Abortion questions...?

I said ''in some cases'', because I had heard/read of it, but didn't know how frequent it was. Turns out the example I chose was a rare thing, but it does happen. (Miracle baby Billy grew outside his mother's womb | Daily Mail Online)In any case, the specific example I chose is a non-issue. The point is that if you can save the mother and the foetus, then that is what you should do.

Begging the question epithet. I think you would be hard-pressed to find an ethician who wouldn't define a 25 week old foetus as a human being, given that it has it's nervous system in place and, given the right care, could survive outside the womb.So when you can save that life, and the mother's life, you should. No matter what the differences in costs. That's what I'm saying. I would certainly be for easier adoption procedures, particularly for children within your own country. Yeah well there are obviously lots of better options. How you can seriously think I oppose education is beyond me.

Nobody decides, we do all we can to save him.

Do you, or do you not, agree that we should try and save both the foetus and the mother ?

You'll have to define what is negligence, but I doubt it is to be defined in a way that it is doing something, knowing there is a very,very small chance of a bad thing happening Am I negligent when I drive a car, knowing there is an equally small chance of me hitting someone ?

It was an honest answer. You do all you can to save him. If everything has been done and tried, then the closest relatives decide to let him die. Note the important difference between ''letting him die'' and ''actively causing it's death''.

But I did not say the mother decides how much effort is put into saving the life. I said that, as a collectivity, who should decide that the maximum effort should be put into saving every human life. But, when all has been done, and there is no chance for recovery, then the closest relatives then chooses to let nature take it's course.Now, as I see it, the united states hasn't yet made that decision. It has decided, by having a private health-care system, that someone will in fact choose how much effort is to be put into saving someone's life. So when I say as a collectivity we decided, it is represented in reality by a public health-care system, where the rich man and the poor both have the same treatement, and both will recieve the maximum effort to save their life. (in theory) You are looking at it from the wrong angle, it is not about ''complete strangers deciding''. It is about the collectivity as a society needing to speak for those who cannot speak, defend those who are defenseless.Think about it, this is what we do for all other groups of people in the same situation. Mentally retarded people (is that pejorative ? what is the politically correct term for that?) who will never be able to defend themselves. Society has the role to defend them. Children who do not yet have the ability to defend themselves, society must do it for them until they are able. Elderly people who have lost this ability, society takes this charge. We become responsible of those people.Same with a foetus. If we agree that it is a human being, then it is our job as a collectivity to decide for them, since they are not yet able. I propose that the correct decision is to try, as much as possible, to have them see the light of day.

What circumstances would you be comfortable with simply aborting the foetus instead of trying your best to keep it alive.

That's because it isn't a ''life point''. We are discussing the situation where the pregnancy would kill the mother, and if in that case it was acceptable to abort. I said yes, with the specification that if the foetus could be saved in the process, then this should be done. So the ''savable point'' is right now around 25 weeks. You invoked monetary reasons for not saving the life, I answered that no monetary reasons should be valid when talking about saving a human life. You then said that the only life that can be substantially defined is the mother's. This is why I said that this wasn't the case, and that in fact many would clearly define the life we were talking about (a 25 weeks 'savable' foetus) as a human life. I personnally identify the line at the 100th cell division, but as others have said this isn't the issue. We all put the line somewhere, the question is, what should be done to those who we think are human lifes ? Another subject, but no I would not.

You have got to be kidding me. You honestly think invented shit up and hoped no one whould check ?Seriously, this i why I hate discussing with you, you always assume the worst of peopleAnd this is even after being shown wrong multiple times. I'm sorry, but I did my best to provide evidence for everything I said whenever it was asked, even when they are only anecdotal personnal experience. Your just making a fool of yourself just by directly insulting my integrity in this.What did I say about ectopic pregancies ? That in some cases the foetus could be saved. This was shown to be true by both purpledawns linked and mine.I didn't say it was common, I didn't say it was rare. I did not know if it was either case. I said what I knew was true, and that was that it happened, and so that in some cases it was possible to save the foetus. Sorry, I do not know the daily mail and how it approaches information.I am certainly not impressed that you are juding me on the basis that I am faulty of not knowing that.

Well I' telling who does decide here in Quebec, and who should decide in the US.We don't have any John Q style dilemna's here, no 5 year old boys die because their parents don't have the money. Our society has decided that everything possible will be done to save his life. That's the thing right, because you built a society where some women have no other choice but to abort, because she has no other option. And because of this, being against abortion passes as wanting to put her in a crappy situation.But what I'm saying in this thread is that we should give her other options. She should have so many better options, that abortion wouldn't even be an option anymore. Because many have said it in this thread: abortion is far from an easy thing for a woman. There are lot's of bad psychological effects that can come out of it (and I guess viewing it from an evolutionary POV it makes a lot of sense). So we as a society shouldn't feel comfortable about giving her abortion as her only option, letting her hurt herself.So the reality is that yo uclaim to want to give her the choice, but the only choice you are giving her is abortion. Nothing else. How many woman abort, but would have liked to have that child ?Because I totally agree with you guys: christianity, particularly in the US, is hypocrite. It is hypocrite because they are the most capitalists, and they should be the most socialists. They should be the ones voting for public health-care, public education system, etc. And so I agree with you when they come out against abortion, but don't give a cent when the child is born.But realize that is not the approach I am taking. I am a socialist, and I live in a socialist society. I am for the foetus and the mother, and both of them once it is born.

My ectopic pregnancy claim was perfectly legitimate. Two links were given showing that it does happen. I don't have any problem with people asking for references. I do, however, have a problem being called a ''self-righteous smug prolifers repeating the lies and half truths'', when that I have neither lied nor said half-truths anywhere in this thread. Of course, and I do when I can. And when I'm asked for references of claims I didn't think would be required (such as anecdotal personnal experiences), I give them when I can. And when I can't, I don't oblige people to believe me.

Reread the discussion. We were talking about saving a foetus by c-section, which is specifically at a lower limit of 25 weeks. My comments to which you were replying were in reference to that special case.Wanting my comments to apply to all abortion is moving the goalpost. If the mother's life is in danger, yes. Because my 100th cell position does not affect the abortion issue, but in vitro fertilisation and methods who prevent implantation of the embryo. After millions of years of evolution of psychological mechanism hardwiring a child's head to have a father and a mother, how good do you think it is to put him with two fathers or mothers ?

Rape is the only case where I would consider abortion could still remain a better option for the woman because it is the only situation where the psychological effects of keeping the child could be worse then aborting it.Even in a society where there were all these better options, I would be the last person to judge a raped woman who would get an abortion.But if truely you are against abortion, but for the choice, then you should support what I have said, you should be in favor of giving the pregnant woman better options. Because that is not the case right now, right now, most woman only have the illusion of choice: the only choice they have is to abort.

No, purpledawn understood perfectly what I am trying to say. I have already explained what happened in a previous post, but jsut for you I'll repeat it again here.I had read an article about an ectopic pregnancy in which the foetus was saved. I did not know if this was rare or common, all I knew was that it happened.So when I said ''when the foetus can be saved he should be'', and was asked for a specific example, I thought about that one. Once again, I did not say if it was rare or common. I simply said that it can happen a circumstance that you can either abort or try to save the foetus, and in those circumstances you should try to save it.Then you asked for an example, and I linked you one. And you started piling crap on me. Funny then, that I specifically said in one post not to try and make it seem as if I'm trying to paint this in black and white. In fact, it seems you are the one painting it that one. I am the one effectively saying that each case is different, and that in those cases where the foetus can be saved, it should. And in those cases where we can't save mother and child, then we should abort. I have been saying this throughout this issue.