Jump to content

Should Unborn Children Be Legally Protected From Violence?


Crystal7

Legal Protection For the Unborn  

53 members have voted

  1. 1. Unborn children should be legally protected from violence.

    • I agree
      19
    • I disagree
      23
    • No opinion.
      4
    • Unsure
      8

This poll is closed to new votes


Recommended Posts

In light of the recent abortion access expansion in New York, do you believe unborn children deserve legal protection from violence? 

 

For reference, this non-graphic clip from the Endowment of Human Development shows a full-color video of an 8 week old embryo filmed in the uterus. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my personal opinion, abortion in the latter half of the pregnancy (which already is pretty damn rare, ~5% of all cases) should only be allowed in cases where the mother's and/or child's health are already in danger. But the facts are that pretty much no physician would ever agree to an abortion at that stage otherwise, anyway, and only a minuscule lunatic fringe would call for having the right to abort a 3rd trimester fetus without medical indication.

 

As for the early stages - I think the right of the pregnant person should rule supreme, no if no but. You don't get the right to use another person's organism as a life support machine. Being born is a privilege, not a right - and tht goes double for an embryo/fetus at stages when it doesn't have a functioning brain and neural system yet.

 

So, I lean pretty strongly to the pro-choice side, and absolutely pro-choice in the 1st trimester.

 

(Besides, I recognize that neither having partnered sex nor a womb means my opinion is not all that terribly relevant.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you mean with violence? Abortion? Or do you mean that there will be some added punishment for assaulting a pregnant person?

 

 

Edit:

If this is about abortion I would say that the word "violence" is a bit out there. If I remember correctly they don't have the sort of nerve development to feel pain etc before maybe 20 weeks, and while a fetus may look human, it takes quite some time before they can feel and think... I mean, they don't even seem to be able to think that much when they're born either.

 

 

Here in Sweden you can get an abortion up to week 18, which I believed is based on those nerve developments, and you can get it done up to week 22 if you get a special permit (this is usually if the fetus prove to have some sort of severe problem). I think that they draw the line at 22 because after that, a fetus may survive outside the mother's body.

 

I personally agree with our laws, until the fetus can survive outside the body the only person whose life and emotions should be considered is the mother's.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
firewallflower

The issue here, to me, is that the wording makes this a rather leading question. Yes, all children should be legally protected from violence—to my mind, that's a no-brainer. However, the debate sets in when we come to the question of whether abortion is, in fact, a form of violence, and whether a fetus is, in fact, accurately defined as an "unborn child" (and if so, at what point in the pregnancy this definition should kick in).

 

I'm not yet overly familiar with the legal details of the New York bill, so I'll refrain from commenting on that. As for my personal views on abortion in general (since it seems that this is the specific "violence" you're referring to?), I have very mixed feelings. In terms of law/politics, I fall mostly on the pro-choice side of things, for various reasons; in practice, I have a hard time personally condoning abortion outside of situations in which the mother's life or health is threatened by the pregnancy, but I also recognize that the decision to abort is almost always a huge, painful, incredibly difficult choice for the would-be mother (not to mention any others involved), and believe very strongly that those who find themselves in a position where they feel that abortion is their best or only course should receive only my sympathy and support.

 

So, yeah. Personally, leaning towards pro-life, but politically, pro-choice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We will soon be able to grow babies from fertilization to "birth", completely outside the womb.  With "viability" no longer having any meaning, we will have to address exactly what we mean by human. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
everywhere and nowhere
50 minutes ago, uhtred said:

We will soon be able to grow babies from fertilization to "birth", completely outside the womb.  With "viability" no longer having any meaning, we will have to address exactly what we mean by human. 

Just by the way: while I absolutely oppose surrogacy, I think that an artificial womb would be a very beneficial development. It would allow saving the fetus in some difficult situation when the mother does want the child, but her own health is in danger.

 

By the way: let me tell you the story of Agata Lamczak, one of the casualties of Polish abortion law - which, by the way, clearly permits abortion when the pregnant woman's life or health is in danger... but in practice, enforcing the law is not always that easy (which is why even women who would qualify for legal abortion often choose to perform it abroad if they can afford such a trip).

Agata Lamczak was a young woman in a desired pregnancy who had the bad luck of having serious health problems in the midst of her pregnancy. She came to the hospital with ulcerative enteritis. The doctors didn't even examine her well because there is a risk that it could induce a miscarriage and the doctors were afraid that they could be accused of a "hidden" abortion. They just gave her paracetamol. When the woman's mother, who accompanied her, complained about it, some doctor said that "You daughter cares too much about her ass and too little about her pregnancy". Only after the fetus died anyway because of extensive inflammation, more aggressive treatment was introduced, but it was already too late for Agata as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Nowhere Girl said:

 I absolutely oppose surrogacy

 

why?

as for the original question: I am pro choice. while there are no laws preventing women from having late term abortion in Canada, there are professional practice rules for Physicians. Doctors will not abort a fetus over 24 weeks unless the mother's health is at risk or the fetus has serious malformations. I think while this rule should be made law, there is very little chance of it because any politician willing to touch that issue would instantly be the most unpopular person in the country

Link to post
Share on other sites
everywhere and nowhere
19 minutes ago, Sweet Potato said:

why?

Because carrying a baby should never be allowed to be a commercial service.

Because legally preventing a woman from bonding with the child she carries is inhuman.

Because it's not morally acceptable to try having a baby at any cost. If someone can't have a biologically own child, they should accept it instead of expecting someone else to do it for them.

Because this kind of practice preys on poor and vulnerable people. Just as selling organs is illegal, surrogacy should be illegal too. We should fight poverty with systemic methods instead of allowing poor people to be tempted with big cash from people who want to abuse them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I mostly agree with everything @Mysticus Insanus said.

 

I am pro-choice, though it's one of the classic "dividing" arguments that I most waver on. Having been raised Christian and having maintained some of those beliefs, I sometimes worry that having a soul from conception is a thing.

 

Oddly enough, what made me more in favor of a women's right to choose was reading a Catholic book from the perspective of a midwife a long time ago in Germany(?). It was supposed to be a book warning against abortion and birth control, but the more I read it, the more glad I became that women have options these days. Times were terrible back when there was no choice.

 

I can't say whether or not I could have an abortion myself if it came down to it. But I would not begrudge other people for it. Women would go to desperate measures back when abortions were not safe or legal, and the results could be devastating. Having the option is important. Paradoxically, it saves lives.

 

All that said, that's why I'm so highly in favor of good sex ed, abundant birth control, and easier adoption processes. I feel like it's silly to be pro-life, but only insofar as the life is in the mother's womb.

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Nowhere Girl said:

If someone can't have a biologically own child, they should accept it instead of expecting someone else to do it for them.

this statement is downright cruel and ignorant.

30 minutes ago, Nowhere Girl said:

Because carrying a baby should never be allowed to be a commercial service.

A surrogate in Canada is not paid, only reimbursed for expenses. the cost the parent-to-be pays goes to the clinic performing the service, the same as any other ART.

29 minutes ago, Nowhere Girl said:

Because legally preventing a woman from bonding with the child she carries is inhuman.

Surrogacy is a form of ART. the surrogate is well informed that the child she carries is not hers in any way, and must consent to the whole thing. No one is forced to be a surrogate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not agree NY expanded anything - they reworded it if I understood correctly so that the law couldn’t be as easily overturned. I believe violence against an unborn child is absolutely a crime and should be but termination of a fetus is not and should not be a crime. Someone using force on a pregnant woman resulting in fetal harm, in my opinion, is battery on both mom and baby. But an abortion during the first trimester or due to some sort of health reward on is not violence.

 

It’s about context and intent.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Nowhere Girl said:

If someone can't have a biologically own child, they should accept it instead of expecting someone else to do it for them.

I oppose commercial surrogacy, because there is just too much room for abuse. However, it can also be for altruistic reasons and if you oppose that, then you are in fact dictating women what they are / aren't allowed to do with their bodies. And for me that's not okay. I'm not interested in having children, but I would consider being surrogate for my sibling, for example.

Link to post
Share on other sites

opinions on surrogacy could make a good topic in its own right. 

 

Iff,

Moderator, census

Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is what is known in politics as a "push poll", where the wording of the question is intended to get an emotional response against what the questioner proposes.   Kind of like the question "When did you stop beating your wife?".   

 

There's no such thing as an "unborn child."  There's a fetus while in the mother's body, and an infant once it is born.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do I think they should be protected from abortion? No. Do I think they should be protected from someone else deciding to harm or kill them without the pregnant person's consent? Yes. I don't think they should be charged with murder, but there should still be some punishment for forcing someone to miscarry or for causing harm to an zygote/embryo/fetus that the pregnant person wants to carry to term.

 

I can throw my laptop against the wall and break it if I want to, that doesn't mean someone else can break my laptop without my permission.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, they should be protected from violence, but Abortion is NOT violence.

 

I think that the mother should be allowed to abort her baby if she wants to at any time - it's her baby, her body, her choice, after all.

 

But I don't agree with violence towards pregnant women or unborn babies (like someone stabbing a pregnant women for example)

Link to post
Share on other sites

In Britain Injuring a foetus (other than an abortion under medical supervision) can be a criminal offence. Certainly "destruction of a foetus" is criminal. 

This law came about after cases where the "father" deliberately attacked a pregnant female in such a manner as to either kill the foetus or cause a miscarriage 

Link to post
Share on other sites
SithAzathoth WinterDragon

It's not aliving being until it is out of it's host and breathing on it's own to be honest, if anything the carrier should be protected. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't help but notice, Crystal7 you identify as being part of the pro-life movement who use pseudo science, fake news and emotional appeals to mislead their audience. You are dishonestly conflating violence with abortion in this poll.
ZgwIASL.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
SithAzathoth WinterDragon
42 minutes ago, eeeve said:

Abortion done properly is only a medical intervention so it can't be a violent act?

No, though it wouldn't be a new thing if the one carrying the child threatened abortion to control the one who helped  create it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Shieldmaiden WinterDragon said:

No, though it wouldn't be a new thing if the one carrying the child threatened abortion to control the one who helped  create it.

Really?  I'm pretty old and I've never heard of that happening.   The women I've  known have said that the guys who helped create the fetus threatened never to help support the eventual child if the woman didn't abort it.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/15/2019 at 3:10 PM, Nanoic said:

I can't help but notice, Crystal7 you identify as being part of the pro-life movement who use pseudo science, fake news and emotional appeals to mislead their audience. You are dishonestly conflating violence with abortion in this poll.
 

Nanoic, I absolutely consider myself pro-life, but I don't believe in pseudo science, fake news, or intentionally misleading emotional appeals.

 

What do I mean when I say I consider myself pro-life? I mean I believe unborn children should be legally protected from any form of intentional violence, lethal or non-lethal. Not all abortion methods consist of inflicting violence on the unborn child. Whether all abortion procedures should be legally banned is a far more complex question for another thread. Whether abortion procedures should be banned that shred, stab, dismember, burn, or otherwise attack an unborn child as an intentional part of the procedure is an entirely different issue. This kind of violence against unborn children is currently legal, is common, and is one of the greatest human rights violations of our age. It occurs in the first trimester, and the second, and the third. Some evidence suggests the unborn child can feel pain as early as 8 weeks, other evidence says as late as 24 weeks. But a child's right to be protected from violence isn't dependent on their ability to feel pain. All children deserve protection, and if a child suffers during a violent attack, this is an additional, abhorrent human rights abuse. My argument is not that all abortions should necessarily be illegal. My argument is that abortions which do violence to the body of an unborn child in the process of the pregnancy termination should be illegal because they constitute a violation of ethical conduct and a human rights abuse. It's entirely possible to be pro-choice about abortions which don't involve inflicting violence on the child, while opposing the methods which brutalize the child's body. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/12/2019 at 10:49 PM, CBC said:

Oh man, didn't I have an abortion argument discussion with you like two years ago, OP? I feel like you started a bunch of controversial threads.

I believe we did have an abortion discussion together some time ago CBC. *handshake* I hope you're doing well!

 

Sounds like me. 😃 I've never been opposed to controversial discussions when participating parties strive to be respectful. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/12/2019 at 11:04 AM, Nowhere Girl said:

I think that an artificial womb would be a very beneficial development. It would allow saving the fetus in some difficult situation when the mother does want the child, but her own health is in danger.

 

I absolutely agree! I hope this technology comes into being during my lifetime.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/12/2019 at 8:41 AM, firewallflower said:

However, the debate sets in when we come to the question of whether abortion is, in fact, a form of violence, and whether a fetus is, in fact, accurately defined as an "unborn child" (and if so, at what point in the pregnancy this definition should kick in).

firewallflower, I agree.

 

I think the term "unborn child" is accurate because the fetus or embryo in question resides in the uterus and is a human being below the age of both puberty and legal adulthood. And when I say human being, I mean a living member of the human species which has human parents.

 

The words "fetus" and "embryo" are also accurate. They describe an age of development the same same ways the words "toddler" and "teenager" do. I personally prefer the term "unborn child" because I believe there are political movements which brand the words "embryo" and "fetus" in a de-humanizing sense. It is also more efficient to write "unborn children" when referring to unborn children of all ages, since "fetus" and "embryo" both refer to specific ages. (Embryo = 8 weeks or younger, Fetus = 9 weeks to birth )

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/12/2019 at 8:26 AM, Mysticus Insanus said:

In my personal opinion, abortion in the latter half of the pregnancy (which already is pretty damn rare, ~5% of all cases) should only be allowed in cases where the mother's and/or child's health are already in danger. But the facts are that pretty much no physician would ever agree to an abortion at that stage otherwise, anyway, and only a minuscule lunatic fringe would call for having the right to abort a 3rd trimester fetus without medical indication.

I think everyone agrees 3rd trimester abortions represent a small percentage of all abortions performed. Perhaps fewer people realize that a small percentage of abortions equals thousands of actual third trimester procedures. Unfortunately it is a myth that practically all late abortions are performed for medical reasons. This article sheds light on some relevant statistics, and includes citations. https://www.liveaction.org/news/why-do-women-get-late-term-abortions/  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/12/2019 at 8:27 AM, Marian the Herbalist said:

What do you mean with violence? Abortion?

By violence, I am referring to actions which consist of inflicting physical harm on the body of an unborn child. So abortion methods which brutalize the body of an unborn child, the way a D and E does for example, would be included. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

all opinions are welcome but please just remember that Census is not the place for heated debates about those opinions, a more appropriate forum for such discussions wouldbe either Philosophy, Politics & Science or The HotBox. 

 

Iff,

Moderator, census forum.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...