Going strickly by science and the bible and not morals......

A babys development in the fetus is not even close to a newborn.

Why you might ask? Well because they are not brething actual air, they do not have soul/breath life........they are not alive in the true sense of the word alive.

So its not comparing apples to apples but comparing apples to oranges.

I think that a woman who has waited that long should have the baby morally. She does not have to keep it.

I think that the state should not be the ones to enforce or set this law nor the goverment.

Its very unsafe to abort at that stage for the mother and kinda sicko. The fetus/almost complete baby is quite big.....

If someone waits that long I do think they should just go through with it. I think you would have to be a pretty sicko minded person and irresponsible to get rid of it at that late of stage in development.

Of course there are ALWAYS exceptions........

P.S. Did you see Davids typo error?

ok

I added before you posted science and the bible.......lol

They do and can exist together.

As long as science does not cross the principles of the word of God then science is right.

In a very old thread there was the question as to when the "soul" entered into the fetus and ancient wisdom had the soul entering the fetus at about 3-4 weeks. I believe some of the posters referenced oriental and Judaic understanding. this highlights ancient knowledge in contradistinction to the modern understanding which appears to clashing about only the material fetus'

The ancient Germanic tribes didn't believe the baby was a "true" human being until he was given food and therefore it was appropriate for the clan leader or father to dispatch the baby at their discretion prior to the giving of food. there's a word for this but I've drawn a blank. One can say that human mores have changed in this matter as the leaving a baby to die upon birth is pretty much considered anathema in our modern society.

The word is "infanticide".

I usually try to stay away from the abortion debate because it is exhausting, but let's flesh this out a bit. I've always been of the position that abortion should not be allowed once the fetus becomes viable. If medical science develops to the point where they can push that date back I'm not sure its so cut and dry.

There are some pragmatic concerns as well. Such as: what happens to this baby? Is the mother (who doesn't want it) now responsible for it? Can you give up for adoption a baby that still needs a bit of cooking? Who is responsible for the medical bills if the mother is in a country with non-public medical care?

Hey Pletho, could you show me where God reveals this? I haven't heard of this theory and would like to be educated. I thought "Before you were born I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you" was one way of showing how God revealed that the soul enters before birth.

Sorry to get off topic.

Ancient widom is not necessarily wisdom from God. Gods word give the true wisdom on this subject.

Its when they take there first breath, its biblically called the breath of life.

We all know that the last breath is the end of life.

I find it hard to believe that people who think logically cannot reverse this and logically see that if life ends on the last breath then it would be logical to conclude that life begins on the first breath.......

As you point out - it becomes very hard very quickly. Clearly we can keep fetuses alive which would have died pre-medicine. Is that your cutoff? Presumably it's not that far away that we will be able to nurture a just-conceived fetus all the way to birth.

It seems to me the problem arises from legalities being black and white lines around various artificially defined categories whereas real life is blurry. I think the best law (ethically) is that each case should be judged on its merits. That doesnt make it practical.

Yes they are wrong.

Correct.

Yeah, I agree with all of this. I have no real opposition to the current laws. Just perhaps there is a better standard. But if the better standard opens up a can of worms and the current way "works" better I have no problem supporting the latter.

Again I don't see why you're telling me those things.

Fwiw there is a reason I use 2.5 m as an example. For one afaik abortion is illegal at 8 m and is legal at 2.5 m. For two it's a stage where I feel completely comfortable with aborting the fetus (and I don't think 8m's is appropriate for abortion any longer).

Because of these reasons and because in the not so distant future it should be possible to sustain the fetus at any age - that seems like a much more appropriate age for this discussion.

This is a complete tangent to the thread, but one more Q: are you vegetarian then?

'Viability' is a joke. An arbitrary distinction drawn between 'the foetus is entirely dependent on the mother to survive' and 'the foetus is entirely dependent on X to survive'. Somehow that's supposed to represent some meaningful change in the foetus that makes assigning it personhood inescapable.

Take a one year old baby. There are certainly people who would happily adopt the child rather than see it killed. In that case, while it is logically consistent with my position to regard killing the baby as harmless, I would only say that the baby should be killed if there is no suitable individual prepared to accept it - State care isn't going to cut it.

That's what you didn't seem to get about my position, Jib. It's not about murder being justified by 'convenience'. It's about priority not being given to those who happen to be inside a uterus. Unquestionably, to my mind, barring abortion at whatever point X on the basis that someone will adopt it is privileging the potential life of the foetus over the already present lives of many children in State care. That's what I meant by '**** the already born.'

except for extreme cases of pregnancy (e.g. rape), there is so much availability of contraception and awareness of the inherent risks of sex, to use abortion as a birth control just seems pretty repugnant to me. take preventative measures, the pill, condoms, etc. "oops i got pregnant, better have an abortion" just seems so unfair to the events set in motion.

but i'm sure that's my influence of culture talking.

that said, i don't believe the state has the right to override one's rights unless those rights infringe on others. and no, i don't believe a fetus has any rights until it is born, or at least partially born. intact cells of the mother are her business, and when the baby is alienated from the mother's body it is then an individual and the state begins to have rights over the baby (e.g. child labor laws, child abuse laws, etc) because protecting minors is a legitimate role of the state imo

basically i think abortion is a pretty terrible thing, for the reasons mentioned above, but I also think nobody has the right to govern others' decisions regarding the issue, just as i don't have the right to govern anyone else's body other than my own.

i think the 'fetus has rights' school of thought is incorrect, as terrible as that sounds. i hope pregnant women are humane and responsible, but making laws to stiffarm certain results and taboos is demonstrably a flawed idea and will just give incentive to black market abortions. the government can't make you a better person with the realm of your body (same logic applies to prostitution and drug laws)

Even though I'm an agnostic, I really admire your stance on legality, and somewhat share the same mentality: it should be a matter left onto the individual, not the state. Kudos.

Serious question though, what do you define as life?

When the child is still in the womb, it is entirely dependent upon the mother's body. It is part of the mother's body. For this reason, I am pro abortion. Even up until birth. The mother should have complete control of her body, and if there is something inside of it that she does not want inside of it, it should be her right to remove it. Once the child is out of the body, however, it is no longer entirely part of her body, and therefore is no longer subject to her jurisdiction alone. But this is not the issue you have in mind.

As far as I can tell, David is asking about the doctor's (or government's) obligation, not the mother's. Forget the mother.

Once it is out of the womb, it is no longer part of the mother. It is a child, and the doctor should have the same obligation to save it as he would any other child.

bons,
what about it is morally repugnant though? terminating the zygote/embryo/fetus? why? i realize i just asked but you didn't answer the question. to be more specific what about abortion is more outrageous than birth control or other measures to prevent pregnancy?

Jib,
With regards to the murder of definite people or putting others in danger (say drunk driving) or etc I assume you believe this is a state/social matter and not something individuals can decide to do without repercussion. Why not abortion? If the fetus has a "right to life" how is it not the duty of the state to protect these rights? Saying that it has rights but the state should be disinterested in protecting them doesn't make much sense to me and seems to only apply to abortion.

Deorum,
Can I kill my siamese twin brother? Can I kill myself in this situation without consent of the other party? It is "my body" right? If not, whose body is it?

meh i'm not sure in the abstract, i've seen some pics of aborted fetuses and it's really grossed me out. if birth control information and resources are as bountiful where one lives as they are where i live, idk it just bothers me to use abortion as a method of birth control. a lot less gross kill/avoid sperm before they begin fertilizing into humans.

No. The fetus is part of the mother's body. The mother is not part of the fetus' body. In the case of the siamese twins, they both share one entire body. You may opt to remove the part that is entirely yours (ie. your head) from your siamese brother and allow him to have the rest of the body, however. The mother cannot kill the child, either. This child simply cannot sustain its own life without the mother. But that is the literal fault of the fetus.

Yes. It would, of course, be courteous to let your brother know though so that he can make arrangements.

What do you mean in this part? Neither can an 18 month old baby survive without the mother. A 8 1/2 month fetus removed from the womb survives as well as a newborn, no? I'm not sure what "is the literal fault of the fetus" means either.

So he can make arrangements for his own funeral? I mean in a case where the twins share vital organs.

I mean it is impossible for the child to survive.

Of course they can. Children are alive whose mothers died in childbirth. But this is beside the point.

I do not know. But again, this is beside the point.

It means the fetus is flawed such that it cannot survive no matter what.

So he can make arrangements for the other twin to die while he still lives. If this is not possible, then we have a dilemma. But remember, this is not the same case as the mother and fetus. The twins share a body. The fetus is part of the mother's body. But, to clarify, it is only part of her body in the sense that it is growing from her body. The fetus' body isn't actually 'hers,' it is the fetus'. She is just having it removed from her body, because her body ought to be completely under her own jurisdiction.

All of this is irrelevant though. David is asking about the doctor's (or government's) obligation, not the mother's.

As you said.

"Yes. He should be legally obliged to (do what the woman asked him to do)."

I really took issue with the above. Case specific in light of David's post=no doctor is obligated to do what this patient wants. To criminalize the doctor's denial is egregious.

Solution for the doctor who denies in the above setting: walk away. The individual doctor is responsible for his moral tone in so far as this case presents with a particular moral setting. The doctor does not need the state to tell him what to do. the "state" does not eat, breathe or die as humans do and it belongs in the realm of individual ethical or moral responsibility.

The above in no way disallows that some individuals will follow a standard given to them by others or the "state";as the world turns.

These discussions are becoming quite convoluted, because there are so many ways you can interpret the question in OP.

A doctor who is in the business of performing abortions should be obligated to peform all abortions. Similar to how a pharmacist should be obligated to fill ALL prescriptions (including birth control prescriptions), whether or not it happens to fit in with his personal ideology. Otherwise, both of these medical professionals should find another line of work.

The above in no way states that ALL doctors should be obligated to perform abortions! Just the ones that do, should not discrimminate or put their personal idealogy ahead of their job.