Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
SpiderHyphenMan
Apr 1, 2010

by Fluffdaddy
What's the latest that an abortion can safely be performed without seriously risking the life of the mother?

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

SpiderHyphenMan
Apr 1, 2010

by Fluffdaddy
I would like to submit a thought experiment.

1. A woman is 39 and a half weeks pregnant when her husband suddenly has a heart attack and dies. Not wanting to raise a child without the love of her life, and not wanting her child to grow up in foster care, she elects to have an abortion.

2. A woman is holding her newborn baby in the hospital. She's wondering why her husband hasn't gotten there from work yet, when she gets a call informing her that her husband has died in a car crash on the way over. Not wanting to raise a child without the love of her life, and not wanting him to grow up in foster care, she drops the baby out the fifth story window.

Is there really any meaningful difference in terms of morality between examples 1 and 2? I mean obviously there's birth, but our bodies aren't ovens. Babies don't just come out exactly when they're just right. Sometimes they come a little early, sometimes they come a little late. With that in mind, using birth as a hard line between "fetus" and "person" when it comes to rights seems fallacious.

SpiderHyphenMan
Apr 1, 2010

by Fluffdaddy

OwlFancier posted:

The main benefit to the birth-as-line thing is that I have no idea how you would write a law that produces a workable set of rules for when you can and can't kill young children. Nobody on earth would be able to come to a consensus and I have great difficulty believing that people would be able to remain emotionally detached enough to argue for the case of anyone who did kill their young child intentionally.

Even if it is theoretically morally justifiable, it is, practically, completely impossible to make work.
But can't the exact same thing be said about any law that tries to establish a hard deadline for elective abortion that isn't birth?

SpiderHyphenMan
Apr 1, 2010

by Fluffdaddy

Twelve by Pies posted:

Eh. I'm not going to be upset about that because being pro-choice is about that, choice. Would it have been better for the family perhaps if she hadn't waited? Probably, but it was her decision. If she had been forced to carry the baby by her husband/pastor/governor then yeah, that'd be hosed up, but I sorta feel like being pro-choice means we shouldn't look down on women who choose not to have an abortion, even if we think that would be the preferable option.
Just because we believe it is there absolute right to make that choice doesn't mean we shouldn't think it's a really bad choice.

  • Locked thread