Political Crossfire Forums

Sailor Moon · Joined: 22 Sep 2005 Posts: 2782 Location: O-town, Florida

Why is viability important? Isnt viability just another term for "potential"? After all, it is the potential to live outside of the uterus. So why is viability so important to so many pro choicers? I thought this was about autonomy???? I thought you said the fetus was merely an extention of the mom? Yet- many pro choicers say that a viable fetus should not be aborted by choice....or on demand...

Think hard, folks...

Enoch · Joined: 29 Aug 2005 Posts: 9373

Don't confuse autonomy in medical decision making with the idea of fetal viability. What most pro-choice people are advocating is not a 100%, carte blanche, edict to have an abortion when you want. I think you would find that most pro-choice advocates are against such things as partial birth abortion, or even abortion well in to the third trimester. What we are advocating is the right of the woman to make the decision about the abortion in the earlier stages.

But, since those stages are clouded with debate over whether or not the fetus is "alive," that question needs to be addressed. Since both sides can agree that, for all intents and purposes, the term "alive" is not merely talking about a strict biological definition (such as that sperm is alive, bacteria is alive, etc) it would stand to reason that the issue becomes when the fetus is alive enough to no longer be considered a "fetus" and now a "baby." While this may come down to a debate of semantics, it is a debate that needs to happen in order to understand where both sides stand on the issue.

The anti-abortion advocates, for the most part, claim that it is a baby from the moment of conception, indicating that (if not acted upon by a third party or barring unforeseen complications) it will continue to grow in to a fully developed child. The pro-choice advocates, for the most part, take umbrage with this definition noting that the primary differences between an embryo or fetus and a newborn baby come in the realm of biological development.

A newborn baby has a fully developed brain, heart, and nervous system, for example. A fetus does not have those before specific points in the developmental stages. Therefore the question becomes; at what point in the development of those systems is the baby truly alive?

Therefore, viability becomes the question. Pro-choice advocates draw the line of demarcation at the point at which the fetus (or baby if you prefer) could survive outside the mother's womb. It is at that point where both sides could agree that it is a baby, whether or not you felt it was one prior. If the fetus is unable, due to gestational development, to survive without the mother how can it be truly considered alive and on the same level as a newborn child?

Now, while you may not agree that viability matters (in terms of morals or ethics), I hope this cleared up why the pro-choice advocates use this as an argument.

Sailor Moon · Joined: 22 Sep 2005 Posts: 2782 Location: O-town, Florida

I understand both sides stance on the argument, philosophically and their stance scientifically, but you still havent explained why its okay to limit autonomy, when the "baby" is still considered by pro choicers to be an extention of herself....

No dancing around the question, this time, please.

Enoch · Joined: 29 Aug 2005 Posts: 9373

Sailor Moon wrote: I understand both sides stance on the argument, philosophically and their stance scientifically, but you still havent explained why its okay to limit autonomy, when the "baby" is still considered by pro choicers to be an extention of herself....

No dancing around the question, this time, please.

There was no dancing on my part. You are making a broad, false, assumption that everyone on the pro-chice side of the debate considers the fetus to be nothing more than an extention of the woman's body. That is not the case. While many do feel this way, it is not an all-encompassing view...no more than it is an all-encompassing view that anti-abortion advocates all feel that the baby's life is more important than the mother's. Please, if you wish to seriously discuss the issue, refrain from making broad assumptions. Doing so only manages to degrade your argument.

No, if you want to know why I consider it okay to ban partial birth, and late term, abortions but not early term, I will go over again what I stated. Once the fetus has achieved the stage of viability it is no longer completely dependent on the mother for survival. While it is ideal to keep the fetus intact inside the womb, it is possible that the fetus (baby) could be removed and continue to live. Prior to that point of viability, I do not consider the child to be sufficienly "alive" as to warrent the removal of a woman's right to autonomy. Limiting said autonomy once viability is achieved is done in protection of the child.

The only saying that "my rights end where yours begin" is highly applicable here. In order to have rights, one must be able to survive independently of another (and, no, I am not talking about care givers and/or newborn babies here....I am speaking biologically). Beings that a fetus prior to viability cannot survive independently, it is not able to claim said rights.

Sailor Moon · Joined: 22 Sep 2005 Posts: 2782 Location: O-town, Florida

UrielsFyre wrote: Sailor Moon wrote: I understand both sides stance on the argument, philosophically and their stance scientifically, but you still havent explained why its okay to limit autonomy, when the "baby" is still considered by pro choicers to be an extention of herself....

No dancing around the question, this time, please.

There was no dancing on my part. You are making a broad, false, assumption that everyone on the pro-chice side of the debate considers the fetus to be nothing more than an extention of the woman's body. That is not the case. While many do feel this way, it is not an all-encompassing view...no more than it is an all-encompassing view that anti-abortion advocates all feel that the baby's life is more important than the mother's. Please, if you wish to seriously discuss the issue, refrain from making broad assumptions. Doing so only manages to degrade your argument.

Actually no, I said "most"... see? "most", and I was referring to the ones on here, and it was especially in reference to the actual postings, as I have no idea other than what people on here post, as to their real stance, I am aware of the denial factor, you know:

Sailor Moon wrote: So why is viability so important to so many pro choicers? I thought this was about autonomy???? I thought you said the fetus was merely an extention of the mom? Yet- many pro choicers say that a viable fetus should not be aborted by choice....or on demand...

Where are the broad assumptions or generalizations, please????

Quote: No, if you want to know why I consider it okay to ban partial birth, and late term, abortions but not early term, I will go over again what I stated. Once the fetus has achieved the stage of viability it is no longer completely dependent on the mother for survival. While it is ideal to keep the fetus intact inside the womb, it is possible that the fetus (baby) could be removed and continue to live. Prior to that point of viability, I do not consider the child to be sufficienly "alive" as to warrent the removal of a woman's right to autonomy. Limiting said autonomy once viability is achieved is done in protection of the child.

So, it is no longer important that it is inside a womans body? Once it has reached this point, she loses autonomy, and her fetus's rights take over? so then, the fetus's life is suddenly too important to consider the womans autonomy? Why did she lose her autonomy? Because the fetus has the potential to live outside of her? Well, that makes no sense, as that is an argument based on potentiality. Remember whats been said in the past- its not a baby until its born.. right? There are no rights until birth, etc??? Yet- suddenly this potential to live outside of her, suddenly gives it rights? Is that what youre saying? Thats potentiality. What has changed?

Quote: The only saying that "my rights end where yours begin" is highly applicable here. In order to have rights, one must be able to survive independently of another (and, no, I am not talking about care givers and/or newborn babies here....I am speaking biologically). Beings that a fetus prior to viability cannot survive independently, it is not able to claim said rights.

Well, lets look a little further into this. Viability with the help of a machine, or completely independent viability? Because technically, viability means, to live with the help of a machine.

Well, shoot. Guess what? Not even full term babies can survive outside of the womb COMPLETELY independently, either. Newborns still depend on the mother for many things, a safe birth, ensuring that it either gets food, shelter, clothing, etc, or is given to someone who will ensure this...Otherwise, they only have viability to sustain life... or potential to...

Therefore even "viable" fetuses are worth nothing (for the pro choicers arguments that will certainly come up) in comparison to the mothers, until the birthing process.

So my final question is-

If a woman does not wish to be pregnant, or has some problem, mentally, physically, whatever, or the baby is missing a toe, you name it, whatever the circumstances are, that give the woman a choice to either abort or take a risk, post viability-

Should she be forced to birth, instead? After all, you just said yourself, one individuals rights cannot supercede the others, once viability is achieved. My only contention with it is that viability is just a fancy schmancy name for potential to survive, and therefore is a major contradiction for pro choicers who are anti post viable abortion, but pro pre viable abortion. Both stages have potential.

Enoch · Joined: 29 Aug 2005 Posts: 9373

Sailor Moon wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: Sailor Moon wrote: I understand both sides stance on the argument, philosophically and their stance scientifically, but you still havent explained why its okay to limit autonomy, when the "baby" is still considered by pro choicers to be an extention of herself....

No dancing around the question, this time, please.

There was no dancing on my part. You are making a broad, false, assumption that everyone on the pro-chice side of the debate considers the fetus to be nothing more than an extention of the woman's body. That is not the case. While many do feel this way, it is not an all-encompassing view...no more than it is an all-encompassing view that anti-abortion advocates all feel that the baby's life is more important than the mother's. Please, if you wish to seriously discuss the issue, refrain from making broad assumptions. Doing so only manages to degrade your argument.

Actually no, I said "most"... see? "most", and I was referring to the ones on here, and it was especially in reference to the actual postings, as I have no idea other than what people on here post, as to their real stance, I am aware of the denial factor, you know:

Sailor Moon wrote: So why is viability so important to so many pro choicers? I thought this was about autonomy???? I thought you said the fetus was merely an extention of the mom? Yet- many pro choicers say that a viable fetus should not be aborted by choice....or on demand...

Where are the broad assumptions or generalizations, please????

Quote: No, if you want to know why I consider it okay to ban partial birth, and late term, abortions but not early term, I will go over again what I stated. Once the fetus has achieved the stage of viability it is no longer completely dependent on the mother for survival. While it is ideal to keep the fetus intact inside the womb, it is possible that the fetus (baby) could be removed and continue to live. Prior to that point of viability, I do not consider the child to be sufficienly "alive" as to warrent the removal of a woman's right to autonomy. Limiting said autonomy once viability is achieved is done in protection of the child.

So, it is no longer important that it is inside a womans body? Once it has reached this point, she loses autonomy, and her fetus's rights take over? so then, the fetus's life is suddenly too important to consider the womans autonomy? Why did she lose her autonomy? Because the fetus has the potential to live outside of her? Well, that makes no sense, as that is an argument based on potentiality. Remember whats been said in the past- its not a baby until its born.. right? There are no rights until birth, etc??? Yet- suddenly this potential to live outside of her, suddenly gives it rights? Is that what youre saying? Thats potentiality. What has changed?

Quote: The only saying that "my rights end where yours begin" is highly applicable here. In order to have rights, one must be able to survive independently of another (and, no, I am not talking about care givers and/or newborn babies here....I am speaking biologically). Beings that a fetus prior to viability cannot survive independently, it is not able to claim said rights.

Well, lets look a little further into this. Viability with the help of a machine, or completely independent viability? Because technically, viability means, to live with the help of a machine.

Well, shoot. Guess what? Not even full term babies can survive outside of the womb COMPLETELY independently, either. Newborns still depend on the mother for many things, a safe birth, ensuring that it either gets food, shelter, clothing, etc, or is given to someone who will ensure this...Otherwise, they only have viability to sustain life... or potential to...

Therefore even "viable" fetuses are worth nothing (for the pro choicers arguments that will certainly come up) in comparison to the mothers, until the birthing process.

So my final question is-

If a woman does not wish to be pregnant, or has some problem, mentally, physically, whatever, or the baby is missing a toe, you name it, whatever the circumstances are, that give the woman a choice to either abort or take a risk, post viability-

Should she be forced to birth, instead? After all, you just said yourself, one individuals rights cannot supercede the others, once viability is achieved. My only contention with it is that viability is just a fancy schmancy name for potential to survive, and therefore is a major contradiction for pro choicers who are anti post viable abortion, but pro pre viable abortion. Both stages have potential.

First, I apologize for the miscommunication regarding the assumptions. I was responding directly to the statement I had quote when I said you were making assumptions and generalizations. The fact that I did not take in to consideration the previous post was an oversight on my part.

Also, the argument "its not a baby until it is born" is not an argument I have ever, nor will ever, make. It is about potential to biologically survive independently of the mother. A fetus can not do that, as it is not gestationally developed enough prior to a specific point. A newborn baby can. It can biologically survive without depending on its mother. (As noted, I mentioned that I am speaking about biological functions...not relying on a care-giver. You missed that point of my argument).

And you are only correct, technically, when you state that both stages (pre and post viability) have potential. Pre-viability relies on the mother for biological sustainability. Post-viability does not.

Finally, yes, I would argue that one the unborn has reached a stage of post-viability, the mother should not be allowed to abort, risk or no. The woman still has the autonomy to decide to keep the baby or give it up for adoption, but once viability has been achieved her rights end at the impedance on the rights of the child. Before viability, that child has no rights.

Sailor Moon · Joined: 22 Sep 2005 Posts: 2782 Location: O-town, Florida

UrielsFyre wrote:

First, I apologize for the miscommunication regarding the assumptions. I was responding directly to the statement I had quote when I said you were making assumptions and generalizations. The fact that I did not take in to consideration the previous post was an oversight on my part.

Also, the argument "its not a baby until it is born" is not an argument I have ever, nor will ever, make. It is about potential to biologically survive independently of the mother. A fetus can not do that, as it is not gestationally developed enough prior to a specific point. A newborn baby can. It can biologically survive without depending on its mother. (As noted, I mentioned that I am speaking about biological functions...not relying on a care-giver. You missed that point of my argument).

No it biologically cannot. Just because it doesnt live inside of her does not mean it can feed itself, or protect itself from a rabid dog/ buzzards, or find shelter, or clean up its own waste. It cant even move, or hold its head up, so biologically, this is inaccurate. The only thing even remotely accurate about this would be that the mother does not have to use her body or breastfeed, much, to ensure the babys survival. All she has to do is hand it to someone who will. So yes, on both ends of the spectrum, you are just wrong here.

Quote: And you are only correct, technically, when you state that both stages (pre and post viability) have potential. Pre-viability relies on the mother for biological sustainability. Post-viability does not.

Which I have already clearly and accurately refuted as wrong, so lets move on.

Quote: Finally, yes, I would argue that one the unborn has reached a stage of post-viability, the mother should not be allowed to abort, risk or no. The woman still has the autonomy to decide to keep the baby or give it up for adoption, but once viability has been achieved her rights end at the impedance on the rights of the child. Before viability, that child has no rights.

I can appreciate that, BUT...

if she is told that she needs to have a C section, because her baby is in trouble, and she doesnt do that- should she go to jail, and be held accountable for her babys death????? Obviously you must agree with this, correct? She should be charged with murder!

Enoch · Joined: 29 Aug 2005 Posts: 9373

Sailor Moon wrote: UrielsFyre wrote:

First, I apologize for the miscommunication regarding the assumptions. I was responding directly to the statement I had quote when I said you were making assumptions and generalizations. The fact that I did not take in to consideration the previous post was an oversight on my part.

Also, the argument "its not a baby until it is born" is not an argument I have ever, nor will ever, make. It is about potential to biologically survive independently of the mother. A fetus can not do that, as it is not gestationally developed enough prior to a specific point. A newborn baby can. It can biologically survive without depending on its mother. (As noted, I mentioned that I am speaking about biological functions...not relying on a care-giver. You missed that point of my argument).

No it biologically cannot. Just because it doesnt live inside of her does not mean it can feed itself, or protect itself from a rabid dog/ buzzards, or find shelter, or clean up its own waste. It cant even move, or hold its head up, so biologically, this is inaccurate. The only thing even remotely accurate about this would be that the mother does not have to use her body or breastfeed, much, to ensure the babys survival. All she has to do is hand it to someone who will. So yes, on both ends of the spectrum, you are just wrong here.

Quote: And you are only correct, technically, when you state that both stages (pre and post viability) have potential. Pre-viability relies on the mother for biological sustainability. Post-viability does not.

Which I have already clearly and accurately refuted as wrong, so lets move on.

Quote: Finally, yes, I would argue that one the unborn has reached a stage of post-viability, the mother should not be allowed to abort, risk or no. The woman still has the autonomy to decide to keep the baby or give it up for adoption, but once viability has been achieved her rights end at the impedance on the rights of the child. Before viability, that child has no rights.

I can appreciate that, BUT...

if she is told that she needs to have a C section, because her baby is in trouble, and she doesnt do that- should she go to jail, and be held accountable for her babys death????? Obviously you must agree with this, correct? She should be charged with murder!

You are confusing the survival with sustenance. The child is not dependent on the mother, post-viability, for mere existance. Once born, the child is only dependent on another person (mother or not) for food and protection. It is not the same. I am talking about strict biological functions....not on dependent care.

And, yes, I would hold a woman accountable if she was told "You must have a c-section or your baby will die," and she chose to ignore it.

Gilbert1908 · Joined: 26 Jan 2005 Posts: 5265 Location: Boston, MA

UrielsFyre wrote: Sailor Moon wrote: I understand both sides stance on the argument, philosophically and their stance scientifically, but you still havent explained why its okay to limit autonomy, when the "baby" is still considered by pro choicers to be an extention of herself....

No dancing around the question, this time, please.

There was no dancing on my part. You are making a broad, false, assumption that everyone on the pro-chice side of the debate considers the fetus to be nothing more than an extention of the woman's body. That is not the case. While many do feel this way, it is not an all-encompassing view...no more than it is an all-encompassing view that anti-abortion advocates all feel that the baby's life is more important than the mother's. Please, if you wish to seriously discuss the issue, refrain from making broad assumptions. Doing so only manages to degrade your argument.

No, if you want to know why I consider it okay to ban partial birth, and late term, abortions but not early term, I will go over again what I stated. Once the fetus has achieved the stage of viability it is no longer completely dependent on the mother for survival. While it is ideal to keep the fetus intact inside the womb, it is possible that the fetus (baby) could be removed and continue to live. Prior to that point of viability, I do not consider the child to be sufficienly "alive" as to warrent the removal of a woman's right to autonomy. Limiting said autonomy once viability is achieved is done in protection of the child.

The only saying that "my rights end where yours begin" is highly applicable here. In order to have rights, one must be able to survive independently of another (and, no, I am not talking about care givers and/or newborn babies here....I am speaking biologically). Beings that a fetus prior to viability cannot survive independently, it is not able to claim said rights.

I don't see how one could state more clearly the logic behind your position.

Now here is where I fault the logic.

If one must use a term like "sufficiently alive" to qualify one's position on the subject my objection should become more clear.

In order to justify or defend abortion it is essential to create a new standard of what is alive and what is not. Or to create an arbitrary value that, not by coincidence, corresponds with the point in time at which abortion is already proscribed, in order to designate a human life as a"person" which is a legal not a scientific designation.

A healthy fetus protected in the womb of a healthy mother is perfectly viable from the day it is concieved. The only reason it would not be viable is if there is artificial interference from an outside entity.

Saying a healthy fetus is not viable is like saying a man who starts a race should not be allowed to win because he did not start at the finishline.

The term viability only makes sense if you are already trying to find an arbitrary point in time to permit abortion. Which was exactly what the supreme court and all advocates of abortion were seeking at the time and continue to do today.

I am unwilling to believe that a human life can so easily be terminated and I argue here for others to reconsider their positions based simply on that point.

Sailor Moon · Joined: 22 Sep 2005 Posts: 2782 Location: O-town, Florida

UrielsFyre- you said: Quote: You are confusing the survival with sustenance. The child is not dependent on the mother, post-viability, for mere existance. Once born, the child is only dependent on another person (mother or not) for food and protection. It is not the same. I am talking about strict biological functions....not on dependent care.

And, yes, I would hold a woman accountable if she was told "You must have a c-section or your baby will die," and she chose to ignore it.

Are you saying that the fetus does not exist pre viability, now? That it does not rely on the mother for food and protection prior to the time it is born, or even viable? Certainly, a born child can exist once it is born, but it still requires the same levels of food and protection as it did before.

You say that at viability is only a biological issue.. I think you mean for the mother. We are discussing the Fetus, more than the mother. We are also discussing potential to survive and independence playing a role in that. Even non viable fetuses have the potential to survive outside of the womb... Newborns have the similar potential to survive. Babies left in trash cans may not survive. So this is really about potential.. Potential to live, potential to win... why draw such a subjective line straight through a younf lifes potentiality, when in reality, you are cutting out at least a year or more's worth of potentiality?

Gilbert said it best-

Gilbert wrote: Saying a healthy fetus is not viable is like saying a man who starts a race should not be allowed to win because he did not start at the finishline.

I couldnt agree more!

Mycroft147 · Joined: 20 Feb 2006 Posts: 142 Location: minnesota

Gilbert made some excellent points. Something else that is strange to me is that people claim viability decides if the fetus is a human being. And viability is simply the ability for the fetus to survive biologically without the mother. This has nothing to do with the fetus being an actual human being, it is just another way of saying women should have rights over their body. Isnt it cruel to condemn a fetus as not human because it simply cannot survive without the mother?

Sailor Moon · Joined: 22 Sep 2005 Posts: 2782 Location: O-town, Florida

Yeah thats kinda the point to the whole thread. Glad you joined, though.. seems as if there is limited opposition to this... Kinda makes ya wonder about the other side...

thebreadloaf2003 · Joined: 23 Oct 2005 Posts: 213 Location: Texas

Sailor Moon wrote: Why is viability important? Isnt viability just another term for "potential"? After all, it is the potential to live outside of the uterus. So why is viability so important to so many pro choicers? I thought this was about autonomy???? I thought you said the fetus was merely an extention of the mom? Yet- many pro choicers say that a viable fetus should not be aborted by choice....or on demand...

Think hard, folks...

well i must make a lbunt rationalization that will probably be sought as an accusation, but here it goes:

i think the pro-choicers that say a viable fetus should not be aborted by choice...or on demand are not true pro-choicers. saying that for the most part discredits pro-choice as what it is, freedom of choice

Sailor Moon · Joined: 22 Sep 2005 Posts: 2782 Location: O-town, Florida

thebreadloaf2003 wrote: Sailor Moon wrote: Why is viability important? Isnt viability just another term for "potential"? After all, it is the potential to live outside of the uterus. So why is viability so important to so many pro choicers? I thought this was about autonomy???? I thought you said the fetus was merely an extention of the mom? Yet- many pro choicers say that a viable fetus should not be aborted by choice....or on demand...

Think hard, folks...

well i must make a lbunt rationalization that will probably be sought as an accusation, but here it goes:

i think the pro-choicers that say a viable fetus should not be aborted by choice...or on demand are not true pro-choicers. saying that for the most part discredits pro-choice as what it is, freedom of choice

Thank you. This is exactly what this is all about.

Enoch · Joined: 29 Aug 2005 Posts: 9373

thebreadloaf2003 wrote: Sailor Moon wrote: Why is viability important? Isnt viability just another term for "potential"? After all, it is the potential to live outside of the uterus. So why is viability so important to so many pro choicers? I thought this was about autonomy???? I thought you said the fetus was merely an extention of the mom? Yet- many pro choicers say that a viable fetus should not be aborted by choice....or on demand...

Think hard, folks...

well i must make a lbunt rationalization that will probably be sought as an accusation, but here it goes:

i think the pro-choicers that say a viable fetus should not be aborted by choice...or on demand are not true pro-choicers. saying that for the most part discredits pro-choice as what it is, freedom of choice

I can understand that point of view, but I respectfully disagree.

I am pro-choice becuase, pre-viability, the fetus is not sufficently developed enough as to be able to warrent having rights. Once that viability stage is achieved, the unborn deserves the same rights as the mother. That being said, the mother's rights end where the child's begin. And, to choose to abort a child's that could survive outside the womb is to violate the unborn child's rights.

Doomsayer · Joined: 23 Feb 2006 Posts: 8

You know, instead of abortions, why not HAVE the child, and you can give it to the goverment? Then it's not your responsibility, i'm not talking adoption centers, i'm talking litteraly the goverment owns that child and is free to do with it as they wish..

Sailor Moon · Joined: 22 Sep 2005 Posts: 2782 Location: O-town, Florida

UrielsFyre wrote: thebreadloaf2003 wrote: Sailor Moon wrote: Why is viability important? Isnt viability just another term for "potential"? After all, it is the potential to live outside of the uterus. So why is viability so important to so many pro choicers? I thought this was about autonomy???? I thought you said the fetus was merely an extention of the mom? Yet- many pro choicers say that a viable fetus should not be aborted by choice....or on demand...

Think hard, folks...

well i must make a lbunt rationalization that will probably be sought as an accusation, but here it goes:

i think the pro-choicers that say a viable fetus should not be aborted by choice...or on demand are not true pro-choicers. saying that for the most part discredits pro-choice as what it is, freedom of choice

I can understand that point of view, but I respectfully disagree.

I am pro-choice becuase, pre-viability, the fetus is not sufficently developed enough as to be able to warrent having rights. Once that viability stage is achieved, the unborn deserves the same rights as the mother. That being said, the mother's rights end where the child's begin. And, to choose to abort a child's that could survive outside the womb is to violate the unborn child's rights.

"could" meaning "to have the potential to"... all unborn children have this potential. I also love how you failed to answer my previous question regarding the sentience fairy...

Enoch · Joined: 29 Aug 2005 Posts: 9373

Sailor Moon wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: thebreadloaf2003 wrote: Sailor Moon wrote: Why is viability important? Isnt viability just another term for "potential"? After all, it is the potential to live outside of the uterus. So why is viability so important to so many pro choicers? I thought this was about autonomy???? I thought you said the fetus was merely an extention of the mom? Yet- many pro choicers say that a viable fetus should not be aborted by choice....or on demand...

Think hard, folks...

well i must make a lbunt rationalization that will probably be sought as an accusation, but here it goes:

i think the pro-choicers that say a viable fetus should not be aborted by choice...or on demand are not true pro-choicers. saying that for the most part discredits pro-choice as what it is, freedom of choice

I can understand that point of view, but I respectfully disagree.

I am pro-choice becuase, pre-viability, the fetus is not sufficently developed enough as to be able to warrent having rights. Once that viability stage is achieved, the unborn deserves the same rights as the mother. That being said, the mother's rights end where the child's begin. And, to choose to abort a child's that could survive outside the womb is to violate the unborn child's rights.

"could" meaning "to have the potential to"... all unborn children have this potential. I also love how you failed to answer my previous question regarding the sentience fairy...

Actually, I did answer it.

And I mean "could" as in "could this unborn child, right at this moment, survive outside the womb?" Pre-viability, the answer is no.

thebreadloaf2003 · Joined: 23 Oct 2005 Posts: 213 Location: Texas

Sailor Moon wrote: thebreadloaf2003 wrote: Sailor Moon wrote: Why is viability important? Isnt viability just another term for "potential"? After all, it is the potential to live outside of the uterus. So why is viability so important to so many pro choicers? I thought this was about autonomy???? I thought you said the fetus was merely an extention of the mom? Yet- many pro choicers say that a viable fetus should not be aborted by choice....or on demand...

Think hard, folks...

well i must make a lbunt rationalization that will probably be sought as an accusation, but here it goes:

i think the pro-choicers that say a viable fetus should not be aborted by choice...or on demand are not true pro-choicers. saying that for the most part discredits pro-choice as what it is, freedom of choice

Thank you. This is exactly what this is all about.

your welcome

Sailor Moon · Joined: 22 Sep 2005 Posts: 2782 Location: O-town, Florida

UrielsFyre wrote: Sailor Moon wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: thebreadloaf2003 wrote: Sailor Moon wrote: Why is viability important? Isnt viability just another term for "potential"? After all, it is the potential to live outside of the uterus. So why is viability so important to so many pro choicers? I thought this was about autonomy???? I thought you said the fetus was merely an extention of the mom? Yet- many pro choicers say that a viable fetus should not be aborted by choice....or on demand...

Think hard, folks...

well i must make a lbunt rationalization that will probably be sought as an accusation, but here it goes:

i think the pro-choicers that say a viable fetus should not be aborted by choice...or on demand are not true pro-choicers. saying that for the most part discredits pro-choice as what it is, freedom of choice

I can understand that point of view, but I respectfully disagree.

I am pro-choice becuase, pre-viability, the fetus is not sufficently developed enough as to be able to warrent having rights. Once that viability stage is achieved, the unborn deserves the same rights as the mother. That being said, the mother's rights end where the child's begin. And, to choose to abort a child's that could survive outside the womb is to violate the unborn child's rights.

"could" meaning "to have the potential to"... all unborn children have this potential. I also love how you failed to answer my previous question regarding the sentience fairy...

Actually, I did answer it.

And I mean "could" as in "could this unborn child, right at this moment, survive outside the womb?" Pre-viability, the answer is no.

Viability used to be 36 weeks.. then it moved back, and then it moved back a little further.. Now, its at like 25 weeks... plus embryos created in a lab can be kept alive for days.

Sooo.. when we come up with the technology that allows embryos to be both removed and transferred to an incubater, thus creating viability- will you still feel the same about abortion?