Abortion

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
partial birth (killing a partly born human) is right or wrong? if you are an atheist, then at what point is this 'human' fully 'born' and unworthy of being killed? and why, at a certain point, is it wrong to kill the child?

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont know what you mean by partial birth, its a loaded term with lots of different definitions. But as I mentioned earlier, I think its fine to remove the fetus at any point. If its possible to remove the fetus in a way that saves the fetus' life, all the better, but if it isn't, well thats too bad. Killing the child after birth is an entirely different matter, and I don't see any reason for you to compare the two.

[brashbrother]

[ QUOTE ]
But as I mentioned earlier, I think its fine to remove the fetus at any point. If its possible to remove the fetus in a way that saves the fetus' life, all the better, but if it isn't, well thats too bad. Killing the child after birth is an entirely different matter, and I don't see any reason for you to compare the two.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are using "birth" to define a moment in time after which a baby cannot legally be killed.
1. What constitutes a "birth" to you?
2. Why does this make a difference to you?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But as I mentioned earlier, I think its fine to remove the fetus at any point. If its possible to remove the fetus in a way that saves the fetus' life, all the better, but if it isn't, well thats too bad. Killing the child after birth is an entirely different matter, and I don't see any reason for you to compare the two.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are using "birth" to define a moment in time after which a baby cannot legally be killed.
1. What constitutes a "birth" to you?
2. Why does this make a difference to you?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am using birth to define a moment in time after which the rights of the baby no longer need infringe upon the rights of the mother.

1. I might be wrong but I think the mommy poops the baby out, something like that, its really messy.

2. Removal of the fetus doesn't HAVE to equal the death of the fetus, and in cases where the death can be prevented it is probably wrong not to do so, as long as the mother consents. After parturition the mother need no longer be compromised by decisions that effect the baby's health.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
2. Removal of the fetus doesn't HAVE to equal the death of the fetus, and in cases where the death can be prevented it is probably wrong not to do so, as long as the mother consents. After parturition the mother need no longer be compromised by decisions that effect the baby's health.

[/ QUOTE ]

I take it from this position you wouldn't be necessarily against artificial, viable wombs if it was cost-efficient and it served the mother's health not to carry the baby to term, yet allowing her to still have the baby?

There are disturbing drawbacks to such a scenario, especially in an unregulated system, but, well... I know mothers and women who want to be mothers that are unable to carry at low risk to their own health or that of the baby.

Timeframe: Probably a decade or two.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2. Removal of the fetus doesn't HAVE to equal the death of the fetus, and in cases where the death can be prevented it is probably wrong not to do so, as long as the mother consents. After parturition the mother need no longer be compromised by decisions that effect the baby's health.

[/ QUOTE ]

I take it from this position you wouldn't be necessarily against artificial, viable wombs if it was cost-efficient and it served the mother's health not to carry the baby to term, yet allowing her to still have the baby?

There are disturbing drawbacks to such a scenario, especially in an unregulated system, but, well... I know mothers and women who want to be mothers that are unable to carry at low risk to their own health or that of the baby.

Timeframe: Probably a decade or two.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would most certainly not be against such an innovation, for the same reason that I would be in favor of artificial kidneys, lungs, etc. Wombs, like organs, are somewhat scarce and the owners of all the natural ones dont necessarily feel like giving them away or renting them out.

EDIT: Ok, the womb is an organ I guess, didn't mean to make myself sound stupid, although as an excuse, the uterus is an organ whereas the womb could be understood as the collection of organs and tissues that nurture the baby. There, weaseled my way out of that one.

[madnak]

Bring on the clone vats! Cha-cha-cha!

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
Bring on the clone vats! Cha-cha-cha!

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, and accelerate genetic entropy. Naw. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[madnak]

Entropy is potential.