Originally Posted by jon.john23

oh boi!

is this ur HW/assignment question?

personally it should be illegal. Preserve life.

Clearly this is a heated topic and I'd prefer not to get too involved in this discussion, however I feel the need to point out that if you are truly concerned with 'preserving life' - that is, the lives of women and girls faced with pregnancy - you would accept that access to safe, legal abortion must be made available (as one of several other options including carrying the pregnancy to term, adoption, etc.)

Forcing women to remain in a situation of unwanted pregnancy is a violation of their personal freedoms and bodily rights. Even if fetuses had personhood with all the rights and privileges offered to the average human, we do not recognize the right for one person to physically impose themselves on another, even if the would-be imposer's life is dependent on it. What it comes down to is, which right trumps the other: the fetus's right to life, or the right to be free from personal imposition? Comparing one being's entire life to nine months of another's should be an easy question to answer.

Back in October, a woman named Savita Halappanavar died in a hospital in Ireland. She was 17-weeks pregnant, in the midst of a miscarriage, was denied an abortion, and died from the resulting blood poisoning. You can read more about her story [here](http://www.huffingtonpost.co m/2012...n_2128696.html)

When abortion is illegal, women die. Who will you empathize with? Whose life do you want preserved?

Abortion is a tricky one for me. My mother was advised to abort me -- for medical reasons, as I was a pretty risky pregnancy for a few reasons. So I've always been pretty bothered by abortion knowing this. I was pro-life for a long time, but now I would call myself pro-choice, although I don't think I'd ever have an abortion myself... I've had scares (haven't we all?) and I'm pretty sure I would go the adoption route.

A few things really changed my opinion... the first was reading The Cider House Rules by John Irving. It's about an orphan who was given up at birth and the orphanage doctor, who is the only abortion provider around at a time when abortion was illegal. Evidently, orphanage doctors were the most likely to perform abortions because they saw firsthand what happens to unwanted babies who are born. I highly recommend the book.

I've had several friends who've been in this position, and I actually took a friend to the clinic once. It's hard to see people you love making such a difficult decision and judging them for it. I couldn't condemn people who make this choice, because I know it's not a happy decision.

Third, just witnessing the hypocrisy of so many high profile pro-lifers (especially in the US) makes me sick. They want every pregnancy to lead to a baby and then support cutting welfare, healthcare, etc. It's like they cease to give a damn about these babies once they're born.

All in all, I believe most of all in contraception. I realize it can fail, but I honestly believe responsible use of contraception is a lot less psychologically taxing then having to deal with an unplanned pregnancy. I know so many people who openly admit to not using any protection at all and I can't help but shake my head... what do they THINK is going to happen eventually? I'm not saying they should be forced to raise a child, but I do think it's mad irresponsible.

Women have the right to choose to continue with their pregnancies or terminate them.

That being said, I'm a little more skeptical of very late term abortions (like >7 months)

The cut-off in Canada for HCPs who do D+Es is 23 + 5 wGA (edit: thus, < 6 months). Typically these are women who are married and wanted to have a child and find out that there are genetic/structural abnormalities. Unfortunately there are family doctors that have their own political agenda and do not recommend prenatal screening (especially 1st tri). The second part of screening is at ~18 weeks and women may not get the results immediately. Then there's a wait time to see the Pregnancy Options Clinic, then another wait to actually get the procedure done. There are only a handful of physicians in Canada who do terminations at this point in time.

Aside: During "late-term" terminations, they also clamp the cord in-utero so the fetus is terminated in the womb, stories about "babies coming out alive" is just fearmongering.

It should be up to the person and their partner until the fetus is 20 weeks old. At 20 weeks or older he/she can feel pain.

let people make their own decision... that's it.

Originally Posted by Ponyo

It should be up to the person and their partner until the fetus is 20 weeks old. At 20 weeks or older he/she can feel pain.

Er, no. http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article....clei d=201429

Pain is an emotional and psychological experience that requires conscious recognition of a noxious stimulus. Consequently, the capacity for conscious perception of pain can arise only after thalamocortical pathways begin to function, which may occur in the third trimester around 29 to 30 weeks’ gestational age, based on the limited data available. Small-scale histological studies of human fetuses have found that thalamocortical fibers begin to form between 23 and 30 weeks’ gestational age, but these studies did not specifically examine thalamocortical pathways active in pain perception.




While the presence of thalamocortical fibers is necessary for pain perception, their mere presence is insufficient—this pathway must also be functional. It has been proposed that transient, functional thalamocortical circuits may form via subplate neurons around midgestation, but no human study has demonstrated this early functionality. Instead, constant SEPs appear at 29 weeks’ PCA, and EEG patterns denoting wakefulness appear around 30 weeks’ PCA. Both of these tests of cortical function suggest that conscious perception of pain does not begin before the third trimester. Cutaneous withdrawal reflexes and hormonal stress responses present earlier in development are not explicit or sufficient evidence of pain perception because they are not specific to noxious stimuli and are not cortically mediated.

Even for abortion, there is obviously that line before the fetus is too developed. IDK what that time period is.

The debate is about the time period before that. IMO there is too much about the debate itself but not enough about the background. You have to think of the person's values, culture, etc. Then again after typing that sentence, I realized it is probably choice.

You know what. Let's solve abortion problems. Humans should evolve to have sex without the risk of pregnancy prior to 25

Do I disagree with it? Yes. Do I think that my beliefs should violate other people's rights. No. How can I tell someone ELSE what to do? People who want to get an abortion will get one anyways regardless of legality. The least we can do for these women who decide to do this, is to provide a professional procedure and emotional/psychological help if they need it. I'm sure it's not easy to do something like this.
Let people make their own decisions.

However, I do believe that there should be some limitations on this. For example, as soon as a fetus can process external stimuli abortion should be illegal. For example I hated certain foods my mom ate when I was in the womb and kicked her for eating them... around 5 months I think :/ Clearly I started interacting with the external environment. You can technically get an abortion at 9 months, which is wrong. In addition, I believe that the father should have at least some sort of role in this choice.

I'm pretty sure we all heard what happened in Ireland. We're a progressive country and banning abortion would be a huge step back. 95% of the law makers are men.... We have no effing clue what it feels like to be pregnant, so how about we (men) listen to the women and stop being so pompous and egotistical.

I'm sure the majority of women like being in charge of their bodies, let's not allow legislation to take that away from them.

Originally Posted by Lois

Er, no. http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article....clei d=201429

Pain is an emotional and psychological experience that requires conscious recognition of a noxious stimulus. Consequently, the capacity for conscious perception of pain can arise only after thalamocortical pathways begin to function, which may occur in the third trimester around 29 to 30 weeks’ gestational age, based on the limited data available. Small-scale histological studies of human fetuses have found that thalamocortical fibers begin to form between 23 and 30 weeks’ gestational age, but these studies did not specifically examine thalamocortical pathways active in pain perception.




While the presence of thalamocortical fibers is necessary for pain perception, their mere presence is insufficient—this pathway must also be functional. It has been proposed that transient, functional thalamocortical circuits may form via subplate neurons around midgestation, but no human study has demonstrated this early functionality. Instead, constant SEPs appear at 29 weeks’ PCA, and EEG patterns denoting wakefulness appear around 30 weeks’ PCA. Both of these tests of cortical function suggest that conscious perception of pain does not begin before the third trimester. Cutaneous withdrawal reflexes and hormonal stress responses present earlier in development are not explicit or sufficient evidence of pain perception because they are not specific to noxious stimuli and are not cortically mediated.

okay thanks, but i based my answer on this:

• “At 20 weeks, the fetal brain has the full complement of brain cells present in adulthood, ready and waiting to receive pain signals from the body, and their electrical activity can be recorded by standard electroencephalograph y (EEG).”
— Dr. Paul Ranalli, neurologist, University of Toronto

• An unborn baby at 20 weeks gestation “is fully capable of experiencing pain. … Without question, [abortion] is a dreadfully painful experience for any infant subjected to such a surgical procedure.”
— Robert J. White, M.D., PhD., professor of neurosurgery, Case Western University

if you want the link :http://www.mccl.org/unborn-babies-can-feel-pain.html

I think a mother should be able to kill their child at any age. If a mother has a child and feels she doesn't want it she should be able to kill it. If it's not something that you feel is appropriate for whatever reason, no doubt its a religious one, then do not participate. I think its the woman's choice if she wants to keep her baby or not. If you step back and look at the big picture, humans are way over-populated. So long as it's her child she has the right to kill it whenever she wants. How can you tell someone ELSE what to do? Let people make their own decision... that's it. I think women should be able to decide what is best for them and what is consistent with their morals.

^kill their child at any age even after their birth? dafq. hope you mean abortion only lolz

Why do you care? What gives you the right to say whether or not a women can kill her baby?

Originally Posted by Animosity

I think a mother should be able to kill their child at any age. If a mother has a child and feels she doesn't want it she should be able to kill it. If it's not something that you feel is appropriate for whatever reason, no doubt its a religious one, then do not participate. I think its the woman's choice if she wants to keep her baby or not. If you step back and look at the big picture, humans are way over-populated. So long as it's her child she has the right to kill it whenever she wants. How can you tell someone ELSE what to do? Let people make their own decision... that's it. I think women should be able to decide what is best for them and what is consistent with their morals.

THIS illustrates a very interesting point. The bottom line is that abortion is a euphemism for killing. Why should age and size be the determining factor on whether or not the mother has a right to kill the child? There is a human being growing inside the womb regardless of whether or not it can feel pain.
(At least I hope you're not being serious... There are laws in the country that are independent of an individuals morals)

At the risk of forever being labeled as some kind of religious psycho-maniac, I'm going to say that I'm pro-life.
But do I think that all women who have abortions should go to jail? No, there would need to be a hell of a lot of jails built, and that's a waste of tax money...

Originally Posted by *spark*

THIS illustrates a very interesting point. The bottom line is that abortion is a euphemism for killing. Why should age and size be the determining factor on whether or not the mother has a right to kill the child? There is a human being growing inside the womb regardless of whether or not it can feel pain.
(At least I hope you're not being serious... There are laws in the country that are independent of an individuals morals)

At the risk of forever being labeled as some kind of religious psycho-maniac, I'm going to say that I'm pro-life.
But do I think that all women who have abortions should go to jail? No, there would need to be a hell of a lot of jails built, and that's a waste of tax money...

I wouldn't call a fetus a human being. By its very nature a fetus is a parasite, dependent on its host, and until its able to live on its own, it is up to that said host.

Suicide is not illegal, it is frowned upon, but the person who commits it, generally doesn't give a shit. This stupid abortion debate is another way for the government to interfere with other people lives. If you honestly care about the 'parasite' in a women's womb, why don't you go out and tell the women having the abortion that you will adopt it? Most pro lifer wouldn't, cause they live in a bubble, and more worried about the fetus then the actual baby.

Mother doesn't have the right to kill her child, but we are not talking about children! we are talking fetus, something that is not fully developed, and part of the women body.

In short, the decision of abortion is left to the person, and her doctor. I wouldn't honestly force anyone to go through it but at the same time I understand if they do.

PS The term pro life is misleading, mostly cause these people are worried about the 'unborn'. Trying worrying about kids in undeveloped places in our world. Places like Africa and Pakistan, where famine, disease, and literacy is a grave concern. They also have a life, it just not as good as yours.

Ok, I was expecting to get a lot of hate for my comment since it was the first 'pro-life' argument to be made. It's alright, just thought I'd give a change for an actual debate.

First of all, a fetus is not a parasite. If it is a parasite then we were all at some point a parasite. When do we grow out of being a parasite? The term fetus simply describes an unborn human at a particular stage. Who has the right to determine when it is ok to end its life, and who can determine exactly when it is considered to be alive?

Secondly, how is it suicide? The woman is not killing herself. The fetus is not killing itself.

A large portion of women in third world countries don't have access to a doctor that will preform an abortion. Also, I never said anything about ignoring the children living in famine, disease, poverty, etc. The number of abortions in first world countries however is LARGE to say the least. Why should the more privileged women have a chance to avoid the consequences of their actions but the rest of the women have no choice but to face it while they are also facing such horrible living conditions?

How about providing better protection and more access to it in places of poverty? Why not teach the women of our society to think sensibly about their actions and the consequences of their actions.
I am not trying to place all women under the same umbrella. But maybe there should be more resources available to help women through unplanned pregnancies.