• frank
    10.9k
    My 30+ years old position is, I suppose, the "extremist" one (as the old post exerpted shows): abortion on demand – as an inalienable Human Right – even in the third trimester.180 Proof

    Yea, that's not going to happen. Third trimester is a baby.
  • 180 Proof
    8.4k
    Yea, that's not going to happen.frank
    Back in the day, folks said the same about Abolition ... and desegregation ... and mixed-raced marriage ... Actuarial inevitability, sir.

    Third trimester is a baby.
    Prenatal homicide (e.g. mother's physical or mental health; severe / unviable birth defects; poverty, etc) ain't infanticide. Ergo no unwanted / unloved newborns. Each woman (& her doctor) knows best. Anyway, soon enough, actuarial progress over retrograde conservatism.
  • frank
    10.9k
    Yea, that's not going to happen.
    — frank
    Back in the day, folks said the same about Abolition ... and desegregation ... and mixed-raced marriage ... Actuarial inevitability, sir.
    180 Proof

    They also said it about pigs flying.


    Prenatal homicide (e.g. health of the mother, severe / unviable birth defects, poverty, etc), ain't infanticide. Ergo no unwanted / unloved newborns. Each woman knows best. Actuarial progress over retrograde conservatism.180 Proof

    Third trimester is too late. Get over it.
  • 180 Proof
    8.4k
    Third trimester is too late.frank
    In the following US States, etc, abortion without limits (e.g. third trimester) is currently legal by statute:
    Alaska
    Colorado
    (Wash. DC)
    New Hamphire
    New Jersey
    New Mexico
    Oregon
    Vermont


    Get over it yourself, frank. More states with currently legal abortion will lift the "viability" and other arbitrary restrictions after "Roe ..." is overturned. :up:
  • frank
    10.9k

    Third trimester abortion is rare and usually done for medical reasons, either a problem with the mother or the baby.
  • Streetlight
    8.8k
    All the more reason 3rd Tri abortions are the most important kind to protect.
  • 180 Proof
    8.4k
    As I've already pointed oit here .

    :up:
  • frank
    10.9k
    the more reason 3rd Tri abortions are the most important kind to protect.Streetlight

    True. It's always going to be rare, though.
  • Agent Smith
    4.4k
    extremist180 Proof

    It is a bit too much to terminate a pregnancy in the third trimester. Reason? Both the terms fetus & infant apply at that stage. It's like the grey area between living and nonliving, an ethical nightmare scenario. I wouldn't want to be part of such decisions, not for all the tea in China!
  • 180 Proof
    8.4k
    Not to worry, Smith. If you're not a fertile female of child-bearing age, then it's very unlikely you will ever have to decide to terminate your pregnancy.
  • Agent Smith
    4.4k
    Not to worry, Smith. If you're not a fertile, post-pubescent female, then it's very unlkiely you will ever have to decide to terminate your pregnancy. :eyes:180 Proof

    :grin: That doesn't, however, solve the ethical problem does it? We need to use our brains & heart (xin) and only then is any judgment whole and complete. Those who sanction third trimester abortions are not even using their heads properly, forget about their hearts.

    What sayest thou?
  • Paulm12
    67
    That doesn't, however, solve the ethical problem does it
    That’s a good point. Imagine if people could kill their children after they were born, and then claim it was their right to choose. Maybe there are options for 3rd trimester abortions that preserve the child’s life. In some ways, it isn’t just a “right” to choose when it involves another life. The question, of course, is when it becomes another life, and to me, it certainly isn’t during natural birth. Under this logic, one could also argue a fetus/baby is also a slave if the government rules that the mother can choose a procedure design to take their life.
    To get technical, I talked to a pro-life biologist who was particularly against Dilation and Evacuation because it doesn’t even give the fetus a chance of survival.
    It brings up an interesting question-if there were medical procedures that gave the fetus/baby a chance of survival, what probability would be acceptable? Would this solve the whole pro-life/pro-choice thing? Like put it in a test tube or something and let it grow the rest of the way organically.
    I try to be careful, because I sometimes think certain pro-choice arguments could be used to justify things like allowing people who want their spinal cord severed or who want assisted suicide due to existential pain (not in the case of a terminal illness).
  • 180 Proof
    8.4k
    I don't know which "ethical problem" you're alluding to?
  • Agent Smith
    4.4k


    Jains should be up in arms against abortion! Why I don't hear a peep out of them puzzles me deeply.

    Did you know?

    Jains avoid farming because then they'd kill what? trillions of microbes and creepy crawlies. Jain priests cover their mouths with a cloth to avoid breathing in and offing, again, microbes.

    By that token, for a Jain even the zygote can't/shouldn't be terminated. It is life and it has the right to live!
  • Agent Smith
    4.4k
    I don't knoww what "ethical problem" you're alluding to?180 Proof

    Abort(ion) = End (prematurely) = Kill! :chin:
  • Agent Smith
    4.4k
    We have to be very careful with words!
  • 180 Proof
    8.4k
    Whatever you eat must be "killed" either before or during eating it. "Ethical problem"? :roll:
  • Agent Smith
    4.4k
    Whatever you eat must be "killed" either before or during eating it. "Ethical problem"? :roll:180 Proof

    Ok, ok!
  • Michael
    10.4k
    Maybe there are options for 3rd trimester abortions that preserve the child’s life.
    ...
    Like put it in a test tube or something and let it grow the rest of the way organically.
    Paulm12

    They're called incubators.

    Although that would probably require a caesarian if it were done as an alternative to abortion.
  • Harry Hindu
    4.8k
    What we do is declare that some time before the 20th week when the AC membrane in the lungs is too thick to function, the thingy is not a person. Somewhere around 25 weeks the membrane will work and the thingy can live outside the womb.frank
    What do you mean, "live outside the womb"? Newborns cannot live out side the womb for long on their own. They are still very much dependent on their mother for their survival. If the umbilical cord was severed inside the womb the fetus would survive about as long as if it were outside the womb and abandoned by it's mother. So why do we consider it murder if a mother abandons her newborn in a dumpster after being born?

    I would say the two extremes are a newly fertilised egg (not a person) and a healthy adult (a person). A 24 week old foetus and someone in a vegetative state might be somewhere in between.Michael
    So the victims of school shootings were not people?

    To even say that there are two extremes means that there must be a distinction between them, or else the extremes aren't extremes at all.

    In some legal respects, a corporation is a person. What would need defining is: individual human person., but the fundamental problem is that it's a fuzzy concept - agreement on some specific set of traits would be virtually impossible. For example, I'd argue that a zygote clearly isn't an individual human person, because a zygote is a cell that can produce more than one person (monozyogtic twins, triplets, quadrupelets...), whereas many Christians disagree (a zygote has a soul; if it divides - God tosses in another soul...). So...it seems to me, it's all a matter of opinion, and it's inappropriate to force your opinion upon others.Relativist
    Yet we do force our opinion upon others by having laws that put you in jail if you kill people.

    Asserting that there is no objective means of defining a person opens the door for anyone to define it how they want, and then use their own definitions to then kill and enslave others that they do not define as a "person".

    It seems that most people here aren't even willing to give it a try, yet their behavior in other threads when it comes to discussions on the treatment of others and respecting the "identities" they assert seems to indicate that they have what defines a person all figured out and then try to impose that view on others.

    I'm trying to make it easy by starting off with traits that we know make a thing a person. In talking about extremes, you are admitting that there are easily discernable traits that make one a person vs. not a person. If not, then the use of the term, "extremes", is meaningless.
  • Harry Hindu
    4.8k
    Whatever you eat must be "killed" either before or during eating it. "Ethical problem"?180 Proof
    For vegans, yes. They are fine with killing plants for food, but not pigs, chickens and cows because they point to suffering, not necessarily personhood, as the reason to not kill some organism.
  • frank
    10.9k
    What do you mean, "live outside the womb"?Harry Hindu

    I think a 24 week infant has about a 7% chance of survival even with high tech care. At 20 weeks, there's really no chance.
  • Harry Hindu
    4.8k
    I think a 24 week infant has about a 7% chance of survival even with high tech care. At 20 weeks, there's really no chance.frank
    How is that any different than what I said? If the preemie baby outside the womb still requires care to survive, how is that any different than the care they receive inside the womb?
  • Michael
    10.4k
    So the victims of school shootings were not people?Harry Hindu

    No, how did you come to that conclusion?

    To even say that there are two extremes means that there must be a distinction between them, or else the extremes aren't extremes at all.Harry Hindu

    Yes, there's a difference between a fertilised egg and a healthy adult.
  • Harry Hindu
    4.8k
    So the victims of school shootings were not people?
    — Harry Hindu

    No, how did you some to that conclusion?
    Michael

    I would say the two extremes are a newly fertilised egg (not a person) and a healthy adult (a person). A 24 week old foetus and someone in a vegetative state might be somewhere in between.Michael
    You defined a person as a "healthy adult". Does this also mean that an adult with cancer is not a person?

    Yes, there's a difference between a fertilised egg and a healthy adult.Michael
    You're repeating yourself. What are those differences?
  • Michael
    10.4k
    You defined a person as a "healthy adult".Harry Hindu

    No I didn't. I offered a healthy adult as an example of a person.
  • Harry Hindu
    4.8k
    No I didn't. I offered a healthy adult as an example of a person.Michael
    You didn't say it was an example until now. Have any other examples? And after you give those examples, provide the traits that they share that qualifies them as a person.
  • Michael
    10.4k
    You're repeating yourself. What are those differences?Harry Hindu

    There are many differences; a healthy adult has lungs and a fertilised egg doesn't, a fertilised egg is about 100 microns in diameter and a healthy adult is quite a lot larger.
  • Harry Hindu
    4.8k
    There are many differences; a healthy adult has lungs and a fertilised egg doesn't, a fertilised egg is about 100 microns in diameter and a healthy adult is quite a lot larger.Michael
    Okay. Now we're moving the conversation forward!

    A healthy fetus in the third trimester has lungs. Is there anything else?

    Does "healthy adult" include other species other than humans?
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.