third trimester abortion


Off-Topic Discussions

1 to 50 of 54 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

should third and fourth trimester abortions be legal


Only in the case of severe danger to someone else (which would require some severely messed up scenarios for a 4th trimester killing...)


My take: it's not a human until it's born. If you don't want it to occupy your body any longer, have it removed.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Only in the case of severe danger to someone else (which would require some severely messed up scenarios for a 4th trimester killing...)

I'm with the big guy. Only if it's a choice between the mother and the baby.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition Subscriber

Without better definitions, I'd say third trimester abortions should be, as anti-abortion laws can be used to prevent women who have miscarried from having procedures such as a D&C, which is pretty freaking horrifying and soul-less.

I don't know what you mean by forth trimester abortion.

At any rate, I agree with hardwool. It's a person after it's born. The absolute most stringent test other than this that I would accept is viability.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

It's a trap!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

You can't have a 4th trimester abortion. A trimester, by definition, means there are 3 parts. That's like saying that you didn't finish the Marathon because you quit running after 30 miles.


Hardwool wrote:
My take: it's not a human until it's born. If you don't want it to occupy your body any longer, have it removed.

This is entirely arbitrary. Why would a 2 months premature baby in an incubator be different from an 8 month along fetus?


BigNorseWolf wrote:
This is entirely arbitrary. Why would a 2 months premature baby in an incubator be different from an 8 month along fetus?

Ok, I'll bite.

Because in the case of the former, the question of the mother's CONTROL OF HER OWN BODY does not apply. But that's pretty obvious, so...

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Hardwool wrote:
My take: it's not a human until it's born. If you don't want it to occupy your body any longer, have it removed.
This is entirely arbitrary. Why would a 2 months premature baby in an incubator be different from an 8 month along fetus?

That's why I would accept "viability" as a limit, which I accept as a moving and nebulous line, that will only grow more nebulous as our technology increases.

However, if a woman wants an abortion and the powers that be say that the fetus is "viable", she ought not be held financially accountable for the cost of NICU, at least IMHO. Of course, I'd probably argue that requesting an abortion after "viability" is legally equivalent to severing parental ties and giving the child up for adoption.


j b 200 wrote:
You can't have a 4th trimester abortion. A trimester, by definition, means there are 3 parts. That's like saying that you didn't finish the Marathon because you quit running after 30 miles.

If the baby isn't born, the pregnancy isn't over yet.

Trimesters are usually considered to be 3 months, 1/3 of the standard 9 month pregnancy. Obviously you can't divide the actual pregnancy into 3 even lengths up front, since you don't know how long it will last.

I'd assume 4th trimester would refer to after the theoretical due date.

Abortions at that point should be very rare, to say the least. Life & health reasons and usually induced delivery or Caesarean would be done instead in those cases. There could be cases, (where the fetus has already died perhaps? ) where an abortionlike procedure would be medically preferred, but that's not really abortion.


bugleyman wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
This is entirely arbitrary. Why would a 2 months premature baby in an incubator be different from an 8 month along fetus?

Ok, I'll bite.

Because in the case of the former, the question of the mother's CONTROL OF HER OWN BODY does not apply. But that's pretty obvious, so...

But if two conjoined twins share a liver, twin A cannot say "I want to control my own liver, get off..." and have to it with the hacksaw.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
This is entirely arbitrary. Why would a 2 months premature baby in an incubator be different from an 8 month along fetus?

Ok, I'll bite.

Because in the case of the former, the question of the mother's CONTROL OF HER OWN BODY does not apply. But that's pretty obvious, so...

But if two conjoined twins share a liver, twin A cannot say "I want to control my own liver, get off..." and have to it with the hacksaw.

I think I saw a horror movie where one of them actually did that :P


cmastah wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
This is entirely arbitrary. Why would a 2 months premature baby in an incubator be different from an 8 month along fetus?

Ok, I'll bite.

Because in the case of the former, the question of the mother's CONTROL OF HER OWN BODY does not apply. But that's pretty obvious, so...

But if two conjoined twins share a liver, twin A cannot say "I want to control my own liver, get off..." and have to it with the hacksaw.
I think I saw a horror movie where one of them actually did that :P

Nah, I think it was a comedy.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
But if two conjoined twins share a liver, twin A cannot say "I want to control my own liver, get off..." and have to it with the hacksaw.

The difference is, that these twins are obviously already born to voice this statement. Provided it's not freakishly intelligent and built a radio out of placenta-tissue, MacGuyver style.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
But if two conjoined twins share a liver, twin A cannot say "I want to control my own liver, get off..." and have to it with the hacksaw.

...which has what to do with your question?


bugleyman wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
But if two conjoined twins share a liver, twin A cannot say "I want to control my own liver, get off..." and have to it with the hacksaw.
...which has what to do with your question?

Person A is using part of person B's body.

When person A is a conjoined twin the ethical conclusion is that twin B's right to their body does not exceed twin A's right to be alive.

So when person B is a third trimester fetus then shouldn't the rest of the previous statement follow?

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm sure this thread will turn out just fine ...


BigNorseWolf wrote:

Person A is using part of person B's body.

When person A is a conjoined twin the ethical conclusion is that twin B's right to their body does not exceed twin A's right to be alive.

So when person B is a third trimester fetus then shouldn't the rest of the previous statement follow?

Only if you accept that a fetus is a person, which I do not.

But even if I did, by your logic anyone with kidney failure could demand a kidney donation.


bugleyman wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Person A is using part of person B's body.

When person A is a conjoined twin the ethical conclusion is that twin B's right to their body does not exceed twin A's right to be alive.

So when person B is a third trimester fetus then shouldn't the rest of the previous statement follow?

Only if you accept that a fetus is a person, which I do not.

Why is an 8 month along fetus not a person?

Quote:
But even if I did, by your logic anyone with kidney failure could demand a kidney donation.

From who?

Quote:
The vast majority of us can survive just fine with one kidney

By your logic the other twin can just start hacking, but legally thats not the case.

Quote:
so clearly someone with kidney failure's right to be alive trumps another's right to control his own body, no?

The analogy here would be if someone had (in an urban legend esque incident involving a weekend bender in las vegas and a lot of ice in the jacuzi) already acquired one of my kidneys and had it for 8 months and needs it to live. Can I get it back? Ethically and morally I'd have to say no, the kidney is gone.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Why is an 8 month along fetus not a person?

Simple answer? It hasn't been born yet. It has no sense of self. And while the same could be said of an infant, once the infant is born the mother's control of her own body is no longer the overriding concern.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
From who[m]?

From anyone...that's rather the point. Being a conjoined twin is just unlucky, no? Maybe we could have a kidney drawing...

BigNorseWolf wrote:
The analogy here would be if someone had (in an urban legend esque incident involving a weekend bender in las vegas and a lot of ice in the jacuzi) already acquired one of my kidneys and had it for 8 months and needs it to live. Can I get it back? Ethically and morally I'd have to say no, the kidney is gone.

No argument there...but since your scenario is analogous to the baby postpartum, are you sure you're not agreeing with me? :)


bugleyman wrote:


No argument there...but since your scenario is analogous to the baby postpartum, and no one is advocating infanticide, are you sure you're not agreeing with me? :)

If you can't draw a distinction between postpartum and close enough to part'em for state work then no.

The important part to me is that there is a brain with thoughts, feelings, and emotions in there. That is a constant regardless of which side of the mothers belly it happens to be on.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
If you can't draw a distinction between postpartum and close enough to part'em for state work then no.

If you are interested in understanding my position, it would be fastest if you just read the bit here about the violinist.

Frankly, I think it bizarre that males (myself included, of course) who aren't immediately involved feel entitled to an opinion at all.

With that, I'm off to bed. 'Night all.


bugleyman wrote:


If you are interested in understanding my position, it would be fastest if you just read the bit here about the violinist.

Absolutely not you cannot kill the violinist, especially if the society for the preservation of music slapped him there without HIS consent too.

Quote:
Frankly, I think it bizarre that males (myself included, of course) feel entitled to an opinion.

how did I know that was coming next...

Seriously, its hogwash. First of all morality isn't gender specific. Going on genocidal rampages during wartime is primarily a male activity but anyone has a right to complain about it. Secondly, abortion happens to males so even IF you accept that ludicrous premise the argument falls apart.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Absolutely not you cannot kill the violinist, especially if the society for the preservation of music slapped him there without HIS consent too.

So one is morally obligated to allow the violinist to use one's kidneys for nine months?

Well, I give you points for owning that position, but I won't claim to understand it.

And now I really am off to bed. :)


Statistically, access to elective abortion in the first or second trimester reduces almost all need for elective abortion in the third trimester.

After 20 weeks or so, abortion is almost exclusive to the cases of genetic problems, severe deformities, or danger to the womans health.

It isn't until about 25-30 weeks that a fetus is even capable of pain and consciousness according to data.

And finally, no human has a right to another persons body without consent, aka the concept of bodily autonomy. An zygote, embryo, and fetus have no rights, especially to override the rights of a person (born, biologically dependent, autonomous human)

Just my thoughts.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
"Why would a 2 months premature baby in an incubator be different from an 8 month along fetus?"

Largely, it isn't using a persons body for biological survival.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
But if two conjoined twins share a liver, twin A cannot say "I want to control my own liver, get off..." and have to it with the hacksaw

Depends, considering that I can probably assume this example is two independent and thinking people, capable of emotion, pain, and forming an identity.

I would place the twins scenario more with a parasitic twin, that isn't capable of being considered a person, to be more comparable to a pregnancy.

For me though, largely society does respect bodily autonomy. No person is forced to give up organs or blood, even if it will save a life. Even the dead are granted autonomy in the form of consenting to be an organ donor.

Loving the debate though, let's keep this going and keep it respectful people.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A "4th trimester abortion" is called "adoption."

Liberty's Edge

sex-selective abortion

I'm male. Am I allowed, in good conscience, to find this particular practice reprehensible? I know it's not a big issue in the industrialized world, but it's as viable a thought experiment as being a biological dialysis machine for some concert violinist.

Liberty's Edge

bugleyman wrote:
It's a trap!

By George I think you're on to something!

Liberty's Edge

Oh, and I'm pro-choice. But, again, I am male; I feel that I should add that little tid bit because it may or may not affect my perceived right to an opinion.


Heathansson wrote:

sex-selective abortion

I'm male. Am I allowed, in good conscience, to find this particular practice reprehensible? I know it's not a big issue in the industrialized world, but it's as viable a thought experiment as being a biological dialysis machine for some concert violinist.

I feel the same way about abortions based on a prediction that the child will have Downs syndrome or something similar.

I just don't think there is any way to create a law to outlaw Downs-selective abortions or sex-selective abortions, but not other abortions. Or rather, such a law couldn't be feasibly enforced.


j b 200 wrote:
You can't have a 4th trimester abortion. A trimester, by definition, means there are 3 parts. That's like saying that you didn't finish the Marathon because you quit running after 30 miles.

I get your point, but it should be noted that marathon's do come in different lengths.


Irontruth wrote:
I get your point, but it should be noted that marathon's do come in different lengths.

That's probably the most nitpicky thing I've read on these forums :p (and also incorrect, but that's a topic for another thread.)

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
xavier c wrote:
should third and fourth trimester abortions be legal

If they aren't woman will try dangerous things themselves, or go to a country whre such a abortion IS legal. Lateral thinking demands that forbiding abortion is not the answer, but psychological screening for mothers is.

And if a mother doesn't want a baby, and it's born, how will the future look like ? It's not like mothers of unwanted children magically change their mind the moment the baby is born.


Marc Radle wrote:
I'm sure this thread will turn out just fine ...

Unless someone aborts it.

Heathansson wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
It's a trap!
By George I think you're on to something!

Was that another yellowdingo petition?


The psychological studies done are pretty clear that a woman who chooses abortion because SHE wants it will be fine in most cases. If she feels forced into one, it is far worse... but still a lot better than both being forced to take care of the child after not getting an abortion she wanted, and especially adopting the child away.


Heathansson wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
It's a trap!
By George I think you're on to something!

Yeah, I was gonna say, fourth trimester abortion is called infanticide.

Which I'm generally opposed to.

[Keeps hunting Anasatasia Romanova]


2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quote:
Frankly, I think it bizarre that males (myself included, of course) feel entitled to an opinion.
how did I know that was coming next...

Yeah, I agree, that's pretty silly.

Well, moral philosophy means about as much to me as Andre Malraux's nail-clippings, but here's what I got:

There is no intrinsic value on human life. Oh, we like to pretend that there is, but then we place embargos on Iraq that result in the death of, oh, let's say a hundred thousand children. Or Obama goes on the teevee and cries about two dozen dead American children in Connecticut and then carries out the killings of hundreds of children in Somalia, Yemen, etc., ad nauseam.

To borrow a concept from my friend/nemesis, Al, the only value there is to human life is that which we put on it. So, yes, drawing the line between "inside the mother"/"outside the mother" is scientifically and "morally" arbitrary.

It seems to me if we have to draw the line arbitrarily, than we should draw it where it does the least harm. Forcing women to bear children that they don't want and all of the ramifications that that entails both for the life of the mother, the unwanted child, society, etc., seems to be a much greater "evil" than the, admitted, violence done to the fetus which, indeed, is human life.

But, as I've said before, I stopped reading philosophy when I was a teenager. Hell is--other posters!


Also, I only watched the first half of last night's Diceton Abbey--did Lady Edith go through with it?


Jean-Paul Sartre, Intrnet Troll wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quote:
Frankly, I think it bizarre that males (myself included, of course) feel entitled to an opinion.
how did I know that was coming next...

Yeah, I agree, that's pretty silly.

Well, moral philosophy means about as much to me as Andre Malraux's nail-clippings, but here's what I got:

There is no intrinsic value on human life. Oh, we like to pretend that there is, but then we place embargos on Iraq that result in the death of, oh, let's say a hundred thousand children. Or Obama goes on the teevee and cries about two dozen dead American children in Connecticut and then carries out the killings of hundreds of children in Somalia, Yemen, etc., ad nauseam.

To borrow a concept from my friend/nemesis, Al, the only value there is to human life is that which we put on it. So, yes, drawing the line between "inside the mother"/"outside the mother" is scientifically and "morally" arbitrary.

It seems to me if we have to draw the line arbitrarily, than we should draw it where it does the least harm. Forcing women to bear children that they don't want and all of the ramifications that that entails both for the life of the mother, the unwanted child, society, etc., seems to be a much greater "evil" than the, admitted, violence done to the fetus which, indeed, is human life.

Not to mention that we don't actually stop abortions by banning them, just push the poor women to use riskier methods and/or unscrupulous doctors. Rich women will of course find ways to do it safely - probably by travelling to where it's legal.

So not only do we still have abortions, we also have dead women.

The Exchange

I oppose most attempt of the government to tell you what you can do with your own body but i also oppose hypocrisy, if abortion is legal it cannot in rational be murder to kill a fetus. Also love how a child being born or not is HER choice but if she CHOOSES to have it the man is fully held responsible. And any argument that he could have not gotten her pregnant is very simply the best argument on why she doesn't need to be able to get an abortion at all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

But you know,

Spoilered due to vitriol and a bad word:
a large class of desperately poor people is VITAL to churches everywhere. Who else is going to support said churches? Sooo... Forbidding abortions, sex ed and contraceptives is a VERY convenient way to get such a class. And while we can pretend we support abortions in the case of rape, that's just until we have the political power to blacken the idea of abortions enough, and make them difficult enough to administer, to completely ban them. The truth is, a very poor woman runs a pretty big risk of getting raped, and when she is then forced to drop out of school, abandon her career because of it, she will join the poorest of the poor in their praises of the church - because we are the only ones that can give her food due to our control of charity. And if she dies in a black market abortion, there are many more in her position that will support us. Plus, she's often the sole guardian of other children, which we gratefully care for. The biggest threat to our influence today is that many countries are growing more secular, even atheist. Well, the fastest remedy to that is the above program, which has indeed worked fantastically in various cities and countries across the world.

The Exchange

Unplanned pregnancy is the single greatest contributor to poverty, and desperate people just want someone to save them so they are a great resourse to those wanting power by numbers....


thejeff wrote:

Not to mention that we don't actually stop abortions by banning them, just push the poor women to use riskier methods and/or unscrupulous doctors. Rich women will of course find ways to do it safely - probably by travelling to where it's legal.

So not only do we still have abortions, we also have dead women.

Absolutely agreed. "Keep abortion safe and legal" is a crappy slogan of the liberal feminists that we commies have always opposed.

We prefer "Free abortion on demand! Free, quality health care for all!"


Andrew R wrote:
Unplanned pregnancy is the single greatest contributor to poverty, and desperate people just want someone to save them so they are a great resourse to those wanting power by numbers....

But hey, who is the federal government to tell states that abstinance only education is wrong?

The Exchange

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Unplanned pregnancy is the single greatest contributor to poverty, and desperate people just want someone to save them so they are a great resourse to those wanting power by numbers....
But hey, who is the federal government to tell states that abstinance only education is wrong?

The people are supposed to be in power so the people should have the education they want. Sadly in democracy some will choose stupid things. Abstinence only education is foolish and shortsighted. And education needs to come from more than just gov controlled schools. that said idiotic teens should not be having sex at all.


Andrew R wrote:
that said idiotic teens should not be having sex at all.

Said tons of authority figures since the beginning of civilization...to no avail whatsoever.


Andrew R wrote:
The people are supposed to be in power so the people should have the education they want.

Except "the people" DO have that power and did get the education that they they wanted their citizens to have nation wide. There's no reason why state level "the people" are more "the people" than a nation wide "the people"

Quote:
that said idiotic teens should not be having sex at all.

I don't think adults are any better.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
But hey, who is the federal government to tell states that abstinence only education is wrong?

Exactly.

Considering states that favor abstinence only education tend to have higher teen pregnancy rates, STD rates, divorce rates, and single mother poverty rates, I think it can be safe to say that abstinence only education really doesn't accomplish what it's supposed to...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Lots of teenage pregnancies, poverty, and big influence for the churches? I would say the abstinence only sex ed succeeds in exactly what it's supposed to do.

1 to 50 of 54 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / third trimester abortion All Messageboards