Roe v Wade

[iris lilies]

I'm happy to stipulate that human life begins at conception. And I believe both the mother and the child deserve consideration of their interests.

However, when examining their competing interests and rights, I believe that the mother's should prevail in many circumstances. That analysis is not based on when precisely "human life begins".

I like the way this is stated!

[JaneV2.0]

Do you think there's a difference between, lets say a 35 week old fetus and a one day old baby other than their residence?

I guess that's a rhetorical question. Third trimester abortions are rare and subject to medical review. A viable fetus is just that, and should be considered so. I don't know what point you're trying to make.

[Alan]

Their "residence"? Sorry, Alan, but - in my opinion - your statement has removed any sign of being a human being on the part of the woman and turns her into an inanimate object!

And, again, in my opinion, the best person to answer that is the particular woman you may be referring to - as I believe every woman would have their own answer depending on their life situation at the time you are asking, what they are doing with their life, who they believe themselves to be at that point in time, etc. *I* personally have no business answering for any other woman.

I truly don't believe there are simple yes/no answers to any of these questions by any one person - especially someone who will NEVER personally be faced (at least in this time of human evolution) with the decisions involved.

By 'residence' I simply meant in utero or outside the uterus, not every word, deed or action is an assault on the humanity of women or a slight to any party hearing it.

That said, I'd like to thank you for responding to my question even if you have no interest in answering it. Please allow me to ask it in another way.

If you believe that each mother may decide whether a 35 week old fetus in utero may live or die without consequence, do you also believe that the mother may decide whether a one day old baby may live or die without consequence? If not, why?

Again, I'm not talking about a microscopic clump of cells or zygote, but a baby capable of living outside the womb. I ask this specific question because it would appear that 49 of our 100 Senators have gone on record saying that a fetus at 35 weeks, or 36 or 37 or 38 or 39 or even 40 weeks may be killed at the mother's whim as long as she may convince a medical professional (perhaps not even a doctor) that she may suffer depression or some other ailment if the child is not destroyed. I'm actually very much interested in knowing how that 35 week old fetus differs from a one day old child.

[JaneV2.0]

I don't particularly consider human life anything special. But should we all go around killing each other? Well society works best when we are not going about murdering each other, when we take care of each other to a degree even, some exceptions may apply, but an unborn baby isn't even part of any society, they haven't even known life. But they can feel pain, well all animals with a nervous system do.

I agree with this, especially the first sentence. I don't belong to the Church of the Holy Fetus.

I would argue that the 88-93% of zygotes/fetuses aborted in the first trimester, having no real nervous system, feel no pain. If it's proven that they do somehow, sedation should be part of the termination.

[happystuff]

That said, I'd like to thank you for responding to my question even if you have no interest in answering it. Please allow me to ask it in another way.

If you believe that each mother may decide whether a 35 week old fetus in utero may live or die without consequence, do you also believe that the mother may decide whether a one day old baby may live or die without consequence? If not, why?

I actually liked and agree with Jane's response regarding the in utero. As for the one day old baby which HAS been born and is outside the uterus, again, there are laws. Just as there are laws within our society when it is okay to kill someone (protection of self and/or property, death penalty, etc) and when it is not okay to shoot someone (because I wanted to (generic *I*). For any person to decide and take it upon themselves to decide who or what lives or dies, they take on the responsibility and deal with the consequences.

So there is my answer.

[JaneV2.0]

enough food is produced on earth to feed everyone, just saying. We care about it when it is men very abstractly debating something that for women is not abstract (ok many women may have never personally had to consider abortion, but it's still not abstract).

I just read an alarmist article predicting Horrible Things will happen if we allow the world population to continue to decline. Amy Coney Barrett is doing her part--what's wrong with you slackers! Maybe that's the invisible motive behind all this coercive pronatalism.

[iris lilies]

I guess that's a rhetorical question. Third trimester abortions are rare and subject to medical review. A viable fetus is just that, and should be considered so. I don't know what point you're trying to make.

While I think there’s not many physicians who will perform a third trimester abortion, I don’t know that they are any more “subject to medical review” than any other abortion.

I watched a documentary on late term abortions a couple of years ago and it was reasonably evenhanded, and it showed that yes many late term abortions are due to identified health problems of the fetus, but some are not. At least one case the physician who performs late terms abortion told the woman from Europe “nope, I won’t do that.”

[ApatheticNoMore]

I just read an alarmist article predicting Horrible Things will happen if we allow the world population to continue to decline.

I think it's more about supply of cheap labor.

But current much less higher global population makes a lot of existing environmental problems harder to deal with (even more so as more of the planet become uninhabitable due to climate change etc.). It's about use of raw materials and pollution from use of raw materials, both are higher with a higher population. So there's plenty to be said about it not declining also being a problem.

But as for decline it can present some difficulties, but these seem manageable, maybe we should be learning more from Japan. Because they seem able to manage aging of a population, population decline, degrowth, without collapsing.

[LDAHL]

I'm happy to stipulate that human life begins at conception. And I believe both the mother and the child deserve consideration of their interests.

However, when examining their competing interests and rights, I believe that the mother's should prevail in many circumstances. That analysis is not based on when precisely "human life begins".

I think that can be a morally defensible position, but if we were to adopt such a system we would need some sort of guardian ad litem to advocate on behalf of the unborn.

[Teacher Terry]

In the third trimester I think abortions should only be performed to save the life of the mother or if a baby has a illness or disability incompatible with life. Babies have been born only to suffer immensely and then die. In the first 12 weeks it really is a clump of cells and if someone wants a abortion that’s the time to do it. After that time I think it’s more of a medical decision. In life and death situations mothers should have preference over babies. Let’s face the facts that you can’t make everyone satisfied with the law on abortion no matter what. I don’t believe that many late term abortions are because people just change their minds.