I agree with her - should be allowed no questions asked until birth.

Well, most people already know but if you haven't regularly written my posts I guess you wouldn't. I just don't really see even a "born" baby as a person yet. I only would say birth because an arbitrary point needs to be set. I think it's disgusting to force a woman to carry an unwanted baby even for 1 day. It's also possible for her not to find out until late term (there have been births where the woman didn't even know she was pregnant.)

I agree that third-term abortions should not be permitted except in very rare cases when the woman's physical (note: not psychological) health is concerned. Even then, I feel that delivering the baby prematurely should be preferred to abortion if the mother cannot carry the baby to term.

I also use sentience (ie: ability to feel and experience pain) as the determining factor. If we cannot do laboratory tests on cats and dogs, and we also can't abuse them, due to their ability to feel pain, why should we be allowed to arbitrarily disregard that same ability in a fetus? Viability is also important because if the fetus can survive outside of the uterus, then it is no longer just a part of the mother and is in fact a separate creature.

Personally, I find late-term abortions repugnant. I wouldn't support an attempt to rule-out second term abortions, but in my mind, anything past 18-20 weeks is disgusting. Why would anybody need to wait that long? If you didn't know you were pregnant, you are obviously mentally ill. I've been pregnant enough times to know that you can tell even before the baby starts kicking, which is another tell-tale sign that something is living inside of you. If you want an elective abortion past the point of viability or development of sentience, then there's always abortion. Don't want to give birth? Have a c-section. Anything else is infringing upon the rights of another human.

Furthermore, if late-term abortion is permissable, why is infanticide not also legal? The trip through the birth canal doesn't magically change anything in the baby's neurology, so it logically makes no sense to start there. If the development of "personhood" is the determining factor, then it should be okay to kill children up until the age of 12-18 months. Before that they have no self-concept and therefore aren't deserving of any rights whatsoever. Anybody who holds the position that late-term abortion should be an elective (ie: not necessary) option must accept that their position ultimately leads to either the endorsement of infanticide or that it is completely illogical and arbitrary.

This is a big mess of worms, isn't it?  I don't know if you followed the thread on whether or not human evolution is "natural," but this kind of thing was mentioned a lot.  We evolved brains that allow us to weaken selection pressure by keeping more humans alive than if we were in a hunter-gatherer state.  However, those who suggest that human tampering with natural selection is a problem would do well to realize the dilemma they're placing themselves in with regard to not only late term abortions, but medical care for premature babies, corrective procedures for birth defects (such as sewing up an exposed spine), and so forth.

In any case, the argument from nature is a fallacy.  That is, saying that just because something is "natural," it is also what humans ought to do, is fallacious.  Infanticide has been practiced through much of human history, mostly because abortion wasn't available in a lot of cases, and was quite dangerous to the mother when it was.  Wet nurses throughout history have been well practiced in the art of looking very downtrodden while delivering the speech, "I'm sorry ma'am, but when I took the baby out of your sight, into the other room, all by myself, (wink wink nudge nudge) I'm afraid it suddenly had trouble breathing, and passed away suddenly."

There's a lot more to this question than just the viability of the fetus, or its "personhood."  First, is the fact that a fetus is viable an automatic moratorium on late term abortions?  The emotional weight of the opinion that every baby deserves to be born doesn't offer any substantive argument, and offers no justification outside of, well... appeal to emotion.  By law, a baby is a human after birth.  To offer constitutional rights to a fetus is to open a can of political worms that leads to a very bad place.  Do we really want to put women on trial for violating the rights of fetuses?  Do we want attorneys ad litum to be appointed to every pregnancy?  After all, the law insists that those who are unable to institute legal action on their own behalf be represented when their rights have potentially been violated.

With the virtual moratorium on infanticide, can we really say that abortion is a worse alternative in any case? 

Is there a valid argument for why every viable fetus ought to be born, other than the emotional one?

Is there a valid reason for asserting that killing is ok in war, as punishment, and in self defense, but that it's always, always, always wrong, no matter what, if we're killing an unborn viable fetus?

Is there a legal justification for extending rights to a fetus despite no constitutional or legal foundation to do so?

Nasty, tough questions.  I don't pretend to have the answers to all of them.  I do know that I feel like the best situation is to have an abortion in the first 9-12 weeks, for many reasons, including what PorkChop has mentioned -- the drastic hormonal changes that happen in the second and third trimesters.  I'm  just not sure I can say that outlawing third trimester abortions is legally justified.  I'm sort of a stickler for not adding things to the constitution just because we want to.

Nor would I choose to engage you in such circular and self-defeating debate.

As a person with some experience in counselling subjects prior to abortion on this issue I have found too that my views have changed over time regarding the "cut-off" point in what constitutes humane versus inhumane. Your own analysis of the clinical considerations is superb and cannot be faulted in my view, and your partner's inclusion of the woman's own weighted input into the decision-making process is significantly important and relevant too. My own experience is that this latter input however, if not regulated by consideration for the clinical implications involved, tends to disregard them on occasion and can indeed bring a person into an area where "inhumane" becomes a possible description of what might transpire should they not be counselled to consider those clinical implications.

My own views as they stand now are completely predicated on the elimination of the hypothetical. That is to say, for example, that a man's views (unless he is a person who regards himself as the "future father" ) are degraded in value purely because he is not the one in the dilemma. The focus, in other words, begins and ends with the person carrying the foetus. Likewise, views - even if they are expressed by the woman - which are founded in moralistic or theistic judgements (proclaimed largely by men in any case) must take second billing to those arrived at through consideration of the clinical reality of the situation.

So the sequence of events with regard to an individual confronted with the dilemma, after counselling, making a decision regarding abortion reads as follows;

(In most cases the inability to get beyond any of these points tends to render the rest meaningless - and nearly always results in either the woman allowing the pregnancy to go to full term which includes the risk of degradation of mental health, or risk psychologically damaging herself in any case through having an abortion she regrets. The purpose of counselling is to arrive at a decision easiest to live with afterwards, not one deemed morally right or wrong by non-participants)

1. Get the person to assess the feasibility of to have/not have a child as uninfluenced by hypothesis-based opinion as possible (this, in some cases, is the hardest thing to do).

2. Apprise the person of the biological reality of what is happening to her body.

3. Establish the relationship implications of the decision. This includes her relationship with the "father", her family/friends, and ultimately with herself.

4. Apprise the person of the law and her options.

5. Apprise the person of clinical studies regarding sentience, foetal development, etc.

6. Apprise the person of the procedure which will apply.

7. Allow the person as much time as is feasible to consider her decision based on the information and her own (now hopefully better informed) conclusions .

8. Facilitate that decision supportively.

Since the law effectively decides the "cut-off point" the issue of whether we are talking about early or late term pregnancy is secondary to the importance of the decision to the individual herself. I have yet to see two cases entirely similar and have never ever been able to predict the decision taken with any great certainty. But to answer your query regarding what others might think regarding where that "cut-off point" might lie, I personally steer clear of what I regard as a philosophical debate about "potential" and more to the physical (and especially the migration in development between the telencephalon and cerebrum).  To me perception is the key, not the potential to perceive. Once a foetus has developed a cerebrum (which is designed for nothing else), even of a rudimentary form, it is sentient and that's enough for me. Since there is huge debate about what constitutes a developed cerebrum I tend to the earlier estimations which means I object to an abortion on humanitarian grounds and without reference to the mother's mental health only tentatively after the third month and absolutely after the sixth.

But I, as man, have the freedom to regard this issue untramelled by considerations relating to my own body. This falls under "hypothesis" therefore and I try, as best I am able, to be non-judgemental about people whose evaluation of the dilemma concerns huge consideration, as the carrier of the foetus, for their own welfare. Rape and incest victims, for example, must be shown more compassion and consideration than others but aside from that in any case, unless we are totally empathetic (an impossibility in my view), we have no right to presume we know better than the person in the situation or that our compassion or views even matter that much.

I've heard of women in comas being inseminated (INVESTIGATION), carry the baby to full term, and give birth to healthy children before.

I'm with you here. I just don't know if I buy the idea that the fetus is part of the mother. If you took some of the fetal tissue and injected it into the mother, she would have an immune response would she not? Also, every cell of her body contains the same DNA. The cells of the fetus, however, do not. I think I would consider DNA the ultimate rule in determining this from that. Of course, the issue of clones challenges that. Would you consider two clones to be the same person with one set of rights (one could kill the other without violating anything) or do you consider them separate persons and why? Is it the separateness? If so, then perhaps this is the example that finally lends credibility to the separateness argument. One also might argue that nurture plays a role in defining the line between two clones.

As for the animal analogy, I would respond that we don't in our society have a rule against killing or harming non-human animals in general (we do everything from castration to slaughter); we just can't cause them inhumane pain and suffering. Therefore, the person-hood concept plays a key role. This is one reason why I adjusted my personal "line" past 20 weeks and into 28-32 weeks. The neurobiology seems to show that the pain response exhibited prior to the explosion of Myelin sheaths in those later weeks isn't anything like human mental states. Also, I suppose that abortion could be controlled in a manner that makes it measurably painless. That would leave you only with the determination of person vs. non-person.

This was my point too. If your main objection is, "It's my body" then why should abortion be the only option if viability is possible? If someone trespasses should killing them be the first option or simply having them leave alive? The response I got was that birth and c-sections are both risky medical procedures that shouldn't be forced on a woman if she doesn't want them. Which in turn got the response from me that when rights conflict not everybody gets what they want. Can anyone think of a precedent where a person has to endure physical/medical treatment legally against their will for the sake of maintaining a balance of rights? It is my understanding that competent adults have the right to refuse medical treatment but I also understand that only in the case of abortion are another person's rights possibly involved.

Once again, you've covered a key point that seems to make her logic inconsistent unless the argument for separateness can be bolstered as significant. However, I'm not convinced of that either though my clone example above might add some perspective.

First of all, a third trimester abortion involves giving birth--just to a dead baby. How do you think they get it out? Not only that, but that procedure is risky as well. So that argument falls flat on its face. As for the medical treatment issue, in the case of giving birth particularly, there have been many instances of women being forced to have c-sections and I remember one where the hospital sued for emergency custody of a pre-born infant because the mother refused a c-section and left the hospital. (That woman ultimately gave birth to a healthy baby without a c-section.) Women have also been prosecuted in some states for attempting to kill their unborn child late in pregnancy (there was some woman who tried to drink so much alcohol that the baby would die) and there are laws that punish those who injure a pregnant woman or cause injury to the child more severely. Obviously, the law has already established a certain amount of rights for a viable fetus.

The fetus is separate. It has its own circulatory system, dna, bodily functions, etc. It just so happens that the placenta attached to the uterine wall receives nourishment from the mother, similar to how it will receive nourishment after birth via lactation. The only argument one can maintain is either that selfishness trumps the life of a sentient being or that we should be allowed to kill one year olds.

I almost agree with you but for this: I would use viability as the determining factor, rather than "sentience" which I think is a little more complicated than just being able to feel pain. Or at least, I think the separate but related quality of sapience may be equally important.

Excuse me while I slap myself silly for letting that get by me. Nice catch, Kelly.

Ooo....owww...oooo....aaaaa...

Ok, that's better.

That's another topic too that is troubling. There is apparantly some concern (so I've heard but haven't verified) that hospitals may do more c-sections than should be warranted for financial gain.

But back to the topic at hand, I can imagine that these examples raise there own questions since they are essentially variations on the theme up for debate in the first place. I'm starting to think that appealing to law is circular and perhaps I should abandon that line of reasoning.

In your opinion, apparently.

I really think that's disgusting. Especially when you could just give it to somebody else.

Because somebody else will feed it.

Check a dictionary:

noun

1. a sentient state or quality; capacity for feeling or perceiving; consciousness
2. mere awareness or sensation that does not involve thought or perception

(emp. mine)

You have yet to demonstrate my irrationality. If mental capacity is the determining factor, then we should be allowed to kill people with mental retardation, Down's Syndrome, or perhaps even severe autism. How do you like them apples? Be consistent or admit defeat.

There are laws limiting tests on higher functioning animals to certain areas only...ie not for laundry detergent or mascara.

Oh yeah? PROVE IT. I've got studies out the ass that will show that your statement is pure ignorance. Likely based on a perverse worldview and personal bias.

So do you have ANYTHING that would apply to a baby that wouldn't apply to an animal routinely killed for food or whatever other than it happens to have human DNA? As far as I see you are just as irrational on this position as fundies are on religion, if not more so. I don't see any rational reason to value a human of a certain cognitive ability higher than an animal of the same - and I mean a cat should be considered of way more value than a 1 year old human - a cat can easily survive on it's own. A 1 year old has literally zero chance.

 I literally see a baby as having absolute zero value and not deserving of any rights whatsoever. Forcing a woman to carry a fetus she doesn't want even for one minute is utterly disgusting to me and reminds me of the "Alien" movies. I seriously think we need to start in the strongest possible way discouraging breeding as our planet is way overpopulated. I think something like China's "1 baby" policy would be a great idea worldwide - maybe having a lottery or something only allowing about 10% of the population to breed in more overpopulated areas.

You really are an asshat. I could survive given the groceries. A baby couldn't survive even given a chef, chauffer, etc and isn't even able to communicate it's wants. A baby has given literally nothing. I really do think a 1 baby limit worldwide is a good idea. Anyone having more than 1 would receive 25 years in prison and automatic sterilization before realease, Only exception would be a woman who served at least 5 years could be released once she reached menopause. Breeding is very selfish and inconsiderate to the rest of the world seeing what the population is. Maybe a 5 year ban on reproduction would be even better.

Guess what, asshat?

I am a chef, chauffer, etc to my children.  I have a 4 year old that will turn 5 in Sept. and a 3 year old that will turn 4 in Dec.  THEY SURVIVED!

My children have ME.

Their parent you fucking ass-stain.

I give for them.  Every day.  What have you given?  Or have others given for you for 34 years?

It's very selfish and inconsiderate that you keep consuming resources when there are too many people on the planet already which you admit to.  Life IS being selfish and inconsiderate.  I'm very selfish and inconsiderate of my life.  I'm also very selfish and inconsiderate of my families' lives as well.  Fuck you.  I will defend that selfishness and inconsiderateness of them continuing to live with the last drop of my blood.

Ummmmm

Thank you, Matt.

This is crossing the line. Saying that somebody's entire family should die or that you would eliminate them is a clear violation of the rules. Keep your discourse on an appropriate level or your posts will be deleted and your account suspended.

Respectfully Matt, that may seem like a flaw but it's the way that human babies evolved to be. I think sentience is very difficult to determine even in living, post-natal animals and I've considered lately that the distinction between sapience and sentience might just be a human abstraction.  Human babies evolved so that they born altricial, or helpless, with a high degree of neotony (retention of immature, and in the case of humans, even underdeveloped) traits at birth. The brain of the infant continues to grow outside the womb, reaching a size that could never have passed through the birth canal, and even this process is imperfect. Human beings on average experience significantly more difficult births than pretty much any other animal. And the end result of this evolutionary trade-off: the kind of intelligence and cooperation  that permits you and I to be exchanging information over a digital medium of human invention. In other words, helpless babies are the price of human nature, so it's kind of pointless to complain about an evolutionary fitness tradeoff that's arguably worked in your benefit more than it has worked against you.

So yeah, adoption is far more preferable to infanticide.

Agreed about China's policy, we need to control population growth in an egalitarian manner, but unfortunately I think we have to rely on the tried and trusted but still less efficient effort to educate the world's citizens about all ways of avoiding unwanted pregancies and STI's. Frankly when it comes down to abortion, the label Pro-Choice says it all: it's a woman's choice. Yes, there can be complicating circumstances as Kelly pointed out, but the reasonable ideal is that it's WOMEN who make the choice, not men, unless we're involved directly and even then it's a woman's choice as to whether we get a say. Last time I checked we were both not women.

Also, evolutionarily speaking babies have 50% of the value of their mother and 50% percent of the value of their father, as this is the breakdown of whose genes they're carrying, and in most cases responsible parents instinctively protect their (Post-Natal) children for this very reason. Remember Hamilton's Rule of Kin Selection:

C < R x B

where in C represents the cost to the actor, R represents  the genetic relatedness of  the actor to the recipient, and B represents the fitness benefit to the recipient.

 My first memory is short after birth. A nurse carries me through a dark corridor to a bright white room, where she puts me on a table, takes a big scissors and cuts some remaining bits of skin from the area of my belly button. It doesn't hurt, but the scissors are very cold. My consciousness is clear and I certainly don't feel like less valuable than a cat.

My mother does a regression therapy, and it also involves a possibility to take people into a moment of their birth. The session reveals real facts about the birth, for example, what kind of were birth complications (from a perspective of the child), or who was pulled out by gynecologic pliers. Those who had undergone that experience, all claims, that a child at the moment of birth has extremely clear and perceptive consciousness. It's absolutely uncomparable to any latter state, not even a greatest genius has so bright mind. Of course, a child has initially almost no motoric abilities, so by a logics of a "jumping/deaf spider experiment" you assume, that a young child is a pack of meat.
Matt, with all respect, you're very, very ignorant about it, and you're also a potential baby killer. (thanks geezus for police and laws) In this case I sympathize with Watcher, you theoretize about human lives, when you don't know anything about them. I wish you to undergo a regression session to the time of your birth, and a re-evaluation of your opinion by what you would experience. Or exactly said, I wish you the feeling like a total asshat, which would inevitably come.

 
As for abortion, I would suggest do it immediately and without remorse, or not at all (if a life of mother isn't endangered). Late abortion may cause serious emotional problems (somehing like trauma of a policeman who "used the gun&quot, and are known to be risky for further fertility.
As for occult sources, I had read that when someone asked a soul when does it start to inhabit the body, the soul answered that it begins after fifth week of pregnancy. For ending the pregnancy till five weeks, there is practically no bad karma. However, after that time a potential bad karma for abortion rather quickly raises till it reaches a full rate of bad karma per one human murder. A late abortion may be rather close to it.
So, I personally wouldn't go demonstrate against late abortions, I would rather support making early abortion till 5 weeks freely available, anonymous, and even propagated. In this way women who don't want to spend next 20 years of their life by child care could immediately do a right thing without guilt and consequences, except for a chance to arrange their life better.

You're deluded.

Big difference.

My girlfriend has made a point about abortions that I've not only not been able to refute, but that convinced me beyond a shadow of a doubt that abortions should be legal - whatever the trimester.

She calls it medical sovereignty: the idea that no one can be forced to give of their body for the wellbeing of another person, not even when life is on the line.  I cannot be compelled to donate a lung, kidney, or any other organ to save the life of another human being.  In the same way, a woman cannot be compelled to donate her uterus to save the life of a fetus. 

Also the fact that you will more than likely still have your uterus afterwards. It's not a state that will permanently impair or alter you, so technically organ donation isn't in the same category.

This is a bit off topic, but I feel the need to share.  I just returned from the International Organization for Mycoplasmogists 2008 Congress (held this year in gloriously shitty Tientsin, PRC), where the Vice-President for Research at Eli Lilly (a serious bigwig in the microbiology world at large) announced that there is indeed a microbial component in premature birth and maybe even spontaneous abortion.  The organism is called Ureaplasma, and if you didn't guess from the name, it's typically the causative agent of a good old minor league urinary tract infection.  It's just that in a pregnant woman it has the unfortunate habit of moving up to a DE-luxe apartment in the abdomen.

The reason this story is so important for folks like us is that yet another medical mystery with eschatological overtones has been laid to rest.  25 years ago Barry Marshall proved that it was a mere bacterium that gave people ulcers, not stress, not diet, not fallen angels.  And now we know that if you're trying to get knocked up, it's a good idea for you to synchronize the blessed event with taking a Z-Pack (it's a mollicute, penicillin and its derivatives won't work).  Happy fucking!

Well, unless Matt would prefer all humans to have the brain capacity of a Homo habilis.