Quote:
We have different conceptions of consciousness, then. You gave consciousness as the criteria you use to decide the point past which you feel abortion should be prohibited. If you put this mark at 32 weeks, then at 24 weeks I'd say its pretty imminent.
I'd say consciousness begins to develop around week 25-32 at which point abortion isn't always the best choice. However, significant brain development doesn't near full development until age 2-4 (with residual development until early adult years). So I guess I'd say consciousness slowly develops between the 25th week and age 4 rather than it begins at week 25 and ends at week 32.
Quote:
I'm not arguing that consciousness, in any measure, indicates humanity. Were that the case, I'd be right there with the PETA demonstrators. However, if we're going to argue that consciousness isn't relevant, and neither is being genetically human, then what basis is there for prohibiting abortion at any point during pregnancy? There doesn't seem to be any.
We are aruging consciousness, but only that consciousness that is uniquely human. I thought you were arguing that anything with the potential to achieve consciousness should be protected. Under that definition lots of things would have to be protected. Any portion that could be cloned, any sperm, any eggs, really any portion of our genetic material will be able to achieve consciousness in some form within the next decade or so.
Quote:
Seriously? Your appendix is going to achieve consciousness?
Sure, given advances in cloning and the right environment my appendixwould have a better shot than an egg and a sperm have. Within the next decade or so we'll certainly be capable of developing a living human being from cells from our body.
Quote:
Guess we disagree here as well, then. If, through your own actions, you somehow render a coma patient dependent on your own body for life support, and you know that situation is temporary, then I feel like its your responsibility to support that person until he wakes up. I'd go so far as to say it isn't even necessary that the connection be your fault, as long as it wasn't the fault of the coma patient himself. Which, in the case of abortion, it never is.
So, hypothetically speaking if you were drunk in a bar and fell over and ended up with a coma patient in your stomach you would have to support him for 9 mos (assuming of course that the coma wasn't his fault and that you knew he'd eventually wake up)? Yeah, I guess we just disagree on that one. I'd even say you don't have that obligation even if you falling over put him in a coma.
Quote:
We shouldn't force them into one decision over the other *based on perceived psychological benefit*. My point is that "psychological benefit", when evaluated as an advantage of abortion, is mitigated by the fact that many women who've received abortions are subsequently distressed by their decision to have one. IMO many of those who recommend abortion for its psychological benefits are overly dismissive of the long-term downsides.
Granted, there are certainly downsides to having an abortion. It is certainly not the right choice for everyone, and I agree with you that it is often downplayed by pro-choicers. However, as there are psychological negatives on either side I think we should allow each person to make that determination on their own.
Quote:
I'm not suggesting pregnancy be enforced as a penance. That comment was just to say that the removal of consequences associated with irresponsible behavior isn't the highest thing on my list of priorities. Especially when weighed against the cost.
I'm just saying that the idea of punishing women for "bad decisions" seems like a bad idea. By that argument we shouldn't allow underage girls to sue Joe Francis after they've appeared on Girls Gone Wild. Fortunately, we do allow a remedy even in the face of irresponsible behavior.
Quote:
Which pretty much jives with what I said. If we were to treat unborn children as persons, then all the "control of one's body" stuff becomes moot. That's pretty much the crux of the matter, as other posters have pointed out.
Right.
Quote:
Those negative side effects are contingent on mothers not giving children up for adoption. How many mothers *who would abort as the law stands now* would keep their children if abortion were illegal? Some, to be sure. Most, I think, would view adoption as the next best thing. We now have those children (who would otherwise not have been born) being raised by families who are much less likely to be poor, criminal crack addicts.
That's not true. There are plenty of irresponsible adoptive parents. There is a story making all the national headlines right now about an adoptive mother who killed her kids and kept them in a freezer in the basement for years. Flood the market with unwanted babies and this will only increase.