Social Doctor drops disturbing information to congress in regards to second trimester abortion

Rape pregnancies is at least a good debatable topic but it doesn't justify the vast vast majority that are done for convenience. I would be much happier if those were illegal and then rape pregnancies were discussed.
Well, I can respect that because you are at least consistent. If you aren't for the coma dude leeching off you for life you can't be for a rape pregnancy ban.

There's certainly some nuance here for the vast majority of people, because most people wouldn't be in favor of murder charges being brought up against a woman that takes Plan B to prevent a fertilized zygote, a potential human, from implanting. Other people are fine with preventing that fetus from being born when it is still a lump of cells on up to when it is viable and can live on its own or can actually suffer. At each milestone there is an argument for a fetus to get more rights vs the mother or just outright immutable rights. But I doubt you want a fertilized egg to have the same rights as an adult human.

That was my point early on in the thread, the reason for legality of abortion at some stage should be well defined and based on some ethical framework or conception of rights. If they found a way to make an abortion in the late second trimester less yucky than the doctor in the video described it, that shouldn't change whether or not it should be legal.

As for the recent abortion bills, I think the general idea is fine, that if a birth would likely kill a woman or the baby won't live or will just be in agony in its short life anyway, sounds good to me. A baby born in a vegetative state shouldn't be on life support indefinitely, and a woman shouldn't have to likely die for a fetus that does not yet have a wired brain that would allow suffering etc.

However I think the bills written to include 'mental health' as grounds for abortions up to the day before birth are not a good idea nor moral and really just asking for backlash.
 
Well, I can respect that because you are at least consistent. If you aren't for the coma dude leeching off you for life you can't be for a rape pregnancy ban.

I would still argue that the two aren't really the same thing but I do have far more sympathy for a rape victim and I have more understanding for the pro choice side on that issue.

There's certainly some nuance here for the vast majority of people, because most people wouldn't be in favor of murder charges being brought up against a woman that takes Plan B to prevent a fertilized zygote, a potential human, from implanting. Other people are fine with preventing that fetus from being born when it is still a lump of cells on up to when it is viable and can live on its own or can actually suffer. At each milestone there is an argument for a fetus to get more rights vs the mother or just outright immutable rights. But I doubt you want a fertilized egg to have the same rights as an adult human.

I don't think murder charges is practical, I just don't want doctors or whoever being able to legally carry out the abortions. "Lump of cells" is a misnomer just used as the faulty argument that it's not really a human being. The unborn definitely need human rights.

That was my point early on in the thread, the reason for legality of abortion at some stage should be well defined and based on some ethical framework or conception of rights. If they found a way to make an abortion in the late second trimester less yucky than the doctor in the video described it, that shouldn't change whether or not it should be legal. As for the recent abortion bills, I think the general idea is fine, that if a birth would likely kill a woman or the baby won't live or will just be in agony in its short life anyway, sounds good to me. A baby born in a vegetative state shouldn't be on life support indefinitely, and a woman shouldn't have to likely die for a fetus that does not yet have a wired brain that would allow suffering etc.

However I think the bills written to include 'mental health' as grounds for abortions up to the day before birth are not a good idea nor moral and really just asking for backlash.

Basically in agreement here :)
 
I don't think murder charges is practical, I just don't want doctors or whoever being able to legally carry out the abortions. "Lump of cells" is a misnomer just used as the faulty argument that it's not really a human being. The unborn definitely need human rights.
The point being there is still a continuum. Clearly its nonsensical that a single cell zygote gets all of the rights of a grown sentient human, me saying 'lump of cells' is just differentiating that fetus from one that is viable or close to it.

The nuance is used on both sides, the pro-lifers in the thread speak of 'developing organs' and brains as if they have weight in the debate in any way.

At a stage between not yet implanted zygote that can be flushed out with Plan B, and an 8 month fetus that would survive today if C-sectioned, an abortion of an early first trimester ball of cells that doesn't have differentiated tissues is closer to the zygote than the viable fetus.

No argument can be made that it can suffer, it is just a potential human at that point. So if it has full human rights, when did they kick in? the second the zygote implanted? after X number of cell divisions? If you take issue to me calling the lump of cells stage 'potential human' and not human being, why doesn't the just-fertilized egg get the same category? And why doesn't the unimplanted zygote have those same full human rights?
 
because forcing women to give birth to infants with extreme birth defects, underage birth, no abortions for pregnant by rape, etc is what's fucking inhumane.

I agree with this part. But I don't think this is where the majority of abortions come from.
 
The point being there is still a continuum. Clearly its nonsensical that a single cell zygote gets all of the rights of a grown sentient human, me saying 'lump of cells' is just differentiating that fetus from one that is viable or close to it.

The nuance is used on both sides, the pro-lifers in the thread speak of 'developing organs' and brains as if they have weight in the debate in any way.

At a stage between not yet implanted zygote that can be flushed out with Plan B, and an 8 month fetus that would survive today if C-sectioned, an abortion of an early first trimester ball of cells that doesn't have differentiated tissues is closer to the zygote than the viable fetus.

While I acknowledge the differences there my issue is that when you give any ground on this debate the pro choice side pushes it to places it should never go. Which is why we are here discussing second and third trimester abortions due to some vague "mental health threat" to the mother. It makes the most sense to draw the line at conception and treat a developing human at all stages with respect and the right to live. Of course I would be much happier if plan B was the only convenience abortion left on the table.

No argument can be made that it can suffer, it is just a potential human at that point. So if it has full human rights, when did they kick in? the second the zygote implanted? after X number of cell divisions? If you take issue to me calling the lump of cells stage 'potential human' and not human being, why doesn't the just-fertilized egg get the same category? And why doesn't the unimplanted zygote have those same full human rights?

If the development process has started I don't why it wouldn't be acknowledged as an actual human. If it's not a human then what is it? Why is it growing if and developing as a human if it's not human?

I'm not a scientist but I would say once implantation happens so you know the embryo is going to keep developing then it should be left alone.
 
Back
Top