cut down the abortion limit to 0 weeks?

Why would it cut it down to 0 weeks?
A baby cannot develop that fast?

I mean that if our medical science theoretically developed to the point where we could extract a tiny few-cells embryo, get it into an artificial womb (ie incubator) and it would successfully develop, by the logic of our existing laws we'd have to ban abortion from that time onward, because it would have survived outside the womb.

It is dependant, but not neccessarily upon the mother. Within the womb, a fetus is a parasite.

So you can kill a newborn baby if it's still connected by its cord?

Semantics, semantics…

[EvilDarkMagicians]

The doctor aborts it before it is born, she killed it after it was born(hypothetically). Once a baby takes a breath on it's own then killing it is murder.

Why does making a baby come out of a vagina/belly give it a right to life?

[The Beautiful Darkness]

The being is equivilent to a tapeworm until birth occurs. There is no contradiction here; abortion is self-defence.

And how is it not self defence once it is out of the womb, given that it is still a dependant creature?

It is dependant, but not neccessarily upon the mother. Within the womb, a fetus is a parasite.

Right, but when it's born who is the obvious choice for it to be dependant upon?

[Bottle]

Ok, so the maximum date for abortion is twenty-four weeks into the pregnancy for women in England.
At the time of twenty-four weeks a baby can be given birth too and survive.
The thing I don't understand is - (Hypothetical situation): This takes place in England.

A woman has a baby at twenty-four weeks, she had this baby at home. She is in a tight financial situation
and doesn't want this baby, when she has finally given birth to this baby. She kills it. The police find out
and then later prosecute her for murder. Why if she went to a doctors the day before instead and terminated it,
would it not be considered murder?

This is not a discussion of whether abortion is murder, or whether it is right or wrong.
So please don't hi-jack it....

Is there any country in the world right now that allows elective abortions at 24 weeks?

To the best of my knowledge, the only countries that allow abortions that late at all are the US, Netherlands, Britain, and Singapore, and I know that in the US and Britain you MUST have a health exemption for anything past 24 weeks, and virtually all abortions past 24 weeks are illegal in Singapore (there has to be a proven lethal fetal abnormality, and even then you need a special approval to proceed). I think the only country in the world that even nominally allows elective abortions after 24 weeks is the Netherlands, but I might be wrong about that. Even in the Netherlands I know that such abortions require doctor's approval and are almost never performed after 22 weeks.

Which means that at 24 weeks, that abortion WOULD be a crime just about everywhere in the world. It WOULD be prosecuted as a "murder" in a great many countries. And it sure wouldn't be a situation where the woman in question would simply get to waltz in to a safe, clean, legal medical establishment and have an elective abortion at 24 weeks simply because she felt like it...that's not something that is legal in any country in the world.


But I'm sure that's not what you're fishing for. What you want to hear is that I don't believe it would be murder for a person to decline to donate their body to another being/person, no matter what. I believe female human beings retain the right to stop being pregnant at any time and for any reason, because I don't believe ANY person (born or unborn) has any entitlement to the use of somebody else's body. It's not theft for me to decline to give you my property, and it's not murder for me to decline to let you use my body to prolong your own life.

[Getbrett]

The being is equivilent to a tapeworm until birth occurs. There is no contradiction here; abortion is self-defence.

And how is it not self defence once it is out of the womb, given that it is still a dependant creature?

It is dependant, but not neccessarily upon the mother. Within the womb, a fetus is a parasite.

Right, but when it's born who is the obvious choice for it to be dependant upon?

Raptor Jesus? It's irrelevant. The child, post-birth, may become dependant upon someone other than the mother. It is no longer a mandatory leech on the mother's body. Abortion is equivilent to shitting out a tapeworm. Killing a child that has already been born is not.

This is not a difficult concept to grasp.

[EvilDarkMagicians]

Ok, so the maximum date for abortion is twenty-four weeks into the pregnancy for women in England.
At the time of twenty-four weeks a baby can be given birth too and survive.
The thing I don't understand is - (Hypothetical situation): This takes place in England.

A woman has a baby at twenty-four weeks, she had this baby at home. She is in a tight financial situation
and doesn't want this baby, when she has finally given birth to this baby. She kills it. The police find out
and then later prosecute her for murder. Why if she went to a doctors the day before instead and terminated it,
would it not be considered murder?

This is not a discussion of whether abortion is murder, or whether it is right or wrong.
So please don't hi-jack it....

Is there any country in the world right now that allows elective abortions at 24 weeks?


But I'm sure that's not what you're fishing for. What you want to hear is that I don't believe it would be murder for a person to decline to donate their body to another being/person, no matter what. I believe female human beings retain the right to stop being pregnant at any time and for any reason, because I don't believe ANY person (born or unborn) has any entitlement to the use of somebody else's body. It's not theft for me to decline to give you my property, and it's not murder for me to decline to let you use my body to prolong your own life.

So you think females should have the right to have abortion at any time...?

[Tokos]

I think he means just before 24 weeks.

As to the rights thing, if some builder got injured on my roof and was unable to move, would I have the right to kick him off to his death because it's my property and I can eject him at any time? That's what you seem to be saying.

[EvilDarkMagicians]

The being is equivilent to a tapeworm until birth occurs. There is no contradiction here; abortion is self-defence.

And how is it not self defence once it is out of the womb, given that it is still a dependant creature?

It is dependant, but not neccessarily upon the mother. Within the womb, a fetus is a parasite.

Right, but when it's born who is the obvious choice for it to be dependant upon?

Raptor Jesus? It's irrelevant. The child, post-birth, may become dependant upon someone other than the mother. It is no longer a mandatory leech on the mother's body. Abortion is equivilent to shitting out a tapeworm. Killing a child that has already been born is not.

This is not a difficult concept to grasp.

But at twenty-four weeks that baby, when aborted could still be alive.

[Tysagan]

The doctor aborts it before it is born, she killed it after it was born(hypothetically). Once a baby takes a breath on it's own then killing it is murder.

Why does making a baby come out of a vagina/belly give it a right to life?

The baby takes a breath on it's own. It's life is now in it's own hands(so to speak, it still needs help to survive), but it isn't dependent on a host body for everything, it is using it's own systems for it's own nutrients. Inside the womb, it fits the definition of a parasite(although I, myself, don't see it as a parasite).

[Bottle]

Ok, so the maximum date for abortion is twenty-four weeks into the pregnancy for women in England.
At the time of twenty-four weeks a baby can be given birth too and survive.
The thing I don't understand is - (Hypothetical situation): This takes place in England.

A woman has a baby at twenty-four weeks, she had this baby at home. She is in a tight financial situation
and doesn't want this baby, when she has finally given birth to this baby. She kills it. The police find out
and then later prosecute her for murder. Why if she went to a doctors the day before instead and terminated it,
would it not be considered murder?

This is not a discussion of whether abortion is murder, or whether it is right or wrong.
So please don't hi-jack it....

Is there any country in the world right now that allows elective abortions at 24 weeks?


But I'm sure that's not what you're fishing for. What you want to hear is that I don't believe it would be murder for a person to decline to donate their body to another being/person, no matter what. I believe female human beings retain the right to stop being pregnant at any time and for any reason, because I don't believe ANY person (born or unborn) has any entitlement to the use of somebody else's body. It's not theft for me to decline to give you my property, and it's not murder for me to decline to let you use my body to prolong your own life.

So you think females should have the right to have abortion at any time...?

Of course. I don't believe that pregnancy should strip away a person's human rights.

If the fetus is viable, I'd be okay with recommending abortion procedures that would allow the fetus to survive (induced labor or Caesarian section perhaps?), provided that the woman will not suffer any significant increase in health risks compared to more standard abortion methods. However, at the end of the day I don't believe any person has the right to use another person's body without consent. I don't believe any born person has that right, so why would I give super-human rights to "unborn" people?

[EvilDarkMagicians]

The doctor aborts it before it is born, she killed it after it was born(hypothetically). Once a baby takes a breath on it's own then killing it is murder.

Why does making a baby come out of a vagina/belly give it a right to life?

The baby takes a breath on it's own. It's life is now in it's own hands(so to speak, it still needs help to survive), but it isn't dependent on a host body for everything, it is using it's own systems for it's own nutrients. Inside the womb, it fits the definition of a parasite(although I, myself, don't see it as a parasite).

Yes, but sometimes a baby is not dependant on their mothers organs etc.... any more.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

The doctor aborts it before it is born, she killed it after it was born(hypothetically). Once a baby takes a breath on it's own then killing it is murder.

Why does making a baby come out of a vagina/belly give it a right to life?

It's kinda like a hazing. Before you're allowed into life, you have to wear a vagina stretched over your head like a funny hat.

[The Beautiful Darkness]

The being is equivilent to a tapeworm until birth occurs. There is no contradiction here; abortion is self-defence.

And how is it not self defence once it is out of the womb, given that it is still a dependant creature?

It is dependant, but not neccessarily upon the mother. Within the womb, a fetus is a parasite.

Right, but when it's born who is the obvious choice for it to be dependant upon?

Raptor Jesus? It's irrelevant. The child, post-birth, may become dependant upon someone other than the mother. It is no longer a mandatory leech on the mother's body. Abortion is equivilent to shitting out a tapeworm. Killing a child that has already been born is not.

This is not a difficult concept to grasp.

It's not entirely irrelevant. The general expectation is that the mother will raise the child.
Disregarding this, do you think killing a newborn is wrong? Given that the foetus could be aborted at a time in which it is viable outside of the womb?

[JuNii]

Ok, so the maximum date for abortion is twenty-four weeks into the pregnancy for women in England.
At the time of twenty-four weeks a baby can be given birth too and survive.
The thing I don't understand is - (Hypothetical situation): This takes place in England.

A woman has a baby at twenty-four weeks, she had this baby at home. She is in a tight financial situation
and doesn't want this baby, when she has finally given birth to this baby. She kills it. The police find out
and then later prosecute her for murder. Why if she went to a doctors the day before instead and terminated it,
would it not be considered murder?

This is not a discussion of whether abortion is murder, or whether it is right or wrong.
So please don't hi-jack it....

the point of the abortion is to terminate the baby before it gets to the stage where it can survive on it's own. she had the baby, and apparently it survived. instead of putting it up for adoption, she opted to kill a child that was surviving (or showing signs of survival) outside her body.

also, don't most abortions kill the fetus before it's "born"?

[Tysagan]

The doctor aborts it before it is born, she killed it after it was born(hypothetically). Once a baby takes a breath on it's own then killing it is murder.

Why does making a baby come out of a vagina/belly give it a right to life?

It's kinda like a hazing. Before you're allowed into life, you have to wear a vagina stretched over your head like a funny hat.

And have your head turn into a cone....