Maintaining that age discrimination is wrong, then allowing abortions, but not muder of a newborn? A fetus is a developing human being just as a newborn is, the only difference is the age. Once an egg is fertilized the product is immediately a developing human being, so how is killing the fetus OK while killing a baby a few months older is not.

I am not looking for a simple minded "because the law says so" response, I am looking for someone with some intellect to comment on the logic, or lack thereof, in this!

I am someone who condones abortion to a certain gestational age - namely about 14 weeks, when the placenta takes over completely. I would much prefer all abortions to occur before six gestational weeks, which is when the heart begins to beat. But that isn't always possible.

I disagree entirely and completely with abortion after about 14 weeks. Pretty much at that stage you would have to give birth to abort, and if you have to give birth to abort, you should not be aborting.

__________________
We've got rules and maps and guns in our backs, but we still can't just behave ourselves. Even if to save our own lives, we are a brutal kind. The Shins

wailer, did you just volunteer to adopt and care for all of the malformed, defective, nonfunctional children who would have been aborted but for your willingness to care for them throughout their entire lifetimes?
didn't think so

__________________
“Mayor Palin fails to have a firm grasp of something very simple: the truth.”

[Frontiersman editorial, 2/7/97]

You answered it yourself. "A fetus is a developing human being". It is not a human being. It is just the potential of one.

There's a pretty clear difference between age discrimination and the ambiguity of pre-human existence.

The problem with age discrimination is in stereotyping. Someone can treat a healthy, quick-witted old person as though he/she is crippled and suffering from Alzheimer's... and thus make a completely inaccurate decision based completely on age.

The "double standard" between a person and a fetus however is based on criteria that are ALWAYS true of a fetus.

__________________
"Man lives in the sunlit world of that which he believes to be reality. But unseen by most is an underworld, a place that is just as real... but not as brightly lit... A DARK SIDE!"
-opening from Tales From the Darkside

Not sure of your point. A fetus is a potential human. An old person is a human being and has been for many, many years. One is not a human being, the other clearly is.

In reality, the dogma of preserving life is what is hypocritical. Existence is based off of ones own survival and not those around us. Adopting a dogma of preserving every life is a paradox, simply because in this world there are winners and losers, cheaters and straight-shooters, and so many weird combinations of genetics it is infallible to conceive a Utopian society where everyone is saved. We say "go Death penalty" and then cry over abortion. We kill those in Iraq and worry about that infant abandoned in a side street or found in a trash can. No, human existence is based on preserving one's self. Society simply provides a more efficient way to do that. Where does abortion fit in? If abortion proves beneficial to one geneline's survival, then it should be acceptable by society because society's purpose is to help promote survival. If it is negligible to one gene line's survival, or has no effect, then society should not concern itself with it. If it is adverse to other's gene line survival, then it should not be undertaken. As far as I can tell, abortion affects the first two and not the third.

__________________
The woman in my avatar is Cristina Scabbia and the woman in my profile picture is Tarja Turunen
Sun flames and moons glow, timeless the tides will flow, what will I face, what will be mine, fortune and fate the other side...

I'm a Tarte! What! You Want Somma This?

Malformed? Defective? Nonfunctional?!

I'm sorry, but I just have to address this. Before I was born, the doctor told my parents that I would probably be highly defective; I would be born with a malfunctioning heart, severe eye damage, possible brain damage, and significant risk of developing lupus (a debilitating blood disorder) later in life. The doctor suggested an abortion, since the first baby my mother had was a stillborn, and he didn't want her to have to go through the heartache again.

But my parents loved their new child more than that. They told the doctor that no matter what was wrong with me, they would take care of me; my parents were both pretty poor at the time, and my dad was between jobs. They decided to go through with the birth.

Now that I'm grown up, I do have pretty limited vision (20/200 aquity, colorblindness, light sensitivity) and a pacemaker in my chest to keep my heart going, but otherwise I am perfectly fine. In fact, I'm beyond fine. I have an IQ of over 160, have been accepted to five colleges, play six instruments, and teach a basic theology class at my local church.

I'm not trying to brag. What I am trying to do is show the shortsightedness and inaccuracy of most prenatal advice. Even with all of their technological marvels, doctors cannot predict, any more than anyone else, the future of an unborn child. And even if they could, I cannot devise an insult derogatory enough to describe those who would abort their own flesh and blood because it would be difficult to raise them, or because the child would live a "less than optimal" life. This trend of abortion for convenience is frankly disgusting. I cannot think of a better definition of evil than killing an unborn baby who not only cannot fight back, but also doesn't even know that its potential is being snuffed out forever.

In ANY case, unless the woman is GOING TO DIE from the birth, abortion is reprehensible on the highest level. I am not a Fundamentalist Christian, nor am I a hard-line Republican. What I am is a person who believes in the potential of every human being, and the right to life that is possessed by every sentient creature, great or small, born or unborn.

__________________
Men of England, heirs of Glory,
Heroes of unwritten story,
Nurslings of one mighty Mother,
Hopes of her, and one another;

Rise like Lions after slumber
In unvanquishable number,
Shake your chains to earth like dew
Which in sleep had fallen on you -
Ye are many - they are few.

- Percy Shelley, "The Masque of Anarchy"

Your parents took a risk, and it paid off. That isn't the case for many other parents, though.

As I said, they took a risk - but what if the doctor were right? If a woman is told there is a 90% chance her fetus will suffer from some sort of physical or mental defect, is 10% enough of a chance to continue on and hope for the best?
Your parents took a huge risk, and while it paid off for them, I still believe that doctors advice should be taken seriously.

Good for you.

Most prenatal advice would be at least 80% accurate, I would think - maybe more. There are tests that can prove a fetus will suffer - perhaps not all tests were performed on your mother?
People shouldn't think that prenatal advice is inaccurate, because most of it would be accurate enough to say for sure whether a fetus will have problems.

Can you tell me why I should give birth to something that cannot walk, talk, communicate in any way, toliet itself, or do anything at all for itself? How is that any kind of life?

If it doesn't know it's potenial is being snuffed out then why should you worry, or care?
I for one would not have a child with disability. Keep in mind it depends on the disability, but if my doctor were to tell me that my unborn child would be born with defects, I would heed my doctors words, and make the choice to abort, as I couldn't take the risk of continuing with the pregnancy.

What if it's 99% certain the woman will die from the birth? Is the 1% chance she will not enough of a chance to make her give birth? How certain do doctors have to be that she will die before you would agree to termination?
I believe in the potential of human beings too. Born human beings, that is. While a fetus is unborn, in my opinion, it has no rights.

__________________
The woman in my avatar is Cristina Scabbia and the woman in my profile picture is Tarja Turunen
Sun flames and moons glow, timeless the tides will flow, what will I face, what will be mine, fortune and fate the other side...

I'm a Tarte! What! You Want Somma This?