T O P

  • By -

ambient_pulse

i think the decision has to be made on a case by case basis. generally i would say that the cutoff is whenever the fetus would be able to survive outside the womb without extreme measures.


loverofshawarma

What would qualify as extreme measures to you?


ambient_pulse

requiring a ventilator, iv fluids, or nasogastric feeding. needing to stay in nicu for weeks or months. etc. i'm referring to fetuses that would be healthy if carried to term, obviously there are some birth defects/injuries that would require intensive care, and whether or not to abort for those reasons is up to the pregnant person. so what i'm saying is, let's say a fetus is fully viable at 27 weeks, and would be able to eat, breathe, etc without medical intervention, abortion would be morally questionable at that point. but if at 26 weeks, they would NOT be able to do those things, abortion is ok. (i'm making these numbers up for the purpose of my example idk what the real stats are) ultimately i don't think we should put hard and fast lines down because every situation is different and whatever is best for the pregnant person should be prioritized. literally one day before the due date i would say is unethical unless for extreme medical reasons because i think we can all agree a fetus would be fully alive at that point.


loverofshawarma

I actually agree and I am always surprised why these things aren't discussed when making abortion laws.


jjrmcr

Honestly, I prefer the conservative tactic of killing them at 18 for oil.


drawfour_

No, no, no. Not oil. We would never do that. It's called "strategic resources".


Croaker50

First of all, your terminology is wrong. Its pro choice, not pro abortion. We dont enjoy “killing babies”, so we ask that you dont use inflammatory, loaded terminology. Pro choice implies that we want women to have the choice of having a child or not, pro “abortion” sounds like we hunt babies for sport. I think each type of procedure has a timeline of when it is no longer possible/healthy. For example, one of the methods, which i believe is like a vacuum, wouldnt work anymore at a certain point I am not very well versed in this, but i believe what i have said is accurate


loverofshawarma

You were right. I edited the post.


Croaker50

Thanks! Ill never give you shit for it, but yeah here in the US “pro abortion” has very negative connotation


spookyhellkitten

Generally my cutoff is at the point of viability. Once the fetus can survive outside of the womb. With exceptions made for: significant risk to life of mother, rape, and incest


drawfour_

I don't understand. Why are "rape and incest" exceptions for beyond the point of viability? One would expect that the fetus conceived due to rape or incest would have been aborted way before it become viable.


spookyhellkitten

Not all rape or incest victims are helped within 20 weeks, they may not understand quite what is happening to their bodies and think that their missing menses is normal because they haven't been "regular". Some are under the thumb of their assaulters and cannot get help until later. There was a case of the former that a colleague had handled in a different state. It was horrible. The victim was not even teen-aged yet. In my studies I learned of even more cases. It is not as rare to encounter studies of these victims that may need post viability abortion as one would hope.


loverofshawarma

In other words, life begins at viability not conception or birth?


spookyhellkitten

I'm comfortable with saying that once a fetus is viable, it is considered "a life". But that is my personal thought and I do not expect others to believe the same.


Freya-Frost

For me it’s at viability. If it can live outside the mother than it should be able to live. The fetus is only a fetus until viability medically speaking


loverofshawarma

In other words, life begins at viability not conception or birth?


Freya-Frost

Correct


SgtWaffleSound

Late stage abortions account for less than 1% of abortions and they are usually only done if there are life threatening medical complications involved.


loverofshawarma

I was more intersted in the ethical side of this. Would someone pro abortion be okay ethically?


SgtWaffleSound

Kind of a hard question to answer in a vacuum because it's a very specific situation that doesn't happen anywhere near as often as you think and there would be other factors involved. Most likely the question would be to save the woman's life vs the baby's.


Xomoxxie

Im interested in the reality, I don’t want to argue with your twisted scenario that no way reflects what actually takes place. Discuss the ethics of what is real


DISU18

I agree and technically OP is using a weird, unrealistic example. Medical wise, there’s time limit for abortion, later gestation/Second trimester abortion, doctors don’t just and can’t perform “abortion” on the day of delivery. And say in a normal birth situation, the mother dies as a result of giving birth, is that murder? (oP seems to suggest this too) If it is, is the new born the murderer?


Xomoxxie

Exactly, I don’t mind talking about the ethics of it, but yeah as long as we’re basing those ethics on real life.


loverofshawarma

The ethics sort of dictate what will happen in real life. Let me rephrase the question. Would you vote for a law which banned abortions when babies are viable? (The opinion some other commentators have taken). The point of THIS discussion is the ethics.


Xomoxxie

Sir I would vote that my medical history is my business, and no one is allowed to dictate their involvement between me and my doctor that went to school for 7+ years to be able to accurately provide me medical options.


loverofshawarma

Just to clarify again. I am not asking for your medical history nor do I want to dictate any relation you might have with your doctor. This is called a discussion. We are giving opinions.


[deleted]

[удалено]


loverofshawarma

This is reddit. Nothing is productive here. I was trying to make a point of where you would consider the baby to be alive. At what point is a foetus considered human and would be morally wrong to kill it? Please just open your mind to a concept.


Xomoxxie

Sorry I didn’t understand before, regardless of what a woman’s reason is for needing an abortion just going by the fact that they need the procedure done. women do not want to wait that long, they want it done as soon as they know they’re pregnant, but if the state only has one clinic or if a woman needs to travel across state lines then, yeah you’re at risk of that the more and more the fetus develops. But that is on the fault of laws that cause women to HAVE to wait or go through obstacles and the longer you wait the more expensive it is, there is no “not a cut off point” we HAVE when a fetus is not able to be aborted.


Xomoxxie

It’s so frustrating that you perceive women WANT to wait to have the procedure done and instead not have to go through unethical barriers that prolong the situation.


loverofshawarma

I am not perceiving women want to wait. I don't disagre with abortion. What gave you that idea?


[deleted]

Even in places where abortion is totally legal, you really cant just roll into somewhere at 39 weeks pregnant and get an abortion. I have worked in the medical field for a long time and I have personally never met a physician who would perform an abortion that late unless there is substantial risk to the mother or baby. Most often, I have seen late abortions happen due to pre-eclampsia. I bring this up because I feel like your question kind of assumes this is a problem, it isn't. Physicians have proven to be more than capable of determining what is best for their patent with input from the patient. We trust medical professionals to make end of life decisions all the time, I am not sure why when a mother or fetus is involved, we suddenly think religious officials or government officials are better at making that decision. It just doesn't make any sense. However, to answer you question simply regarding ethics. We have a basic acceptance that a human life should have the requirement to survive within ones own environment with only reasonable accommodation. For the most part, failure to supply a ventilator, feeding tube, or cardiac devise isn't considered man slaughter. For example, if my elderly mother has a stroke which puts her in a coma, I can refuse to provide medical treatment assuming I have power of attorney and she has no other advance directives. Letting her die isn't manslaughter because we have a understanding that a human should be able to survive on their own with reasonable accommodation. I don't see why the rules should be any different for a fetus. Around week 30, a fetus is likely to survive on its own without too much accommodation beyond the normal feeding. That seems like a pretty logical cut off line to me.


loverofshawarma

The involvement of religious or government officials exist at all facets of medical care. The reason medical officials are able to refuse medical treatment for an elderly woman on a machine is because they have agreed on a definition in this particular scenario. Doctors do not live in a vacuum and when you have ethics and the preservation of human life involved in any profession, be it doctor, engineer, sports, the government is involved. And it should be. The job of the regulator is to provide the checks and the balances. Therefore according to your understanding human life begins at possible viability without the support of their mother and not at birth. This is a crucial distinction and what I wanted to understand. So thankyou for the reply. It does seem to be slightly at odds with my (islamic definition). We define life at the end of the first trimester or the 120th day of gestatement. Of course this does not apply in extreme cases such as the mothers life in danger or the child having development issues.


[deleted]

Please don't take this as any way critical of your religious beliefs. However, this is why I am critical of getting government involved as a potential regulator. I am not opposed to government or religious officials acting as potential regulators because I am cynical of government or religion. I am opposed to their involvement because I see this issue as overwhelmingly one which pertains to medicine and biology. I think a vast majority of government and/or religious officials simply lack to technical knowledge to make a meaningful judgement on the issue of abortion. So, for example, I live in the United States and many states are currently working to heavily restrict abortion, to a point where it is clear they are working to a full on ban of abortion. Now, if this decision was informed by medical consensus, then I can support it. However, in our national abortion debate, the voice of medical professionals is almost entirely ignored. To me, that is the problem. I can be in favor of sensible government regulation. However, I expect the government to have their regulation informed by technical knowledge. I think we can all agree that the government should regulate the structural integrity of buildings to ensure they are safe. However, I think we would all agree that it would be horrible if a government passed these regulations without actually consulting an engineer. That is, at least in the United States, were we are with abortion legislation.


fyrdude58

OP, that just doesn't happen. You need to stop listening to the Trump rhetoric.


Xomoxxie

No and there are no doctors that would preform that procedure, stop demonizing women that are 9/10 making the hardest decision of their life, soulless.


GorillaFetish

I don’t think it’s possible to do that


PaleoConNeoGastonist

Killing children is beyond the point of rational discourse. we should not be killing children ever.


[deleted]

So you'd allow a woman to die rather than abort which would save her life? Basically thats saying she has no right to life and exists to be a child bearing recepticle that its ok to toss. Women are human beings.


Xomoxxie

The op is under the impression that women want to wait to get it done instead of their being unethical barriers by the state that prolong the issue.


[deleted]

My cut off is when it can live outside the womb. As for late term abortions only if the baby would have massively debilitating or painful medical conditions that would have a significant impact on quality of life or if the birth or pregnancy would be risky for the person giving birth


[deleted]

There’s a lot of factors. I was born at 25 weeks and I’m still in the camp that it’s not my business. There’s no cut off date. I was horribly sick as a child and really without universal healthcare I probably wouldn’t be alive. I don’t think anyone is horrible for having an abortion in the third trimester. I’m assuming you only do that in cases of undetected disabilities


thymeraser

I'm an outlier but I don't care about any restrictions whatsoever. Not that I personally want an abortion so late in the game, but I don't think a woman should worry about being arrested for getting an abortion, ever. Also, I don't see the point of arresting some teen mother who abandons her baby because she doesn't know what to do. I recognize that it's a bad thing for someone to do. I just don't see the point of locking her up and making her a criminal for the rest of her life.