Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Late Term Abortion

Rate this topic


 thenelli01

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Your medical source is a Catholic theologian? I looked over her paper. She makes a pain-based argument similar to how PETA claims animal "rights."

EF15A104.pdf

I'll reserve detailed comments, except to point out that she argues for a fetal response to painful stimuli as early as 5.5 to 8 weeks. So why aren't you anti-abortion starting in the first trimester? I don't see a consistency in your view. It appears now that you want to reduce the right to life down to late embryonic or early fetal actions which might possibly indicate reflexive responses to painful stimuli. Do you believe life is defined by suffering? Because, if you do, it would make sense that you sympathize with this Catholic's perspective.

 

Edited by MisterSwig
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Fetal pain has played no part of my argument, so let's not chase a red herring.

Here is another opinion, anyhow: https://lozierinstitute.org/fact-sheet-science-of-fetal-pain/

I don't see how these articles offer evidence for a fetal rational faculty. They deal with fetal pain. Maybe you could quote a relevant passage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/10/2019 at 10:58 AM, whYNOT said:

Consider an infant left to nature (on a hilltop, as is/was the superstitious treatment of twins, by some African tribes). It will die.

This is the kind of argument people use to deny that reason is man's means of survival. Of course parents provide a lot of physical assistance, but even for a baby, for them to survive in the long run (which is what we mean by survival), they must actively use their mental faculties and abilities. They will cry if they need something. They will make noises. They will learn rapidly which adults to trust A fetus quite literally needs to do nothing at all. It can't do anything. The best you can say it does is maybe respond in a behavioral way in the womb. This doesn't depend on any human mental capacity. 

All you need to ask is if the thing that comes out of the mother would immediately proceed to do all those things a newborn does. Viability only says that at some point, the fetus will develop rational faculties and abilities and capacities. You might say something is a viable cake if it has all the ingredients and mixed the right way. Yet it still isn't a cake until it comes out of the oven baked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Eiuol said:

This is the kind of argument people use to deny that reason is man's means of survival. Of course parents provide a lot of physical assistance, but even for a baby, for them to survive in the long run (which is what we mean by survival), they must actively use their mental faculties and abilities. They will cry if they need something. They will make noises. They will learn rapidly which adults to trust A fetus quite literally needs to do nothing at all. It can't do anything. The best you can say it does is maybe respond in a behavioral way in the womb. This doesn't depend on any human mental capacity. 

All you need to ask is if the thing that comes out of the mother would immediately proceed to do all those things a newborn does. Viability only says that at some point, the fetus will develop rational faculties and abilities and capacities. You might say something is a viable cake if it has all the ingredients and mixed the right way. Yet it still isn't a cake until it comes out of the oven baked.

"Of course parents provide a lot of physical assistance.." And how! Either a baby gets protection and nourishment to physically survive its early years, by parents or guardians, or it perishes. Then "reason is man's means of survival" is moot for him/her, just rationalism. 

The viability thing one may see as a gauge. You seem to misinterpret that. There's of course little equivalence of the faculties and activity, contrasting the somewhat earlier fetus to a newborn baby ("...Immediately proceed to do those things a newborn does"). What viability, established from medical experience, indicates is that "*at some stage"* of development a fetus ~could~ continue its "self-sustaining and self-generated action", 'alone' (ex-uterus) - as long as its new environment provides the shelter and nutrients which its mother's did.

(Which alone demonstrates that a fetus is both dependent on AND autonomous from its mother, without paradox - i.e., within, kept and fed by her body, but is not *her body*. It can continue its (non-purposive) "goal-directed action" to sustain its life (in pure, biological selfishness) also outside the uterus).

And so a viable fetus removed, say, in an emergency, *can* eventually grow to equal the faculties of a newborn and further grow to childhood, etc. 

We see that a fetus, indeed ~could~ survive and usually does - and if it could, it should. (Without intervention). What it is, it ought. 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, whYNOT said:

What viability, established from medical experience, indicates is that "*at some stage"* of development a fetus ~could~ continue its "self-sustaining and self-generated action", 'alone' (ex-uterus) - as long as its new environment provides the shelter and nutrients which its mother's did. [Bold added]

Just change the word "continue" to "begin," and our work is done here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

Just change the word "continue" to "begin," and our work is done here.

Hm? I'm not with you. "Organisms"  - from the simplest bacteria, to a plant's shoot, to one extremely complex (e.g.) an animal - are engaged in the same ~continuous~ self-sustaining/generating life-process.

A zygote/embryo/fetus/child/adult is a single, increasingly complex, process which began at fertilization.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Into abortion in the most practical terms, I think this issue can be reduced to 'a value equation':

Three months, longer - versus - ending the existence of a physically formed fetus.

It has to be kept in mind that a (in western countries, rare) pregnant woman whose indecision or carelessness (or disregard for potential/actual life, and her own, perhaps) got herself into this bind, by choosing to leave her abortion so late; she was NOT "condemned" to nine months of pregnancy, she brought it upon herself. Having gone as far as the third trimester, when she can't avoid being aware of the fact her fetus has distinct, autonomous life, she now should complete - see through to birth - what she could rationally and selfishly have ended in the earliest weeks/months.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, whYNOT said:

It has to be kept in mind that a (in western countries, rare) pregnant woman whose indecision or carelessness (or disregard for potential/actual life, and her own, perhaps) got herself into this bind, by choosing to leave her abortion so late...

Either the fetus has a right to life, by virtue of its own nature, or it doesn't. The mother's decisions or actions have nothing to do with it.

2 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Into abortion in the most practical terms, I think this issue can be reduced to 'a value equation':

Three months, longer - versus - ending the existence of a physically formed fetus.

A value equation? Have you already given up on natural rights? I hope you'll check your premise here, because it leads to historically horrific conclusions. By what standard of measurement have you come to this final solution?

Also, your "three months longer" is an oddly evasive way of describing the reality. You want to force a woman to give birth to a child that she does not want, after which she must deal with the unchosen physical and psychological consequences.

3 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Hm? I'm not with you. "Organisms"  - from the simplest bacteria, to a plant's shoot, to one extremely complex (e.g.) an animal - are engaged in the same ~continuous~ self-sustaining/generating life-process.

A zygote/embryo/fetus/child/adult is a single, increasingly complex, process which began at fertilization.

You're conflating a thing with its potential processes over time. An embryo will potentially become a human organism. But at the moment it's only a potential. You're acting as if the future exists. The fetus now is anatomically part of the mother. It's not self-sustaining or self-generating. It's generated and sustained by the mother. This gestational process ends at birth, when the living process begins.

Edited by MisterSwig
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, whYNOT said:

What viability, established from medical experience, indicates is that "*at some stage"* of development a fetus ~could~ continue its "self-sustaining and self-generated action", 'alone' (ex-uterus)

So what? You can't violate the rights of an almost-baby. Almost- babies have no rights.
 

3 hours ago, whYNOT said:

pregnant woman whose indecision or carelessness

I mean, doing something sooner than later is better and usually more responsible, but it's not a big deal. Don't forget about the careless man either, if you want to be judging people in this conversation.

3 hours ago, whYNOT said:

A zygote/embryo/fetus/child/adult is a single, increasingly complex, process which began at fertilization.

A zygote doesn't have rights, neither does an embryo, so I don't see your point. Life begins at fertilization (in a biological sense), but a life doesn't have rights until it is a human baby (or possesses a rational faculty).

21 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Either a baby gets protection and nourishment to physically survive its early years, by parents or guardians, or it perishes.

Fine, but this means you disagree that "reason is man's means of survival". It isn't "reason is a physically able adult human's means of survival, but not for quadriplegics, children, teenagers, or people with dementia".

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MisterSwig said:

The fetus now is anatomically part of the mother. It's not self-sustaining or self-generating. It's generated and sustained by the mother. This gestational process ends at birth, when the living process begins.

I thought it was so. Why there's a measure of incomprehension. One must understand the metaphysics of "self-generating" and "self-sustaining" life. Please check back with Rand on "Life". Do you disagree with that appraisal?

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Eiuol said:

"So what? You can't violate the rights of an almost-baby. Almost- babies have no rights".

 --This entry was concerning objective morality and value-assessment, which, to get things in causal order, should inform the objective laws. Laws, especially, politically expedient laws shouldn't inform objective ethics.

--Conclusion: One, ethically, should not murder an almost-born fetus, as one, morally and by law, doesn't murder a just-born baby.

--Or do you think that emerging from a womb, instantly, somehow, transforms a baby's biological nature - and- its metaphysical identity?
 

"I mean, doing something sooner than later is better and usually more responsible, but it's not a big deal. Don't forget about the careless man either, if you want to be judging people in this conversation)".

--It is a big deal - the difference between respect for life and voluntary extinction of a life. A woman has *the* final say about her sex and abortion - anything but, would be patriarchal and sexist. If she allows her pregnancy so close to full term, with no intention of giving birth - she, plus any men advising her are irrational also. How's that for "judging people"?

"A zygote doesn't have rights, neither does an embryo, so I don't see your point. Life begins at fertilization (in a biological sense), but a life doesn't have rights until it is a human baby (or possesses a rational faculty".

"Fine, but this means you disagree that "reason is man's means of survival". It isn't "reason is a physically able adult human's means of survival, but not for quadriplegics, children, teenagers, or people with dementia"".

--Put that to a hungry baby: "Reason is man's means of survival" - Can you see the rationalism? The statement is an abstraction applicable to "man". It is inclusive of all concrete instances such as this man and that woman and this individual and this baby etc. (even though a baby is not reasoning and cannot, as yet).

--"Reason" is sensory, perceptual and conceptual, and so on. What the (pre-conceptual) baby indeed does gather are *huge amounts* of sensory experiences and beginning to gain its percepts, for some length of time. 

--To add again: - 1. possessing "a rational faculty" doesn't mean it is being employed by the possessor, by lack of choice, or by inability 2. A rational "faculty" doesn't spring to existence precisely as soon as a baby is birthed. That entails some form of magic. The "faculty" has preceded that moment with brain and nervous system growth. 

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

Or do you think that emerging from a womb, instantly, somehow, transforms a baby's biological nature - and- its metaphysical identity?

Yes. To be more specific, in the process of emerging is a sufficient indication that has become a baby in the full sense.

1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

If she allows her pregnancy so close to full term, with no intention of giving birth - she, plus any men advising her are irrational also. How's that for "judging people"?

It's fine to judge people, I just mean that as soon as you start to talk about moral responsibility here, we really need to take into account the man as well. My bigger point is that it may be a moral error to wait in some cases, but as far as moral error goes, the error isn't in the abortion. There is no moral concern with the fetus anymore than you should have moral concern over a tumor. I told you this part before.

1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

Can you see the rationalism? The statement is an abstraction applicable to "man".

I still disagree, but I don't want to follow up on the survival part right now. The key point is that babies do have a capacity for reasoning, and they do reason. The capacity is demonstrated by the action and interaction with the world. To say that something has a capacity requires showing that it has performed that capacity (or very good reason to think that it will in its current form). The word capacity only reflects that the behavior doesn't need to occur at every second (such as when we sleep). We know that a baby has capacity for reason because it does reason, and far better than you think. 

Another way to think of capacity is as an abstract capability without reference to behaviors. This would be invalid - plus the only way to think of the fetus having the capacity for reason. If you can't and won't observe a capacity, then how can you say it has that capacity?

1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

What the (pre-conceptual) baby indeed

A baby has conceptual consciousness. From within hours of being born, they begin to think conceptually. By that I mean they are actively working towards their first concepts. Having the capacity for reason implies this.

1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

A rational "faculty" doesn't spring to existence precisely as soon as a baby is birthed. That entails some form of magic. The "faculty" has preceded that moment with brain and nervous system growth. 

A rational faculty is not a biological entity. It is not a brain region. Reason is an action, a thing we do, a behavior which we have a capacity for. So in a way, yes, it does spring into existence. This is fine though because like with anything, we decide on conceptual boundaries. In other words, magical only expresses that you don't understand the justification for this conceptual boundary.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Yes. To be more specific, in the process of emerging is a sufficient indication that has become a baby in the full sense.

It's fine to judge people, I just mean that as soon as you start to talk about moral responsibility here, we really need to take into account the man as well. My bigger point is that it may be a moral error to wait in some cases, but as far as moral error goes, the error isn't in the abortion. There is no moral concern with the fetus anymore than you should have moral concern over a tumor. I told you this part before.

I still disagree, but I don't want to follow up on the survival part right now. The key point is that babies do have a capacity for reasoning, and they do reason. The capacity is demonstrated by the action and interaction with the world. To say that something has a capacity requires showing that it has performed that capacity (or very good reason to think that it will in its current form). The word capacity only reflects that the behavior doesn't need to occur at every second (such as when we sleep). We know that a baby has capacity for reason because it does reason, and far better than you think. 

Another way to think of capacity is as an abstract capability without reference to behaviors. This would be invalid - plus the only way to think of the fetus having the capacity for reason. If you can't and won't observe a capacity, then how can you say it has that capacity?

A baby has conceptual consciousness. From within hours of being born, they begin to think conceptually. By that I mean they are actively working towards their first concepts. Having the capacity for reason implies this.

A rational faculty is not a biological entity. It is not a brain region. Reason is an action, a thing we do, a behavior which we have a capacity for. So in a way, yes, it does spring into existence. This is fine though because like with anything, we decide on conceptual boundaries. In other words, magical only expresses that you don't understand the justification for this conceptual boundary.
 

With "a rational faculty is not a biological entity"  I think you have moved here into the sphere of dualism, the "mind-body" dichotomy. This matters to this discussion, so good, but you do know that the dichotomy is dismissed, Objectively? The biological 'matter' of the brain and the consciousness are an integral whole.

"The key point is that babies do have a capacity for reasoning, and they do reason". "From within hours of being born, they begin to think conceptually". I must say, I operate under very different definition-explanations of "reason" and "conceptual" than yours!

I think one can certainly claim that a baby, being 'man', has the, as yet unrealized ~capacity~ of reason, but then I will claim that that is barely different from a developed fetus. The *faculty* of rationality needs to be distinguished from the (volitional) *function* of rationality.

All this is why a baby/child doesn't yet have full individual rights. Lacking the function, it can't be held responsible for its actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

The biological 'matter' of the brain and the consciousness are an integral whole.

Right, that's why it isn't a biological entity...

35 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

I must say, I operate under very different definition-explanations of "reason" and "conceptual" than yours!

Reason identifies and integrates perceptual material. Babies do this. You can observe this in their eye movements, and their response to surprises. This is also been verified with experiments, especially those involving faces. Although beginning at a very basic level, this is reasoning (and can be distinguished from the way nonhuman animals retain their understandings of the world). Babies do not have a preconceptual stage of the sort where there is clearly perceptual learning, and then a conceptual stage where that perceptual learning is turned into a concept. They actually begin with some innate perceptual capacities, so there is a limited amount of information that they can reason from just about immediately. Some perceptual capacities need to develop, some are already there. 

By the way, I think of viability, I think of viability as a baby. I don't think of viability of later becoming a baby. If you take the fetus out, and it basically right away starts to reason (or you could somehow verify that it is reasoning from within the womb), then it would be a baby, and wrong to kill it.

46 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

The *faculty* of rationality needs to be distinguished from the (volitional) *function* of rationality.

Conceptually distinct, sure. But you can't have a nonfunctioning capacity, or a function without a capacity. These would be contradictions.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

Either the fetus has a right to life, by virtue of its own nature, or it doesn't. The mother's decisions or actions have nothing to do with it.

A value equation? Have you already given up on natural rights? I hope you'll check your premise here, because it leads to historically horrific conclusions. By what standard of measurement have you come to this final solution?

Also, your "three months longer" is an oddly evasive way of describing the reality. You want to force a woman to give birth to a child that she does not want, after which she must deal with the unchosen physical and psychological consequences.

 

The physical and psychological consequences are important. On a whole different level (and of concern to me) compared with here in South Africa, the general attitudes of Americans reflect a higher human value for life, in general, and for self-worth --across the political board -- on late-term abortions. A study I saw dated 2019, concluded that

"The poll found overwhelming opposition to later term abortions. By a nearly three-to-one margin - 71% to 25% - respondents said abortion generally should be illegal during the third trimester of pregnancy".

Then there's an odd disparity. Reportedly, less than 2% of US women actually take advantage of late abortion. So, one can drop the figures far lower. I put the explanation down to people announcing their identity politics, i.e. speaking 'the right thing' - but not doing: Theory vs practice.. And why polling/stats are unreliable and only a rough guide to what masses of people think and do.

Speak with women, some of whom, pro-choice, and one mostly finds total distaste at the idea of aborting a grown, almost born fetus. 

Where then are the psychological effects, e.g. guilt and self-reproach, worse? Which is the lesser dis-value? Abort, or have adopted? (I omit the third option, the belated choice of bringing up the child, as assumed). That will vary according to individuals and their own evaluation-emotion responses. But by the 'figures' and my anecdotal evidence from acquaintances, a large majority of women (and men, closely) would avoid later-term abortion like the plague. 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I searched on Google for that exact phrase. This is all I found: https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2019/02/26/new-poll-big-majorities-democrats-and-young-people-reject-late-term

1) it was a poll, not a study
2) I can't verify the numbers they cite, it doesn't reference the specific poll or where to find it.
3) http://maristpoll.marist.edu/npr-pbs-newshour-marist-poll-results-analysis-5/#sthash.9LZOubWY.dpbs  use this instead. You will see that the 71-25 isn't there. It was made up. Plus your quote doesn't make sense - margin between what and what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/14/2019 at 5:50 PM, Eiuol said:

Right, that's why it isn't a biological entity...

Reason identifies and integrates perceptual material. Babies do this. You can observe this in their eye movements, and their response to surprises. This is also been verified with experiments, especially those involving faces. Although beginning at a very basic level, this is reasoning (and can be distinguished from the way nonhuman animals retain their understandings of the world). Babies do not have a preconceptual stage of the sort where there is clearly perceptual learning, and then a conceptual stage where that perceptual learning is turned into a concept. They actually begin with some innate perceptual capacities, so there is a limited amount of information that they can reason from just about immediately. Some perceptual capacities need to develop, some are already there. 

By the way, I think of viability, I think of viability as a baby. I don't think of viability of later becoming a baby. If you take the fetus out, and it basically right away starts to reason (or you could somehow verify that it is reasoning from within the womb), then it would be a baby, and wrong to kill it.

Conceptually distinct, sure. But you can't have a nonfunctioning capacity, or a function without a capacity. These would be contradictions.
 

The input via a newborn's senses is tremendous and rapidly increasing, that is known. What the above describes, however, are reflexive actions to stimuli, and a few simple *associations* made by a baby to, for one well-known instance, recognizing that single constant - its mother's physicality - and the pleasurable sensations it connotes with her proximity. This is behaviorism, of a sort, seems to me. Please do not, for god's sake, attribute to a baby the agency of 'identifying and integrating perceptual material' -- he/she has not as yet gained the perceptual stage of an adult dog! Reason, unlike sensation and perception, is *never* automatized (but volitionally conscious-you know). In sum, all this has over-estimated a baby's conscious capabilities and grossly underestimated reasoning.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, whYNOT said:

recognizing that single constant - its mother's physicality - and the pleasurable sensations it connotes with her proximity.

That's not really true. Besides, it's not the only evidence I'm talking about. There is language learning, specific types of pattern matching, responses to particular events, focused eye contact. If you want to dive into that further, just tell me, and I'll link you to some things.

5 hours ago, whYNOT said:

he/she has not as yet gained the perceptual stage of an adult dog!

There is no such thing as the perceptual stage. There is a perceptual stage in terms of your brain processing information, but there is no perceptual stage in terms of development.

Really the point here is that there is a huge behavioral difference between a fetus and a baby. It isn't a gradual transition between the two. We can see that even without the scientific evidence about infant development.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Eiuol said:

 

Really the point here is that there is a huge behavioral difference between a fetus and a baby. It isn't a gradual transition between the two. We can see that even without the scientific evidence about infant development.

Of course there is a huge behavioral difference! A baby is outside the womb, in sensory, reciprocal contact with humans and a wide scope of reality. A fetus, clearly not. I ask you, does (e.g.) the visual cortex of a baby exist - a. before, or b. only after - its birth? 

Look, your drive here is on epistemology, the rational _functions_ of a baby (which, anyway, Objectivism disagrees with -  a baby is pre-perceptual and preconceptual; for him, and for a while, objects and stimuli are "discrete"). That rationality, of faculty AND function, is for you the standard of human life, I guess. 

Mine focuses primarily on metaphysics and biology: Identity. Does a human fetus possess all the attributes of a baby? Can it have autonomous and supported life (-- exactly as it has in the womb, and will have after birth)? Whenever it is separated early from the uterus, we know it can. Therefore, it *can* continue its SELF-sustaining and SELF- generated 'life force', which should not be interrupted for its mother's or parents' convenience. The fetus has attained the conditions of ~human~life and should not be disposed of casualiy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, whYNOT said:

A fetus, clearly not. I ask you, does (e.g.) the visual cortex of a baby exist - a. before, or b. only after - its birth? 

I'm not talking about brain regions, so the question is pointless. 

3 hours ago, whYNOT said:

which, anyway, Objectivism disagrees with -  a baby is pre-perceptual and preconceptual; for him, and for a while, objects and stimuli are "discrete")

Oism has no theory of cognitive development. The most you can do is to say that a baby is born without concepts and without knowledge. As I mentioned before, the talk about stages is actually about how concepts are formed at any age, not how babies develop.

3 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Whenever it is separated early from the uterus, we know it can.

So can a cow, or a tree. Being alive is only a necessary but not sufficient basis for rights. The problem is you are looking for a biologically essential (like brain regions, DNA, having a heart, etc.)  indication of becoming a human life that possesses rights. All I've really seen from you is arguing that the fetus can survive outside the womb - without even demonstrating that such a fetus would actually be engaging in anything like a baby can and does do. I'm not sure there is much to add, on either side.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Eiuol said:

I'm not talking about brain regions, so the question is pointless. 

Oism has no theory of cognitive development. The most you can do is to say that a baby is born without concepts and without knowledge. As I mentioned before, the talk about stages is actually about how concepts are formed at any age, not how babies develop.

So can a cow, or a tree. Being alive is only a necessary but not sufficient basis for rights. The problem is you are looking for a biologically essential (like brain regions, DNA, having a heart, etc.)  indication of becoming a human life that possesses rights. All I've really seen from you is arguing that the fetus can survive outside the womb - without even demonstrating that such a fetus would actually be engaging in anything like a baby can and does do. I'm not sure there is much to add, on either side.
 

You don't get it still. "...demonstrating that such a fetus would be engaging in anything like a baby can and does do".

Oh well.

And, the question is not about rights, per se, that is a red herring. The question is first ethical - as always, on the basis of man's life - and legal: Is one permitted to kill another human being? 

This certainly depends on the objective definitions/explication of 'human' and 'life'; but depending also on the physical development stage of the fetus, number one being its "brain regions".

I think the notion that advocates of late term abortion prefer to keep, is that there was nothing significant "in there" a week or two before birth, only "meat and biological matter", and (somehow) a 'rational' human immediately afterwards.

Is this not an evasion of the evident actuality of 'gradualism' - i.e. constant human growth, previous to and continuing after birth? 

All to fit the expediency of ending a living life, plus the credo of these times, instant self-gratification. 

Before all the rest, a late-fetus has *physical* presence which no abortion-theorists can totally ignore. One hardly needs to ask a pregnant woman about her swelling extra weight and bulk, internal movement, changes in her body, etc. Her intimate experiences are her own, and universal.

It is a separate, distinct body she bears in her body.

Many a self-respecting, and self-aware woman would know with certainty this is a viable and "ready" life she carries, and not any of the glib justifications would let her, nor, evidently, the majority of women, sacrifice an almost-child's life to the "lesser or non-value" of getting 'rid of the problem' all to gain a few weeks of freedom.

So a hierarchy of values, which almost everyone, at least implicitly, holds, counts as well.

The publicized visuals of a "medical procedure", this kind of late abortion itself, e.g. a sonogram of a fetus recoiling from a surgical probe, has apparently disturbed most people,  displaying that the hard reality demolishes 'theories' (politicized ones, especially).

Like the polls show, this issue is mostly all talk and little action. A good note ...

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/10/2019 at 6:07 PM, whYNOT said:

Fetal pain has played no part of my argument, so let's not chase a red herring.

 

4 hours ago, whYNOT said:

The publicized visuals of a "medical procedure", this kind of late abortion itself, e.g. a sonogram of a fetus recoiling from a surgical probe, has apparently disturbed most people,  displaying that the hard reality demolishes 'theories' (politicized ones, especially).

Honestly, you sound very confused, and this is one example. I mean that your very position is confused. You say fetal pain plays no part of your argument, then you use it. Not to mention it's a bad argument, unless you use the same argument to tell people that eating meat is immoral.

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...