Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Jusst think about this for a second;

You have a test tube with sperm in it, and a test tube with an egg in it, and you tip it down the sink, is that murder? Had you combined them you would have had a group of cells that could have matured into human life.
What about if you tip the sperm into the test tube with the egg, wait two minutes then tip it down the sink, is that murder? All it needed was more time to become human life.
What about if you place it in an artificial womb, leave it for three months, then turn the artificial womb off? Is that murder?
What about if you left it for nine months until it left the artificial womb, then killed the baby? Is that murder?

Whatever your answer is, think about why that point is murder, but not the one before. Think about if your answer really makes absolute, objective sense, or if it's just the best approach you can muster.

The thing is there is no magic point where cells become human life so we muddle by as best we can. The important thing to realise is that other people are doing much the same, just reaching a different point on when it is human and needs protection, and that different points can be reached entirely differently.

It is also important to recognise that many arguments are utterly ridiculous, of course, and that some people really, really need to think about things a lot more.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:On other websites there are discussions of the proposed law. Evidently, it doesn't cover abortion doctors as that is a legal act-illegal activities being the key.

I don't know, its a law for an issue that barely exists.

Interesting, thanks for that. So this is basically a law designed to build up enthusiasm from a certain voter group, while actually doing nothing.

Politics as usual, it seems.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:And to be clear, there should be exceptions for rape, despite it being abhorrant, due to the lack of consentual activity.

But if the foetus is alive and needing our protection, surely it is alive and needing our protection whether the mother consented to sex or not?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phototoxin wrote:But as it stands, as far as we can ascertain with common fething sense, a mentally disabled person is BIGGER, does not have the cognitive skills, nerve endings, or mental faculties of a living breathing girl or woman, and as such, cannot have as many rights. Logic dictates that we preserve the feelings and wishes of the living breathing person stood right there in front of us?

A person can be mentally disabled, but still capable of thought, ideas, and emotions. This is entirely different to a foetus. Where we get a person with the mental faculties of a foetus, that is to say none at all... we pull the plug.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:Good point, Phototoxin. Some cultures view raising a girl to be too expensive an investment relative to the payoff. In this case, the cost-prohibitive "genetic defect" is having two x chromosomes.

And when abortion isn't available, we see girls born and then abandoned. The problem here is culture failing to value both genders, not access to abortion.

Let's say that scientists do determine that specific and identifiable genetic sequence does determine whether a child is heterosexual or homosexual. Parents could then decide to abort children who are genetically homosexual.

Or how about we talk about genetic predispositions. What if a foetus is genetically predisposed to some congentital disease that only expresses after birth. Abort them, too, I guess.

Both decisions are currently legal in the US.

This is an extremely difficult question to answer. I think ultimately the answer is the same as above, though, if parents would choose to abort a pregnancy because of a disability or even homosexuality, then they're likely to abandon the child if they were forced to take it to term.

The answer is in getting people to value human diversity, and love the person, not love the list of most desirable attributes.

halonachos wrote:

Melissia wrote:

dogma wrote:Why ISN'T a ball of cell's a person?

So you admit that you kill people on a regular basis?

A sperm consists of just one single cell, therefor its not a person.

I wasn't talking about masturbation. Your body kills groups of its cells on a regular basis through apoptosis, and nevermind shedding of skin and hair.

Actually if you put a sperm and an egg together it would need an environment around it or something to guide the sperm to the egg. Sperm dies within minutes of ejaculation and if you put a small egg and a single sperm in a test tube I doubt conception would happen. Sperm, like the men they come from, are fething slowed and don't ask for directions. Chances are the sperm would bounce off of the edge of the glass until it died.

As far as developing a fetus in a test tube and then flushing it down the drain, that would be pointless. Why take the time to make a fetus in a test tube and then toss it down the drain?

Sperm and Eggs are single sex cells, when combined in the right environment under the right conditions they could create a blastula. That blastula would then develope and along the way the body itself would perform regular checks on development. If the fetus is deemed incapable of living by the body it will kill itself. In fact if a woman misses her period and has a heavy flow a week or so afterwards there's a chance she was at a time pregnant but her body aborted the fetus naturally.

At the time of the second trimester a child can be born and still survive outside of the womb, at that point I would consider it a living thing. For all intents and purposes though a fetus is actually a parasite and remains a parasite even after it leaves the womb.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:

halonachos wrote:

Melissia wrote:

dogma wrote:Why ISN'T a ball of cell's a person?

So you admit that you kill people on a regular basis?

A sperm consists of just one single cell, therefor its not a person.

I wasn't talking about masturbation. Your body kills its cells on a regular basis through apoptosis.

Apoptosis is vastly different from killing a cell. One is natural thanks to telomeres on the chromosomes, the other is just killing cells.

So genetically programmed cell death is okay, malicious cell murder is not.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:You know, the one thing I hate about the whole abortion deal is: Why doesn't the father have any say in it? It's his kid too...

... or is this just a secret, uber-feminist political move to screw men out of even more stuff?

I mean, sure, it's her body, but still....

How much say do you think men should have? What legal force should their wishes be supported with?

Ideally, it should be enforced with a new law. This law would require police to record reported rapes, and any Abortion Clinic would have to see if that person had been raped and impregnated. If they were raped, Abort away, that is soley her decision. However, if that person didn't report the rape, and had a boyfriend with which the baby was conceived, then his consent would have to be given too.

This makes everyone happy: No one is forced to having a baby from a traumatizing event (remember, as long as the Police have a reported file prior to her visit to the Clinic, she is good to go), Pro Life people have two chances to let the baby live (both mother and father have to decide, if even one of them wants it, it becomes a crime to abort it), and it also enforces the golden rule of pregnancy prevention: Don't want to get pregnant? Don't have sex.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:You know, the one thing I hate about the whole abortion deal is: Why doesn't the father have any say in it? It's his kid too...

... or is this just a secret, uber-feminist political move to screw men out of even more stuff?

I mean, sure, it's her body, but still....

Because of exactly that.

That, however, doesn't fly. Technically, even if the fetus isn't "alive" yet (Don't know what to say on that, personally), it's still the Fetus' body. Saying that the Fetus not being alive means it doesn't matter is, to me at least, kind of like saying it is ok to harvest a man in a comas organs. He ain't using them, right?

halonachos wrote:Actually if you put a sperm and an egg together it would need an environment around it or something to guide the sperm to the egg. Sperm dies within minutes of ejaculation and if you put a small egg and a single sperm in a test tube I doubt conception would happen.

It's a hypothetical, dude, just assume the test tubes contain the environment needed. Or don't, but they're magic sperm. Whatever. It doesn't matter, the point is to consider the different points the people declare life to have begun, not the specific biological factors of contraception.

As far as developing a fetus in a test tube and then flushing it down the drain, that would be pointless. Why take the time to make a fetus in a test tube and then toss it down the drain?

To demonstrate the arbitrary nature of when we consider life to have begun. Even more pointless would be raising the child in the artificial womb for nine months, seeing it born then smashing it's head in with a rock, yet that example is there as well. Because we're giving examples that demonstrate a point, not actually describing what people might actually do.

[qote]At the time of the second trimester a child can be born and still survive outside of the womb, at that point I would consider it a living thing. For all intents and purposes though a fetus is actually a parasite and remains a parasite even after it leaves the womb.

My position is so not arbitrary, its awesome.

27 weeks after conception the second trimester ends. During the second trimester certain things happen, certain important things like developing the uterus, movement of the intestines, nerve connections are still being formed, you know things that science will never be able to do.

No matter what science develops, a fetus will most likely never be able to survive if its removed from the womb during the second trimester. So no medical technology will never, ever be able to sustain a fetus outside of the womb "sooner and sooner".

The limit to the date is 21 weeks and will most likely stay at 21 weeks. If you want at least a 50% chance of survival you're looking at 25 weeks.

Science cannot change how fast a fetus develops and won't be able to.

halonachos wrote:Apoptosis is vastly different from killing a cell.

No it's not. Apoptosis is a method for the body to kill off cells which are undesirable to the body. Just because it is natural does not mean it is not killing the cells. Such a distinction is unnecessarily arbitrary. Solanaceae is natural too, does that mean that feeding a baby nightshade is not killing the baby?

halonachos wrote:My position is so not arbitrary, its awesome.

27 weeks after conception the second trimester ends. During the second trimester certain things happen, certain important things like developing the uterus, movement of the intestines, nerve connections are still being formed, you know things that science will never be able to do.

No matter what science develops, a fetus will most likely never be able to survive if its removed from the womb during the second trimester. So no medical technology will never, ever be able to sustain a fetus outside of the womb "sooner and sooner".

The limit to the date is 21 weeks and will most likely stay at 21 weeks. If you want at least a 50% chance of survival you're looking at 25 weeks.

Science cannot change how fast a fetus develops and won't be able to.

DOes no one on this forum know what a bloody though experiment is

Melissia wrote:

halonachos wrote:Apoptosis is vastly different from killing a cell.

No it's not. Apoptosis is a method for the body to kill off cells which are undesirable to the body. Just because it is natural does not mean it is not killing the cells. Such a distinction is unnecessarily arbitrary. Solanaceae is natural too, does that mean that feeding a baby nightshade is not killing the baby?

Does a human digestive tract naturally process nightshade or arsenic? Does the human body naturally process oil?
Apoptosis is a genetically programmed cell 'death'. The cell is not killed by an outside force, it just knows when to die. Think of the difference between a person dieing and a person being killed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

youbedead wrote:
DOes no one on this forum know what a bloody though experiment is

You mean 'thought' experiment? What's wrong with the thoughts I gave concerning that the previous would most likely not happen. Just my thoughts vs the proposed thoughts.

halonachos wrote:Does a human digestive tract naturally process nightshade or arsenic? Does the human body naturally process oil?

Yes, when the nightshade is introduced to the human digestive tract, it processes the nightshade like it would any other plant. The human body also and attempts to break down oil (IE, it processes the oil) when it is introduced into the body like it would any other chemical. Weasel word all you want, apoptosis is still the body killing off cells which are undesirable to the body.

I assume you mean produce? But then, if you only fed a person chemicals the human body could naturally synthesize, they'd die due to lack of the essential amino acids that the body cannot produce (Lysine, Methionine, Tryptophan, et al), so that itself is a flawed argument.

Slarg232 wrote:Ideally, it should be enforced with a new law. This law would require police to record reported rapes, and any Abortion Clinic would have to see if that person had been raped and impregnated.

You've lost track of your own coversation. This was in response to your argument that the man should have a say in whether the pregnancy was terminated, rape wasn't mentioned in this argument at all.

So, ignoring the whole rape issue, I explained earlier that while it isn't fair that the man is removed from the issue, there's really not much that can be done about it, as the alternative involves the man telling the woman she has to abort the child he doesn't want, or that she has to carry to term the child she doesn't want.

It sucks, but the alternatives suck more.

If they were raped, Abort away, that is soley her decision.

I asked earlier but you probably missed it, if the foetus is a human life and deserves the protection of the state, what does it matter whether it was created through rape or not?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

halonachos wrote:My position is so not arbitrary, its awesome.

Every position is arbitrary, and yours is considerably less awesome than most.

27 weeks after conception the second trimester ends. During the second trimester certain things happen, certain important things like developing the uterus, movement of the intestines, nerve connections are still being formed, you know things that science will never be able to do.

People who declare they know what science will never be able to do are silly.

Second up, what if science advances and we can keep a child alive outside the womb after 18 weeks? Does that change the point at which it becomes life? What if they then advance it to 16 weeks, but realise that's as good as it'll ever get... does that become the point at which abortion is murder?

What the feth has the point of life got to do with the ability of technology to keep a foetus alive, anyway?

The point you've decided it is a life is just as arbitrary as any other point. Go back and read the example I gave, and think about it for a minute, and gain some perspective.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

youbedead wrote:DOes no one on this forum know what a bloody though experiment is

They do. It's just that if they don't like the conclusion or can't argue against it, so they find it easier to target bizarre technicalities.

The body doesn't kill the cells Melissia, there's a difference between the body sending out cells to kill another cell and the cell killing itself. One is an autoimmune disease and the other is apoptosis.

The body doesn't control genetics, genetics controls the body.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I meant oil as in the stuff we dig up from the gound and process into gasoline.

halonachos wrote:You mean 'thought' experiment? What's wrong with the thoughts I gave concerning that the previous would most likely not happen. Just my thoughts vs the proposed thoughts.

The problem with your thoughts is that they ignore the actual point put forward. It doesn't matter that sperm and egg will need a certain environment to survive long enough to achieve conception, for the purposes of the argument. The point is to realise that taking each part and pouring them down the sink is basically what happens when you practice safe sex.

It doesn't matter that there's no point to mixing sperm and egg then pouring it down the sink, the point is to realise that's the same thing as a morning after pill, or a very early term abortion.

The point overall, is to understand that each of these represents a different point that different groups believe abortion should limited to, but that nothing actually happens from one stage to the next to absolutely, objectively determine life. So we have to accept that the point we decide upon, whatever it is, is not actually some objectively determined point that is more right than anyone else's, it's just the point that works for us.

halonachos wrote:The body doesn't kill the cells Melissia, there's a difference between the body sending out cells to kill another cell and the cell killing itself.

Apoptosis is oft triggered by other cells coming into contact with the degraded or damaged cell; it has many means of being activated, but the one in particular I am thinking of is when a cell recognizes the other cell as damaged, mutated, deformed, or otherwise undesirable to the body, and send a chemical to a receptor protein, which causes a chain reaction that eventually leads to caspase activation and then apoptosis. This is an important way for the body to prevent cancer-- the body effectively has figurative explosive collars attached to all of its cells' figurative necks, and apoptosis is when the body collectively presses the button.

So you mean hypotheticals?

Well hypothetically a sperm and egg left in a test tube for one creates an instant 22 year old and you murder the 22 year old. Is that still murder?

Am I doing it right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:

halonachos wrote:The body doesn't kill the cells Melissia, there's a difference between the body sending out cells to kill another cell and the cell killing itself.

Apoptosis is oft triggered by other cells coming into contact with the degraded or damaged cell; it has many means of being activated, but the one in particular I am thinking of is when a cell recognizes the other cell as damaged, mutated, deformed, or otherwise undesirable to the body, and send a chemical to a receptor protein, which causes a chain reaction that eventually leads to caspase activation and then apoptosis. This is an important way for the body to prevent cancer.

An important feature of cancer is its lack of apoptosis and cell differentiation. Destroyed and dead cells are eaten by macrophages, but the cell is usually damaged and then the cell pulls its own trigger before it is broken down.

Apoptosis by definition is programmed cell death. Can it be stimulated by outside forces, yes as you just said. Cells break down into little pieces before they are removed though.

halonachos wrote:So you mean hypotheticals?

Well hypothetically a sperm and egg left in a test tube for one creates an instant 22 year old and you murder the 22 year old. Is that still murder?

Am I doing it right?

Yes, now you are. Now consider that if you consider tipping the sperm and the egg to be not murder, and killing the 22 year old to be murder, then you have to be able to explain at what point things changed from one to the other, and why.

Yes... programmed cell death... IE the body killing off its cells. No matter how much you attempt to word it otherwise, that's still what it is.

Phototoxin wrote:
You can if it is absurd - such as size or developmental stage.
A fetus is developing child, the same way as a child is a developing teenager. Discrimination on size isn't ethical.

No, that's flatly incorrect. If I argue that in specific case X criteria Y is the best, or only, criteria of demarcation with any reasonable utility, then you cannot argue as though my argument is absurd by extending it beyond that specific case as you're fundamentally changing a central premise of the argument that you're critiquing. It is arguing against a strawman by necessity.

If you believe that the criteria is absurd per the premises of the argument outline, then you need to show why that its absurd given those. You cannot simply say that its absurd in other cases, and therefore absurd in all cases.

In any case, developing children can have their care transferred to others via certain social norms, like adoption, fetuses cannot undergo similar procedures; this is a categorical difference that is sufficient to render your comparison above overly simplistic.

Phototoxin wrote:
Do 'we' ? When? Generally? Casually? On-demand, for being 'defective' ? (well some did!) People have the right to life generally - unless the state deems it forfeit for the protection of its citizens (war and executions et cetera) however an unborn child has yet to murder,rape or burgle anyone, let alone invade or commit acts of terrorism!

Its guilty of being a thing that is necessarily dependent upon its mother for life, which certainly bear consideration when considering what rights it might have when those rights are in competition with those of the mother.

Phototoxin wrote:
Essentially its all or nothing - either human life is important and should be preserved and defended (although not at the expense of another's life) or else life is worthless and that if I murder someone tomorrow I shouldn't be prosecuted because we now have the right to kill who we want.

No, that's utter nonsense. Stating that something does not have limitless worth is not the same as stating that it has no worth at all.

Bromsy wrote:IPersonally the whole "is a fetus alive" debate has always kinda bored me. As far as I can tell, a good two thirds of the world lack the insight and intellect to be what I consider "alive", so some random kid doesn't matter to me. I think to be officially considered "alive", you should have to pass a series of rigorous philosophical debates, which you can try as often and as early as you'd like, but until you pass you are just another talking animal.

That statement means you just failed your own test.

halonachos wrote:
If they were going to get away with legally killing an abortion specialist they would have to 1) Be an immediate relative of the woman getting the abortion, 2) Kill the abortion specialist during the actual abortion, and 3) Kill the mother.

Actually, killing the mother would necessarily involve attempting to kill the child, so killing the mother creates a catch-22. Moreover, you don't have to kill the practitioner during the procedure. You would only have to kill him when imminent might come to the fetus, which would depend more on the judge in question than the legislation itself. There's also the issue of how this law might impact laws regarding criminal endangerment with respect to the behavior of the mother towards the fetus.

In any case, this is a really awful law that has no business being passed. Not because it denies mothers certain rights, though it certainly could be used to do so, but because it creates so many stupid legal problems that its full ramifications won't be sorted out for years, if not decades.

Hmmm... perhaps the reason would be that the 22 year old is a collection of cells combined with a mind and a perceived soul while a sperm and egg are just monocellular things. Sperm is really just protein after all, no thought and no cognition or processes. It just bumps around for awhile.

As far as a fetus being alive... I would consider the point and time it starts to do basic human processes(digestion, movement, and the such) its a human being.

Now if a cow fetus began to do basic human processes it would be a cow and not a human because its genetic encoding designates it as a cow and not a human. Same thing with x is an x because its genetics say that its an x.

I put it at basic multicellular living processes and that's that. A ball of cells has cellular processes but lacks multicellular processes.

I do need to make a point about the male influence on abortion though. While its a woman's body she alone didn't create that child a male cell needs to be used to make it. If a woman gets an abortion it could be like telling the man that his genetics are not good enough to be passed on in another living creature and even though it sounds stupid men also are affected by abortion. Some men want to go out into the world and have children and if that man's wife conceives and considers an abortion the man will feel bad about himself but he'll repress his emotions to help his wife cope.

Abortion affects both genders no matter what the media tells you.

sebster wrote:
Yes, now you are. Now consider that if you consider tipping the sperm and the egg to be not murder, and killing the 22 year old to be murder, then you have to be able to explain at what point things changed from one to the other, and why.

Did anyone mention the Trolley Problem yet?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

halonachos wrote:Hmmm... perhaps the reason would be that the 22 year old is a collection of cells combined with a mind and a perceived soul while a sperm and egg are just monocellular things. Sperm is really just protein after all, no thought and no cognition or processes. It just bumps around for awhile.

But then we have to start talking about what a mind is, which brings up many more problems than it solves.

And a soul...best to just leave that out altogether.

dogma wrote:

halonachos wrote:
If they were going to get away with legally killing an abortion specialist they would have to 1) Be an immediate relative of the woman getting the abortion, 2) Kill the abortion specialist during the actual abortion, and 3) Kill the mother.

Actually, killing the mother would necessarily involve attempting to kill the child, so killing the mother creates a catch-22. Moreover, you don't have to kill the practitioner during the procedure. You would only have to kill him when imminent might come to the fetus, which would depend more on the judge in question than the legislation itself. There's also the issue of how this law might impact laws regarding criminal endangerment with respect to the behavior of the mother towards the fetus.

I would consider imminent to mean the time the doctor enters the operating room, at any other time the doctor can still deny the patient the abortion or is finished with the operation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, no we shall debate what is a mind and what is soul and whether or not they are connected right now! Hell, lets just get the 'does God exist' debate going while we're at it. You know its only a matter of time.

In which case I put forth the motion that once a fetus is the same consistency of peanut butter it is a living thing as it proves that God exists.

halonachos wrote:
I would consider imminent to mean the time the doctor enters the operating room, at any other time the doctor can still deny the patient the abortion or is finished with the operation.

The point is that it doesn't matter what you consider to be imminent. It matters what can be successfully argued to be imminent.

dogma wrote:

halonachos wrote:
I would consider imminent to mean the time the doctor enters the operating room, at any other time the doctor can still deny the patient the abortion or is finished with the operation.

The point is that it doesn't matter what you consider to be imminent. It matters what can be successfully argued to be imminent.

I think that imminent can be argued as being the time the person decided to get an abortion, but would be easier to argue as being within a certain number of minutes to the actual abortion.

halonachos wrote:
I think that imminent can be argued as being the time the person decided to get an abortion, but would be easier to argue as being within a certain number of minutes to the actual abortion.

Yeah, I agree, but I also think that there's more leeway in a conservative state with a strong pro-life movement.

halonachos wrote:Hmmm... perhaps the reason would be that the 22 year old is a collection of cells combined with a mind and a perceived soul while a sperm and egg are just monocellular things. Sperm is really just protein after all, no thought and no cognition or processes. It just bumps around for awhile.

Please read more carefully. I didn't ask for a description of the differences between the two, I asked for the point at which one thing, lacking whatever it is that grants the right to life, becomes a thing that has whatever grants the right to life. In the 22 year peiod, at what point exactly does it go from being a pile of cells and become a human with the right to life?

As far as a fetus being alive... I would consider the point and time it starts to do basic human processes(digestion, movement, and the such) its a human being.

Digestion and movement is what grants the right to life? Can I go around shooting people in wheelchairs with colostomy bags?

Surely what matters has nothing to do with digestion or other basic faculties, and everything to do with mental faculties?

I do need to make a point about the male influence on abortion though. While its a woman's body she alone didn't create that child a male cell needs to be used to make it. If a woman gets an abortion it could be like telling the man that his genetics are not good enough to be passed on in another living creature and even though it sounds stupid men also are affected by abortion. Some men want to go out into the world and have children and if that man's wife conceives and considers an abortion the man will feel bad about himself but he'll repress his emotions to help his wife cope.

Abortion affects both genders no matter what the media tells you.

Yes, it does, and far more important than any of that is the idea that he believes he has just created a human life and that he's responsible for raising this to be a healthy, happy person, but then the woman decides to abort.

But the alternative is to have a system where the man can tell the woman she has to carry a child to term that she doesn't want.

So it sucks, but lots of things do. Man up and deal, because there's no solution.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:Did anyone mention the Trolley Problem yet?

No, thank God, I've seen that get really weird.

halonachos wrote:

corpsesarefun wrote:
I am attempting to tell you that while I don't give a gak who lives and dies whether it be people or foetus the bill WILL target those who practice legal abortions if harming a foetus (IE abortion) is seen as harming a human being. No one gives a flying feth about the mother, the foetus is what is under debate.

No it won't, some of the pro-choice people are using it to slam a political figure they don't want in office. Go figure they would take something and manipulate it to their cause, good thing Al Gore invented the internet so they could spread their message globally.

That sounds like the normal political process.

A politician invents a law you consider bad, which you oppose, and you use that to attack him and his law in order to oppose him and his law.

Is it bad because is it left-wingers doing it?

Aye I've no time for the male argument, sure it would suck if my missus wanted am abortion and I wanted the kid, but she puts the most effort into pregnancy, It's her body. We don't play an equal part in carrying it, so we shouldnt have an equal say in keeping it.

As seb said, suck it up and be a man!

The pain that is, not the foetus.

Leave that to the doctor.

Frazzled wrote:You completely and dare I say potentially deliberatley DIDN'T answer the question.
When is that point.
And no its not generally established. In the US SCOTUS views this as viability basically.

I'm sorry for bringing this up after a couple of pages have passed but I felt I had to answer it.

I "didn't answer the question" for the simple reason I was not answering a question. That was my first post in this discussion and it was outlining my views on the matter.

Regards to answering the question "when is that point" I can only steer you to my later posts where I suggest I would be in agreement with the majority of research into this subject suggesting the point of viability would be somewhere around the mid 20 weeks.

You may say it is "not generally established" but I beg to differ. Please, prove me wrong. Find me peer reviewed and academically rated research to suggest that a foetus can survive as a separate viable entity much before this period. If a large government body (such as SCOTUS) backs it, how exactly is it not "established"?

Yes, our technology continues to get better, yes, one day it may be possible to incubate a foetus artificially from conception, but the point will still remain that without significant aid, that foetus will not survive, and much research has shown, the foetus will not have reached the point at which it could be considered "alive/viable/etc".