Young Writers Society

I didn't realise "the point of foetal viability" was "an arbitrary point".

Cadi wrote:I didn't realise "the point of foetal viability" was "an arbitrary point".

Eh. I guess you can make a valid case that it depends on the medical technology available around your area, etc. Not every place can support a viable fetus at 24 weeks, I imagine.

Also, as our medical technology continues to improve, what once was not viable may be viable. Heck, if there is an artificial womb construct, this might make even zygotes viable. I'd imagine we would have to go back and figure out what we want to save and not.

Still, at the moment, 24 weeks is generally what is considered to be the earliest point where the fetus can be taken out of the womb and survive. This is what it looks like:

http://www.babycenter.com/fetal-develop ... s-24-weeks

I think that adoption is a great answer to many problems concerning unplanned pregnancy, but it is not always the answer. I think that in some cases, abortion is necessary, especially when either the baby and/or the mother's life is at risk. I also believe that in instances of rape and incest women should be allowed to have the right to an abortion. While some people can handle having a child in that circumstance, for others it is just too hard a burden to bear. While I myself do not think I would have an abortion if that happened to me, I do not know what emotional truama it causes to the mother, so I feel that I cannot speak for the many women that this has happened to. I don't believe I can mak that dicision for them- its their life,their choice- wether I think that is a good or bad decision is irrelevent. They must make their own decisions, thier own choices. Maybe if it was a regulated practice they'll may be a lot less abortions because the mothers will have more time to think about it and come to the conclusion that adoption is the best way to go for them- or raising the child themselves.

Furthermore, I believe that if we as a country allow victims of rape and incest, as well as women that are at a high chance of dying during childbirth to have abortions, we have to let everyone. This is simply because after the court proceedings and lenghtly hours in court, it will be too late for an abortion legally. Also, many cases of rape and incest do not get reported due to fear or emarassment, or are not supported with enough evidence to prove it was not consentual. Therefore, I believe that abotion should be legal in the United States.

A little off-topic, but I had to share...

How the heck did he record an unborn child's heartbeat? Seems like it would be rather tricky.

I was saying that possibly fewer women would get an abortion if there was not a "safe" way to do so, if it was illegal. They would still get them but fewer would.

And why would it be a good thing that fewer women had abortions? Considering the fact that they most likely do it for a good reason.

I don't think any woman has an abortion for the pleasure of the procedure.

So why would you call it a "good thing" to push women into a corner where they'd have to choose between a back-alley abortion or to carry a child that they won't be able to care for?

Snoink wrote:A little off-topic, but I had to share...

Spoiler! :

Matt Bellamy recently released this song!



It starts with the sound of his unborn child's heartbeat. So cool! ^_^ Love the lyrics as well! Very inspirational and all that jazz.

Is that Matt Bellamy as in Distinguished YWS Member Matt Bellamy?

ANyway, for most parts I agree with Pencil. Some people are perfectly fine with having some stranger that they see as a monster's child, while others would fall apart in that situation - we can't make that choice for them. And, it's only fair if we keep abortion legal as court proceedings to prove such things are very lengthy. A friend of mine waited over a year for the court to convict a felon for sexual assault which is hard enough to prove. With something like rape, the baby could already be 6 months old by the time rape is proven. If the victim was one of the people who'd fall apart after having the baby, she might end up with a case murdering a child on her hands, especially if that child looks a lot like it's father.

In Australia there are about 75,000 procedures that could result in an "abortive outcome" performed each year (but this also includes miscarriages, not straight-up abortions). Part of the reason for this is the fact that in Australia it is exceedingly difficult to adopt a child, and almost impossible to adopt an Australian child. Most adoptions by Australian parents is of Asian or Arabic children. One couple I know have been trying to adopt a child for over a decade, only to be foiled at every turn but legislation. They recently moved to Dubai in a bid to adopt a child there. So because so few Australian children are adopted and most unwanted children end up being pin-balled between nursing homes all their lives, abortion is a much more attractive option. It's all well and good to say "just put your child up for adoption," but when you know that it is almost certain that the child will not be adopted, abortion becomes much more attractive. While I'm pro-choice to the core, in my perfect world no one would ever need an abortion. But until the Australian government faces the issue and gives women a viable alternative the problem will persist.

Our member, Matt Bellamy, named her username off of Muse's lead singer! So, it's the singer of the band, not our actual member. *amused by question*

Also... I am sad that Australia doesn't have a good adoption legislation. That kind of stinks, because I know there are many couples who are desperate to adopt.

And, I actually came here to post something about an adoption that... well... didn't quite turn out so well. A 14-year-old had a baby boy and the mother of the girl tried to adopt this grandson eventually after the girl started to have problems. But, this turned out badly for her:

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/55027 ... d.html.csp

Haha, I was going to reply "I aim to please" or some such, but it seems my cover has been blown.

(I suppose while I'm here I should say something about the topic at hand, so: ) Personally I would only have an abortion if giving birth posed great health risks to myself, or perhaps if the baby was a result of rape or something like that. And for those reasons, I am pro-choice. Though as I said, I would not make that choice myself unless doing otherwise put my health in danger.

But would you be ready to take away the opportunity from someone to make that choice regardless if the pregnancy posed a threat to her life?

No, I wouldn't, I'm just saying I myself would only have an abortion in extreme situations. Every woman should be able to make the choice regardless of reason or their situation. It's their body and nobody else should be dictating what they can and cannot do.

It's their body and nobody else should be dictating what they can and cannot do.

Provided, of course, that their decision doesn't impede the rights of others. When the rights of others are infringed, then we would say that the oppressor is completely in the wrong.

Which is why we punish people that use violence on people. They trample on the basic human rights of everyone, including the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Things get tricky when it comes to the issue of abortion. On the one hand, the woman has the right to do what she believe will best ensure her happiness. But if she chooses abortion, it infringes on the basic human rights of the fetus in her body. This fetus not only has human DNA, but it's DNA is different from it's mother. It resides in the mother, but it isn't the mother, which means that it can be treated as a separate human entity.

In the case of an unwanted pregnancy, infringed rights are unavoidable.

In the case of the mother though, the duration of her oppression is only for the length of the pregnancy, for ordinary cases. After the pregnancy is over, the mother can submit the child for foster care and she can resume her life. The new infant will also grow up with their rights intact. If abortion is chosen, then the woman's rights are the only ones preserved. If we have a choice between preserving a single persons rights or preserving both, then we shouldn't hesitate to choose the latter.

I think this should also apply to cases of rape and incest. The victims of rape and incest have had their rights violated and their anger towards the perpetrator of the crime is justified. That said, the perpetrator is not the human inside them, on the contrary, that new human is also a victim. So we should also preserve the rights of both human individuals in these instances as well.

The only circumstances which would make me pause would be those where a pregnancy would lead to certain death for either the mother or the fetus. In such a case, preserving both lives is impossible, and a choice must be made between the two. If I was faced with this situation, I would honestly have no idea what to do. Fortunately, these cases are rare.

In all these instances, the over-riding principle is one that is common throughout medicine: do no harm. Each decision is calculated to preserve as much life as possible and to do the least amount of harm. It happens that the notions we have of human rights, also agrees with this.

A lot of pro-choice arguments point to women's rights. However, women's rights are simply an extension of human rights. If we do not hold human rights of individual human beings as sacred, then women's rights are also forfeit.

Oddly enough, the only course of action which preserves the integrity of women's rights is the pro-life option.

Aaaaaand we're back to the top.

In the case of the mother though, the duration of her oppression is only for the length of the pregnancy, for ordinary cases. After the pregnancy is over, the mother can submit the child for foster care and she can resume her life. The new infant will also grow up with their rights intact.

Did you actually read anything that was said before now in this debate. I think it's been pretty strongly argued that this is entirely untrue.