Should the "when does life start" debate have a limit at viability?

sunnyside · #1 (**permalink**) 07-14-2008, 07:39 PM

Basically what I'm asking is if a fetus should count as "alive" if it could survive outside of the mother (such as using technology).

It seems a bit hypocritical that killing a baby after it's removed would count as murder but killing it while still inside the mother is not. You'd think either both should be fine or neither.

For reference the current youngest premie is 21 weeks and six days. But of course that number will continue to go down.

Makedde · #2 (**permalink**) 07-14-2008, 07:42 PM

The fetus is always alive, from the moment of conception, it just isn't capable of surviving outside the womb until much later.

I'd say the fetus certainly alive once it is viable - as it is alive weeks, even months, before that. Having said that, though, I do not believe women should have to give birth to that fetus if they do not wish to.

sunnyside · #3 (**permalink**) 07-14-2008, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Makedde

The fetus is always alive, from the moment of conception, it just isn't capable of surviving outside the womb until much later.

I'd say the fetus certainly alive once it is viable - as it is alive weeks, even months, before that. Having said that, though, I do not believe women should have to give birth to that fetus if they do not wish to.

Alright fine. The fetus is "human" or whatever it becomes that makes it so I can't walk into the premie ward at a hospital, throw them out the window, and just be charged with destruction of property or some other lesser offence.

I suppose I'm not even asking about giving birth exactly. I guess I'm asking should the mother be able to order the child killed when a doctor could remove it right then without killing it. Presuming the mother could then walk away from the child?

Makedde · #4 (**permalink**) 07-14-2008, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunnyside

I guess I'm asking should the mother be able to order the child killed when a doctor could remove it right then without killing it. Presuming the mother could then walk away from the child?

It would perhaps be better the child be born, rather than killed, yes. But at the same time, you cannot force a woman to give birth if she is unwillingly, so I do not believe it is okay to remove the viable fetus if she does not consent.

She should be spoken to, and perhaps someone could try to convince her to give birth, but if she does not consent, you cannot intervene.

SuperDinoYoshi · #5 (**permalink**) 07-15-2008, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Makedde

It would perhaps be better the child be born, rather than killed, yes. But at the same time, you cannot force a woman to give birth if she is unwillingly, so I do not believe it is okay to remove the viable fetus if she does not consent.

She should be spoken to, and perhaps someone could try to convince her to give birth, but if she does not consent, you cannot intervene.

I don't think he's asking "Is it legal to..." he's asking "Shouldn't it be like..."

When you have a baby inside of you, its going to come out one way or another.

You could

A. Kill the baby, then take it out
B. Take it out
C. Let it leave

He's saying we should just do B, not force C.

SpankyTheWhale · #6 (**permalink**) 07-15-2008, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunnyside

Basically what I'm asking is if a fetus should count as "alive" if it could survive outside of the mother (such as using technology).

It seems a bit hypocritical that killing a baby after it's removed would count as murder but killing it while still inside the mother is not. You'd think either both should be fine or neither.

For reference the current youngest premie is 21 weeks and six days. But of course that number will continue to go down.

This is the cornerstone, the absolute foundation of my stance on abortion.

katiegrrl0 · #7 (**permalink**) 07-15-2008, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunnyside

Basically what I'm asking is if a fetus should count as "alive" if it could survive outside of the mother (such as using technology).

It seems a bit hypocritical that killing a baby after it's removed would count as murder but killing it while still inside the mother is not. You'd think either both should be fine or neither.

For reference the current youngest premie is 21 weeks and six days. But of course that number will continue to go down.

Partial birth abortion. A women if she is going to make the abortion choice should make it as soon as possible. Yet there are times when her circumstances can change where you find yourself unable to care for a child. Abortion then is an option and should be. The number of abortions at this point I am certain is much lower then at any other time in the pregnancy.

sunnyside · #8 (**permalink**) 07-15-2008, 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by katiegrrl0

Partial birth abortion. A women if she is going to make the abortion choice should make it as soon as possible. Yet there are times when her circumstances can change where you find yourself unable to care for a child. Abortion then is an option and should be. The number of abortions at this point I am certain is much lower then at any other time in the pregnancy.

I suppose the question is whether you should be able to order the child killed or whether the doctor has to save it.

There already are issues with that I think. For example lets say a woman on her way to get an abortion got in a traffic accident. When she wakes up she finds that the doctor removed the baby and the prognosis for it is good. Now that it's escaped I don't believe she can order it killed.

SpankyTheWhale · #9 (**permalink**) 07-15-2008, 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunnyside

I suppose the question is whether you should be able to order the child killed or whether the doctor has to save it.

There already are issues with that I think. For example lets say a woman on her way to get an abortion got in a traffic accident. When she wakes up she finds that the doctor removed the baby and the prognosis for it is good. Now that it's escaped I don't believe she can order it killed.

In my ho, dat be murder righ' der.

VRevolution2008I · #10 (**permalink**) 07-16-2008, 12:14 AM

the fetus should be considered alive at the point conception can be proven using technology. all life in general is an evolution. Everything has to be at that point to continue on. one thing creates the next. this is the same as a developing human. at this point they are supposed to live, they are capable of living, they should live. However there are several adverse environmental effects that can greatly change the outcome of the life, pre-birth. Abortion, natural miscarriage, induced miscarraige to name a few. Viability...its embarrasing as a human being that anyone would argue that should be considered the starting point of life. one baby may be viable before another. immediately after conception, everything in your body is working for you and to build you. as well as the body of another human being.one might say it doesnt have any heart to pump blood and no brain for thinking. Trees are alive and well. Sea Sponge. Maybe we are sea sponges for a certain time but what we are and what we are to evolve into is us. How can you not protect Us.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
"Pro-Life Hypocrites": Jesus never taught abortion	Shamgar	Abortion	48	07-21-2008 03:58 AM
Colorado to have "life" amendment on ballot	lavell12	Current Events	9	07-15-2008 07:21 PM
Feminazi Boxer (D-CA) Holds Up Resolution Over "Human Life" [ElephantBiz]	KnowBlog	Political Blogs	0	04-17-2008 12:10 PM
California May End "Life Without Parole" For Youth	SeminalBlog	Political Blogs	0	04-11-2008 08:10 AM
Tom Delay calls his battle "life or death"	kaladrew	Current Events	41	03-23-2005 03:45 PM