Late Term Abortions (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

One aspect of the reporting of the George Tiller murder that astonished me was that there was no one that spoke out in defense of what he was doing. Most of the commentary I heard was "Well, Tiller was a bad guy, but we don't approve of vigilantism." And nobody challenged the idea that Tiller might not be a bad guy; after all, he performed late term abortions, which are called "partial birth abortions" in the press, even though that phrase has no scientific meaning.

I am a pro-choice person, and my question is directed at other pro-choice people. Those of you who are pro-life are very welcome to join in the discussion, but of course if you are opposed to abortions, it's rather obvious you're going to be opposed to late-term abortions. My question for pro-choice people: are you OK with late term abortions? If not, why not?

I believe it is inconsistent to be OK with abortions in general and not OK with late-term abortions. Either a woman has the right to do as she wills with her own body, or she does not. The image presented to us of the lazy woman deciding in her 8th month of pregnancy to kill a fully developed baby is completely removed from reality. In almost every case of late term abortions, there are strong and agonizing reasons for a woman's decision. In many cases, the baby has been discovered to be hydrocephaletic (water in the brain) which means an enlarged head, over a 90% liklihood of death, and a forced classical C-section delivery which could threaten the chances of future childbirth. Other diseases, fatal or debilitating, can be a reason for late term abortions, and often these are not discovered until a sonnogram performed after 20 weeks. There are also young girls who are unaware that they are pregnant, or those too terrified to admit that they were made pregnant as the result of rape, incest, or both. Late term abortions are extremely rare, but when they occur, there is usually good reason (IMO).

Pro-life people are very consistent about this issue. It is pro-choice people who tend to be cowardly and inconsistent, IMO. For instance, Barack Obama is often criticized for vetoing a bill that would make this sort of abortion illegal. His defense was that the bill did not protect the life of the mother. The implication is that if the bill had protected the life of the mother, he would have voted for it. Why? If you are pro-choice, how can you pick and choose when a fetus is viable and when it isn't? It seems to me that if, as a point of law, you grant the fetus any viabilty or rights prior to the actual act of childbirth, you are negating ALL rights to an abortion. If you disagree with this, please explain.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

One aspect of the reporting of the George Tiller murder that astonished me was that there was no one that spoke out in defense of what he was doing.

Way to fail right off the bat.

 

[SKribbles]

One aspect of the reporting of the George Tiller murder that astonished me was that there was no one that spoke out in defense of what he was doing.

Way to fail right off the bat.

timschochet failed? NEVER!!!!!!!

 

[Zow]

+/- 10.3 pages

 

[Running with scissors]

If you are pro-choice, how can you pick and choose when a fetus is viable and when it isn't?

Huh?

 

[Zow]

Pro-life people are very consistent about this issue. It is pro-choice people who tend to be cowardly and inconsistent, IMO. For instance, Barack Obama is often criticized for vetoing a bill that would make this sort of abortion illegal. His defense was that the bill did not protect the life of the mother. The implication is that if the bill had protected the life of the mother, he would have voted for it. Why? If you are pro-choice, how can you pick and choose when a fetus is viable and when it isn't? It seems to me that if, as a point of law, you grant the fetus any viabilty or rights prior to the actual act of childbirth, you are negating ALL rights to an abortion. If you disagree with this, please explain.

You need to read Roe and Casey v. Planned Parenthood. Our Supreme Court picks when a fetus is viable.

 

[timschochet]

One aspect of the reporting of the George Tiller murder that astonished me was that there was no one that spoke out in defense of what he was doing.

Way to fail right off the bat.

I'm talking about an explicit defense of late-term abortions. I didn't hear it. Perhaps you did. If it was out there, I'm glad of it.

 

[vandyt]

I believe it is inconsistent to be OK with abortions in general and not OK with late-term abortions. Either a woman has the right to do as she wills with her own body, or she does not.

Do you believe that late-term abortion is the only area where the government infringes on this "right"?

 

[timschochet]

Pro-life people are very consistent about this issue. It is pro-choice people who tend to be cowardly and inconsistent, IMO. For instance, Barack Obama is often criticized for vetoing a bill that would make this sort of abortion illegal. His defense was that the bill did not protect the life of the mother. The implication is that if the bill had protected the life of the mother, he would have voted for it. Why? If you are pro-choice, how can you pick and choose when a fetus is viable and when it isn't? It seems to me that if, as a point of law, you grant the fetus any viabilty or rights prior to the actual act of childbirth, you are negating ALL rights to an abortion. If you disagree with this, please explain.

You need to read Roe and Casey v. Planned Parenthood. Our Supreme Court picks when a fetus is viable.

I understand this, but I don't agree with it.

 

[Red Eyed and Blue]

why the hell does it take so long for him to say anything? my god, that's annoying.

 

[fsword]

It seems to me that if, as a point of law, you grant the fetus any viabilty or rights prior to the actual act of childbirth, you are negating ALL rights to an abortion. If you disagree with this, please explain.

How does one "grant the fetus viability"?

 

[timschochet]

I believe it is inconsistent to be OK with abortions in general and not OK with late-term abortions. Either a woman has the right to do as she wills with her own body, or she does not.

Do you believe that late-term abortion is the only area where the government infringes on this "right"?

No, of course not.

 

[TommyGilmore]

One aspect of the reporting of the George Tiller murder that astonished me was that there was no one that spoke out in defense of what he was doing.

Did it take you 3 months to come up with this thread idea?

 

[vandyt]

Timschochet,

If you're interested in the subject, this is a fantastic article addressing it...

Why LeRoy Carhart Won't Stop Doing Late-Term Abortions

 

[Zow]

Pro-life people are very consistent about this issue. It is pro-choice people who tend to be cowardly and inconsistent, IMO. For instance, Barack Obama is often criticized for vetoing a bill that would make this sort of abortion illegal. His defense was that the bill did not protect the life of the mother. The implication is that if the bill had protected the life of the mother, he would have voted for it. Why? If you are pro-choice, how can you pick and choose when a fetus is viable and when it isn't? It seems to me that if, as a point of law, you grant the fetus any viabilty or rights prior to the actual act of childbirth, you are negating ALL rights to an abortion. If you disagree with this, please explain.

You need to read Roe and Casey v. Planned Parenthood. Our Supreme Court picks when a fetus is viable.

I understand this, but I don't agree with it.

okay. but you asked how one can pick and choose. i'm providing an example. and the reasoning they use can at least be followed.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

One aspect of the reporting of the George Tiller murder that astonished me was that there was no one that spoke out in defense of what he was doing.

Way to fail right off the bat.

I'm talking about an explicit defense of late-term abortions. I didn't hear it. Perhaps you did. If it was out there, I'm glad of it.

You could have used the search feature to find the previous threads about Tiller. I didn't participate much (at all?) in them, but I remember people re-posting explicit defenses of late term abortions in those threads.

 

[timschochet]

why the hell does it take so long for him to say anything? my god, that's annoying.

Next time scan it.1. Late term abortions are OK by me.2. Do other pro-choice people feel the same?3. If not, why not?Hows that?

 

[the moops]

I consider myself one of those folks who are personally pro-life, but believe in a woman's right to choose. Where that right ends, I have no idea. And honestly, it is something that I don't give much thought to.

 

[RudiStein]

Can we merge this with the LoL Cats thread so that it can make people smile too?

 

[timschochet]

One aspect of the reporting of the George Tiller murder that astonished me was that there was no one that spoke out in defense of what he was doing.

Way to fail right off the bat.

I'm talking about an explicit defense of late-term abortions. I didn't hear it. Perhaps you did. If it was out there, I'm glad of it.

You could have used the search feature to find the previous threads about Tiller. I didn't participate much (at all?) in them, but I remember people re-posting explicit defenses of late term abortions in those threads.

I was talking about the news, not here. I expect to find defenses og just about EVERYTHING in here.

 

[Zasada]

I'm pro-choice but against late-term abortion in it's most abusive sense (ref your "lazy pregnant mom-to-be" example above). I generally draw the line at the point the fetus is viable outside the womb.

Obviously there are grey areas here and special circumstances and I'm not smart enough to know how to resolve them. This is just where I have chosen to draw the line. I'm clear that an abortion one day after conception is perfectly acceptable (afer all, god does this all the time without the mother even knowing), while an abortion one day before a full-term labour is not. Finding the delineation point is the tricky part so I have found that viability outside of the womb is where I tend to shift opinion from acceptable to wrong.

There is no cut and dried answer here, unfortunately.

 

[timschochet]

It seems to me that if, as a point of law, you grant the fetus any viabilty or rights prior to the actual act of childbirth, you are negating ALL rights to an abortion. If you disagree with this, please explain.

How does one "grant the fetus viability"?

You are a pro-life person, so from your POV, I assume, a fetus is entitled to rights under the law, which cannot be granted or removed by the state. Since I don't hold that view, I am referring to legal rights which a fetus currently does not have under the law.

 

[Orange Crush]

Following Tiller's death, Andrew Sullivan ran a whole series of posts where readers wrote in their experiences with late-term abortions. Sullivan began as being very pro-life (based on his Catholicism). He ended very much unsure of his position. Here's a sample post. I strongly urge everyone to read the posts around that time period. They are devastatingly personal and show the huge moral struggles that people go through to determine whether or not to have a late-term abortion. Not a one was based on a whim. All late-term abortions are based on enormous health risks to the fetus and/or mother.

Here's a link to the search results for the entire series.

And "partial-birth abortions" is not synonymous with late-term abortions. PBA referred to a specific procedure, which has now been banned by Congress. At least get your terminology correct before you launch yourself into the debate.

 

[Zow]

It seems to me that if, as a point of law, you grant the fetus any viabilty or rights prior to the actual act of childbirth, you are negating ALL rights to an abortion. If you disagree with this, please explain.

How does one "grant the fetus viability"?

You are a pro-life person, so from your POV, I assume, a fetus is entitled to rights under the law, which cannot be granted or removed by the state. Since I don't hold that view, I am referring to legal rights which a fetus currently does not have under the law.

XLike I said, you need to re-read Roe and Casey. Unless you are nitpicking the definition of "fetus" here.

 

[timschochet]

I'm pro-choice but against late-term abortion in it's most abusive sense (ref your "lazy pregnant mom-to-be" example above). I generally draw the line at the point the fetus is viable outside the womb.Obviously there are grey areas here and special circumstances and I'm not smart enough to know how to resolve them. This is just where I have chosen to draw the line. I'm clear that an abortion one day after conception is perfectly acceptable (afer all, god does this all the time without the mother even knowing), while an abortion one day before a full-term labour is not. Finding the delineation point is the tricky part so I have found that viability outside of the womb is where I tend to shift opinion from acceptable to wrong.There is no cut and dried answer here, unfortunately.

I respect your view, but its the one that I'm arguing is inconsistent. A woman's right to an abortion should not, IMO, be based upon whether a fetus is a viable human being with rights. It is based upon a woman's right to do as she wishes with her own body. I don't see how we can pick and choose between two months pregnant on the one hand and 8 months pregnant on the other.

 

[timschochet]

Following Tiller's death, Andrew Sullivan ran a whole series of posts where readers wrote in their experiences with late-term abortions. Sullivan began as being very pro-life (based on his Catholicism). He ended very much unsure of his position. Here's a sample post. I strongly urge everyone to read the posts around that time period. They are devastatingly personal and show the huge moral struggles that people go through to determine whether or not to have a late-term abortion. Not a one was based on a whim. All late-term abortions are based on enormous health risks to the fetus and/or mother.

And "partial-birth abortions" is not synonymous with late-term abortions. PBA referred to a specific procedure, which has now been banned by Congress. At least get your terminology correct before you launch yourself into the debate.

Thank you. I only used the term because opponents try to make the two synonymous. Actually, "partial birth abortions" simply do not exist anyhow. There is no such thing as a "partial birth".

 

[fsword]

It seems to me that if, as a point of law, you grant the fetus any viabilty or rights prior to the actual act of childbirth, you are negating ALL rights to an abortion. If you disagree with this, please explain.

How does one "grant the fetus viability"?

You are a pro-life person, so from your POV, I assume, a fetus is entitled to rights under the law, which cannot be granted or removed by the state. Since I don't hold that view, I am referring to legal rights which a fetus currently does not have under the law.

So "viability" equal "rights"? If so, I suggest you stop making further assumptions about what people might think.I am Pro Life. I am also old school, in that I believe what the FF's wrote in the Declaration of Independence. Our rights come from nature and nature's Creator; not from man, and not from a piece of paper. Paper only defines the rights granted by Nature's Creator. Man cannot grant such rights, only protect them. Abortion marginalizes the rights of one, at the expense of another, and, abortion elevates the status of man above that of the Natire's Creator. Man can legitimately take away man-made/man-granted rights. Man cannot legitimately take away rights of others.

 

[timschochet]

So "viability" equal "rights"? If so, I suggest you stop making further assumptions about what people might think.I am Pro Life. I am also old school, in that I believe what the FF's wrote in the Declaration of Independence. Our rights come from nature and nature's Creator; not from man, and not from a piece of paper. Paper only defines the rights granted by Nature's Creator. Man cannot grant such rights, only protect them. Abortion marginalizes the rights of one, at the expense of another, and, abortion elevates the status of man above that of the Natire's Creator. Man can legitimately take away man-made/man-granted rights. Man cannot legitimately take away rights of others.

Everyone makes assumptions about what others might think, but that's what they are. If they are wrong, then I am glad to be corrected. So you are suggesting that man cannot grant rights that "elevates the status of man above that of Nature's creator"? Are you a radical environmentalist and vegan, then? Should we only be eating fruits and vegetables that drop from trees?

 

[Christo]

Pro-life people are very consistent about this issue. It is pro-choice people who tend to be cowardly and inconsistent, IMO. For instance, Barack Obama is often criticized for vetoing a bill that would make this sort of abortion illegal. His defense was that the bill did not protect the life of the mother. The implication is that if the bill had protected the life of the mother, he would have voted for it. Why? If you are pro-choice, how can you pick and choose when a fetus is viable and when it isn't? It seems to me that if, as a point of law, you grant the fetus any viabilty or rights prior to the actual act of childbirth, you are negating ALL rights to an abortion. If you disagree with this, please explain.

You need to read Roe and Casey v. Planned Parenthood. Our Supreme Court picks when a fetus is viable.

Technically, the Supreme Court defined viability. Medical science decides when viability actually occurs.

 

[Jewell]

I believe it is inconsistent to be OK with abortions in general and not OK with late-term abortions. Either a woman has the right to do as she wills with her own body, or she does not.

I don' think that it's inconsistent, Tim. I think it boils down to when one believes that the fetus is akin to a human life. Pro-life people belive this happens at the moment of conception. People on the other end of the spectrum believe it is at the time of birth. And the Supreme Court attempted to balance those competing interests be creating the viability standard that you reference. One can be OK with abortions in general where they feel a life (pre-viable fetus) is not being taken, but opposed to a late term abortion where they feel that a life (post-viable abortion) is being taken.This, of course, opens up another whole can of worms as to how to assess viability? Do you simply accept that a fetus becomes viable in the third trimester? Or do you do take a case by case basis where viability could vary greatly?

 

[fsword]

So "viability" equal "rights"? If so, I suggest you stop making further assumptions about what people might think.I am Pro Life. I am also old school, in that I believe what the FF's wrote in the Declaration of Independence. Our rights come from nature and nature's Creator; not from man, and not from a piece of paper. Paper only defines the rights granted by Nature's Creator. Man cannot grant such rights, only protect them. Abortion marginalizes the rights of one, at the expense of another, and, abortion elevates the status of man above that of the Natire's Creator. Man can legitimately take away man-made/man-granted rights. Man cannot legitimately take away rights of others.

Everyone makes assumptions about what others might think, but that's what they are. If they are wrong, then I am glad to be corrected. So you are suggesting that man cannot grant rights that "elevates the status of man above that of Nature's creator"? Are you a radical environmentalist and vegan, then? Should we only be eating fruits and vegetables that drop from trees?

Why mock the FF's and the rights of man in what you likely intend to be a serious question?

 

[Zasada]

I'm pro-choice but against late-term abortion in it's most abusive sense (ref your "lazy pregnant mom-to-be" example above). I generally draw the line at the point the fetus is viable outside the womb.Obviously there are grey areas here and special circumstances and I'm not smart enough to know how to resolve them. This is just where I have chosen to draw the line. I'm clear that an abortion one day after conception is perfectly acceptable (afer all, god does this all the time without the mother even knowing), while an abortion one day before a full-term labour is not. Finding the delineation point is the tricky part so I have found that viability outside of the womb is where I tend to shift opinion from acceptable to wrong.There is no cut and dried answer here, unfortunately.

I respect your view, but its the one that I'm arguing is inconsistent. A woman's right to an abortion should not, IMO, be based upon whether a fetus is a viable human being with rights. It is based upon a woman's right to do as she wishes with her own body. I don't see how we can pick and choose between two months pregnant on the one hand and 8 months pregnant on the other.

A child, born or unborn, will infringe on the mother's rights. If the mother chooses to leave the baby in an alley because raising it infringes on her rights, then she's guilty of murder.My point is that when a fetus is viable on it's own it is possible to have it given up for adoption. Asking the mother to carry a viable fetus for a month or two more so that it can be adopted is not unreasonable in my opinion (remember you're asking my opinion, not what's legal). You just can't take the black or white route on this issue. It is reasonable to expect that a mother made a concious decision to carry the baby to term at some point in the first two trimesters. She thus takes on a fiduciary responsibility to follow through on that decision, and thus cannot change her mind when it suits her because a reasonable person is not going to have an abortion at nine months less a day.Again, this is my opinion here, I have no idea what the law says or if anything I am arguing is congruent with our laws or legal system.

 

[Christo]

It seems to me that if, as a point of law, you grant the fetus any viabilty or rights prior to the actual act of childbirth, you are negating ALL rights to an abortion. If you disagree with this, please explain.

How does one "grant the fetus viability"?

You are a pro-life person, so from your POV, I assume, a fetus is entitled to rights under the law, which cannot be granted or removed by the state. Since I don't hold that view, I am referring to legal rights which a fetus currently does not have under the law.

You should really try to understand the terms before making your argument. Viability is defined as the point in time when the baby can potentially live outside the mother's womb. In and of itself, it has nothing to do with the baby's legal rights. No one "grants" the baby viability. In Roe, however, the SCOTUS chose to use "viability" as the almost bright line for granting the baby legal rights. It's not quite as bright as it could be because the SCOTUS included an exception for protecting the mother's health.

 

[Red Eyed and Blue]

why the hell does it take so long for him to say anything? my god, that's annoying.

Next time scan it.

I'm sure you'll give us several opportunities, Threadstarter.

1. Late term abortions are OK by me.

Well, if it's one topic that never gets enough attention on the FFA, it's abortion. Certainly understand you starting a new thread on this little touched topic to get your views out there.

2. Do other pro-choice people feel the same?

Like I said, it's VERY HARD to find out what people think about all abortions on this website. Good thing we have you.

Hows that?

I like it, Tolstoy. Less is more.

 

[timschochet]

So "viability" equal "rights"? If so, I suggest you stop making further assumptions about what people might think.I am Pro Life. I am also old school, in that I believe what the FF's wrote in the Declaration of Independence. Our rights come from nature and nature's Creator; not from man, and not from a piece of paper. Paper only defines the rights granted by Nature's Creator. Man cannot grant such rights, only protect them. Abortion marginalizes the rights of one, at the expense of another, and, abortion elevates the status of man above that of the Natire's Creator. Man can legitimately take away man-made/man-granted rights. Man cannot legitimately take away rights of others.

Everyone makes assumptions about what others might think, but that's what they are. If they are wrong, then I am glad to be corrected. So you are suggesting that man cannot grant rights that "elevates the status of man above that of Nature's creator"? Are you a radical environmentalist and vegan, then? Should we only be eating fruits and vegetables that drop from trees?

Why mock the FF's and the rights of man in what you likely intend to be a serious question?

I'm not mocking anything. It is a serious question. The Founding Fathers did not decide that abortion conflicts with the rights of man; you have, based upon your interpretation of those rights. And my point is that your intepretation is so broad that you would have to abstain from killing any animals for your sustenance if you wanted to be consistent.

 

[Christo]

I'm pro-choice but against late-term abortion in it's most abusive sense (ref your "lazy pregnant mom-to-be" example above). I generally draw the line at the point the fetus is viable outside the womb.Obviously there are grey areas here and special circumstances and I'm not smart enough to know how to resolve them. This is just where I have chosen to draw the line. I'm clear that an abortion one day after conception is perfectly acceptable (afer all, god does this all the time without the mother even knowing), while an abortion one day before a full-term labour is not. Finding the delineation point is the tricky part so I have found that viability outside of the womb is where I tend to shift opinion from acceptable to wrong.There is no cut and dried answer here, unfortunately.

I respect your view, but its the one that I'm arguing is inconsistent. A woman's right to an abortion should not, IMO, be based upon whether a fetus is a viable human being with rights. It is based upon a woman's right to do as she wishes with her own body. I don't see how we can pick and choose between two months pregnant on the one hand and 8 months pregnant on the other.

Seriously? You can't see that once a woman become pregnant it is not just about her own body and that there are competing rights at issue?

 

[Zasada]

I guess the analogy is this: You can't force someone to be an airline pilot. But a pilot can't board a plane, take off, and then decide he doesn't want to be a pilot any more, walk back into the cabin, and let the plane crash. Sure, if you force the pilot to fly the plane you're violating his rights, but the pilot exercised his right to choose upon boarding and has a responsiblity to follow through with that after taking off.

To me, the woman chooses to continue the pregnancy during the first and second trimester. At the end of the second trimester she has boarded the plane and thus must follow-through and land it.

Maybe a bad analogy, but it's all I've got.

ETA: I'm sure pro-lifers would say that the woman "boards the plane" here when she has sex. I say it's when the fetus is viable. Again, it's just a matter of where you draw the line.

 

[RudiStein]

I guess the analogy is this: You can't force someone to be an airline pilot. But a pilot can't board a plane, take off, and then decide he doesn't want to be a pilot any more, walk back into the cabin, and let the plane crash. Sure, if you force the pilot to fly the plane you're violating his rights, but the pilot exercised his right to choose upon boarding and has a responsiblity to follow through with that after taking off.To me, the woman chooses to continue the pregnancy during the first and second trimester. At the end of the second trimester she has boarded the plane and thus must follow-through and land it. Maybe a bad analogy, but it's all I've got.

Maybe?

 

[timschochet]

It seems to me that if, as a point of law, you grant the fetus any viabilty or rights prior to the actual act of childbirth, you are negating ALL rights to an abortion. If you disagree with this, please explain.

How does one "grant the fetus viability"?

You are a pro-life person, so from your POV, I assume, a fetus is entitled to rights under the law, which cannot be granted or removed by the state. Since I don't hold that view, I am referring to legal rights which a fetus currently does not have under the law.

You should really try to understand the terms before making your argument. Viability is defined as the point in time when the baby can potentially live outside the mother's womb. In and of itself, it has nothing to do with the baby's legal rights. No one "grants" the baby viability. In Roe, however, the SCOTUS chose to use "viability" as the almost bright line for granting the baby legal rights. It's not quite as bright as it could be because the SCOTUS included an exception for protecting the mother's health.

I get your point, but I really didn't want to get tangled up in the discussion of viability. My whole argument is that it's an irrelevant issue. I know what Roe says, but it does not exactly represent MY views on being pro-choice, which has to do with the rights of a mother. If a fetus was able to live on it's own outside the womb, after the first month, it would make absolutely no difference to my conviction about this issue. That's why I don't agree with people who put an emphasis on late-term abortion.

 

[Zasada]

I guess the analogy is this: You can't force someone to be an airline pilot. But a pilot can't board a plane, take off, and then decide he doesn't want to be a pilot any more, walk back into the cabin, and let the plane crash. Sure, if you force the pilot to fly the plane you're violating his rights, but the pilot exercised his right to choose upon boarding and has a responsiblity to follow through with that after taking off.To me, the woman chooses to continue the pregnancy during the first and second trimester. At the end of the second trimester she has boarded the plane and thus must follow-through and land it. Maybe a bad analogy, but it's all I've got.

Maybe?

Touche. This issue is like porn to me. I know it when I see it, but defining it is tough. I know that 9 months less a day is wrong, but conception + 1 is fine. The trouble is in the middle. As with the Supreme Court, viability seems to be one of the few defining factors that can be used in the interim to give status to a fetus.

 

[timschochet]

Seriously? You can't see that once a woman become pregnant it is not just about her own body and that there are competing rights at issue?

No. I don't see it, and never have.

 

[timschochet]

Have to run- this was not expected when I started this thread, but something has suddenly come up. I will answer any comments or arguments made towards me later on, when I get the chance.

 

[Darth Cheney]

I guess the analogy is this: You can't force someone to be an airline pilot. But a pilot can't board a plane, take off, and then decide he doesn't want to be a pilot any more, walk back into the cabin, and let the plane crash. Sure, if you force the pilot to fly the plane you're violating his rights, but the pilot exercised his right to choose upon boarding and has a responsiblity to follow through with that after taking off.To me, the woman chooses to continue the pregnancy during the first and second trimester. At the end of the second trimester she has boarded the plane and thus must follow-through and land it. Maybe a bad analogy, but it's all I've got.

Maybe?

Touche. This issue is like porn to me. I know it when I see it, but defining it is tough. I know that 9 months less a day is wrong, but conception + 1 is fine. The trouble is in the middle. As with the Supreme Court, viability seems to be one of the few defining factors that can be used in the interim to give status to a fetus.

I'm on your side. Since we are debating these guys ....that's not much help. But mark my words, if we ever get into a fistfight with these guys over it.....we'll win.

 

[Clayton Gray]

Life of the party, this guy.

 

[Harry Manback]

I guess the analogy is this: You can't force someone to be an airline pilot. But a pilot can't board a plane, take off, and then decide he doesn't want to be a pilot any more, walk back into the cabin, and let the plane crash. Sure, if you force the pilot to fly the plane you're violating his rights, but the pilot exercised his right to choose upon boarding and has a responsiblity to follow through with that after taking off.To me, the woman chooses to continue the pregnancy during the first and second trimester. At the end of the second trimester she has boarded the plane and thus must follow-through and land it. Maybe a bad analogy, but it's all I've got.ETA: I'm sure pro-lifers would say that the woman "boards the plane" here when she has sex. I say it's when the fetus is viable. Again, it's just a matter of where you draw the line.

What about fatal diseases that do not present themselves until the 3rd trimester?Does the mother deserve to carry the dying baby to term so she can watch it die in the ER?

 

[Juxtatarot]

I, for one, view these doctors as brave and honorable men and women. I had the same view of Dr. Kevorkian.

 

[Orange Crush]

I believe it is inconsistent to be OK with abortions in general and not OK with late-term abortions. Either a woman has the right to do as she wills with her own body, or she does not.

I don' think that it's inconsistent, Tim. I think it boils down to when one believes that the fetus is akin to a human life. Pro-life people belive this happens at the moment of conception. People on the other end of the spectrum believe it is at the time of birth. And the Supreme Court attempted to balance those competing interests be creating the viability standard that you reference. One can be OK with abortions in general where they feel a life (pre-viable fetus) is not being taken, but opposed to a late term abortion where they feel that a life (post-viable abortion) is being taken.This, of course, opens up another whole can of worms as to how to assess viability? Do you simply accept that a fetus becomes viable in the third trimester? Or do you do take a case by case basis where viability could vary greatly?

Several states have determined viability exists at a certain time period, such as 24 weeks (full length of pregnancies is 40 weeks, so this is the 60% mark). The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld such a law with a time frame if it states a "presumption" of viability, meaning a doctor must perform tests to prove that the fetus is not yet viable. What really falls in the gray area for me is just what likelihood of survival do we accept in order to call the fetus "viable"? What about expense of care and estimated length of life? If a fetus can only survive for a month outside of the womb while hooked up to every machine imaginable for feeding, oxygen, and blood circulation, because of incurable conditions, is it "viable"? If it could survive just one day beyond its expected due date in such a state, is it then "viable"?

 

[fsword]

So "viability" equal "rights"? If so, I suggest you stop making further assumptions about what people might think.I am Pro Life. I am also old school, in that I believe what the FF's wrote in the Declaration of Independence. Our rights come from nature and nature's Creator; not from man, and not from a piece of paper. Paper only defines the rights granted by Nature's Creator. Man cannot grant such rights, only protect them. Abortion marginalizes the rights of one, at the expense of another, and, abortion elevates the status of man above that of the Natire's Creator. Man can legitimately take away man-made/man-granted rights. Man cannot legitimately take away rights of others.

Everyone makes assumptions about what others might think, but that's what they are. If they are wrong, then I am glad to be corrected. So you are suggesting that man cannot grant rights that "elevates the status of man above that of Nature's creator"? Are you a radical environmentalist and vegan, then? Should we only be eating fruits and vegetables that drop from trees?

Why mock the FF's and the rights of man in what you likely intend to be a serious question?

I'm not mocking anything. It is a serious question. The Founding Fathers did not decide that abortion conflicts with the rights of man; you have, based upon your interpretation of those rights. And my point is that your intepretation is so broad that you would have to abstain from killing any animals for your sustenance if you wanted to be consistent.

The FF recognized all men had unalienable/inalienable rights, among those the right to life. Just as some of the FF's didn't consider a slave a person endowed with these rights, many prochoicers don't believe a preborn baby/fetus is a life endowed with rights. There is nothing to interpret here, and nothing too broad as your flawed suggest. Subjective definitions often lead to injustice. I believe abortion is one of them; with cultural ramifications reaching far beyond discounting the life of the preborn.

 

[Orange Crush]

I'm pretty disappointed with Tim's OP, mostly because there are so many huge misconceptions regarding "late term" abortions out there and a real debate is needed regarding what constitutes viability, what constitutes health of the mother being at risk, etc.

The idea of a woman waking up one day in her 8th month of pregnancy and just deciding to have an abortion is such a canard. The only women who seek late-term abortions are those where something has gone terribly wrong with their pregnancy, or something was wrong all along but has only just been discovered. These are women who by the 20th, 24th, or 26th week in have known about their pregnancies for months and have passed over the chance for an elective abortion. They have their hopes for a beautiful baby dashed by the harsh reality of a medical test result.

Personally, I'm pro-choice because I believe in freedom of choice. I trust the morality of the American people, in conjunction with the code of ethics of doctors and their hippocratic oath. And I don't think that it is possible to create a statute that itemizes which conditions and health risk combinations coincide with allowable late-term abortions and which with banned late-term abortions.

 

[Zow]

Pro-life people are very consistent about this issue. It is pro-choice people who tend to be cowardly and inconsistent, IMO. For instance, Barack Obama is often criticized for vetoing a bill that would make this sort of abortion illegal. His defense was that the bill did not protect the life of the mother. The implication is that if the bill had protected the life of the mother, he would have voted for it. Why? If you are pro-choice, how can you pick and choose when a fetus is viable and when it isn't? It seems to me that if, as a point of law, you grant the fetus any viabilty or rights prior to the actual act of childbirth, you are negating ALL rights to an abortion. If you disagree with this, please explain.

You need to read Roe and Casey v. Planned Parenthood. Our Supreme Court picks when a fetus is viable.

Technically, the Supreme Court defined viability. Medical science decides when viability actually occurs.

Technically, sure, but i'm just trying to simplify things, Professor.