One of the most disturbing stories I've read in a long time

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
well, I think once a doctor says that the fetus could possibly survive this crude "birth"(I suppose you could call it that) I think it ceases to be a fetus and becomes a baby. The same cannot be said for a 2 month old fetus. Once its taken out of the womb(as far as I know) it has zero chance of survival.

I think the distinction is important.

[/ QUOTE ]

So I suppose if you murder a person who is in a coma and can not survive without life support, it is less of a crime than to murder a "normal" person?

[/ QUOTE ] I don't think this analogy fits, but its an interesting question none the less.

To be honest with you, no, I don't think that if someone who was on life support, with no chance of ever being off of it, being murdered is the same thing as a "normal" person being murdered. IMO, that person really shouldn't even be on life support. That may seem cold and harsh, but its my opinion. This desire to preserve some life at all costs is just as bad as abortion IMO. Both are going against the laws of nature, and both are playing "God" IMO.

This is one of the main I am against late term abortions, because at that point doctors really are playing god and ending an otherwise healthy person, but when the pregnancy is early, things are to foggy for me to be definitive on anything.

This is of course strictly my opinion, as I am sure you probably disagree with some, if not all of it.

[PoBoy321]

I've never known a liberal who was "gung ho" for partial birth abortion. Even friends of mine who are far more liberal than I am and very staunchly pro-choice are against partial birth abortion, but recognize that banning it could be the first slide down a slippery slope which could end with the banning of abortions as a whole. It's misleading to say that because a person recognizes that the protection of one evil is necessary for the protection of greater rights, that they are in favor of that one evil.

[MelchyBeau]

I'm a liberal, I personally don't like the idea of partial birth abortion. In fact I agree with the ban, except for one part. I believe that there must be a clause for the right to life of a mother. If any banning of abortion is going to happen this must be added.

I have a slightly personal reason for this. My great aunt had an abortion. The reason was, due to a tumor she would have died in the second trimester, thus it was a matter of survival for her.

Melch

[zaxx19]

Im just curious. Why is it presumed the mothers life is more imprtant than the childs?? aIt just seemed odd to me whenever people (liberal and conservative) discissed abortion there was this presumption. One reason could be if the mother had other young children. Im not presuming to offer a answer to this difficult moral dilemma just curious.

[MelchyBeau]

I am sure my aunts case is obvious. The baby wouldn't have survived.

This goes into a few areas of interest. If a man is attempting to rape a woman it is seen as justified that if the woman killed the man it would be a legitimate self defense.

We are not required to give up our organs if it means saving another persons life, not even required to donate blood. (I am a regular blood donar, and am registered as an organ donner). I think its more of a safe bet thing. If an abortion is performed it is performed most likely before the fetus is fully developed, thus the mother is going to have the better chance of survival.

Melch

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
If a man is attempting to rape a woman it is seen as justified that if the woman killed the man it would be a legitimate self defense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Self defense only works when you are defending against the bad actor. It isn't self defense if you kill another innocent. We had a thread about this a while back --- if I hold a gun to your head and say "Kill andyfox or you die" it isn't self defense if you killed andy. The self defense analogy doesn't work with abortion.

[Richard Tanner]

Yeah I have to agree here, no need to continue the suffering. As for abortion, we need to realize that after about six months in the womb, a fetus can live on it's own and can fulfill all the requirements of life, as such abortion shouldn't be legal at that point.

Cody

[zaxx19]

Well...the reality of it is someday technology will progress to a point where fetuses as young as 2 months or even younger will be able to survive with medical care outside the womb....Will abortion at that point become totally illegal?? The reality is a fetus is a form of human life. There really isnt any way around that if you approach the subject on a logical unbiased level. The MORE important fact is that there is a lack of moral-ethical clarity on the subject so that it becomes difficult for one citizen(especially a male) to IMPOSE his or her view on another.

P.S. I also believe that people SHOULD be discouraged from having abortions. And I dont shart the sentiment that women NEED abortion rights in order to maintain their equality. Also ABORTION IS CERTAINLY NOT A HUMAN RIGHT though it may be a right we in the US in 2004 CHOOSE to extend to women at the moment for a myriad of reasons medical-moral-ethical-socioeconomic.

[Richard Tanner]

Don't get me wrong, I don't advocate abortion, but I'm for allowing it. Then again I'm a Libertarion, what will all my "what someone does to by themselves and too themselves (themselves so long as the fetus hasn't yet qualified as alive) is their own buisness."

Cody

[jstnrgrs]

[ QUOTE ]
To be honest with you, no, I don't think that if someone who was on life support, with no chance of ever being off of it, being murdered is the same thing as a "normal" person being murdered.

[/ QUOTE ]

What we are talking about is more like a person who will be off lifesupport within the next 9 months being murdered, not a person with no chance of being off it.