I am one of those that wishes abortions could be avoided if at all possible. But I have a real problem with "partial birth abortion". That scissors in the back of the head is just too much for me.
Interesting discussion. I am also pro -choice but I also oppose "partial birth abortion". in most cases.
I think I read back there that someone wrote that biologically the father has little or nothing to do with the baby. It is the mother's. Biologically the baby is also the father's, and may express itself to be more like the father than the mother. That is reason enough for the father to be involved in gestation and raising the baby. The mother is carrying both parent's baby, and it is the most important job in life.
Imagine how many problems would be solved if couple waited until marriage.
I think I read back there that someone wrote that biologically the father has little or nothing to do with the baby. It is the mother's. Biologically the baby is also the father's, and may express itself to be more like the father than the mother. That is reason enough for the father to be involved in gestation and raising the baby. The mother is carrying both parent's baby, and it is the most important job in life.
Imagine how many problems would be solved if couple waited until marriage.
i fully agree Schmidt in that stem cells are useful in medical research and it is
To take this discussion in another direction, what are everyone's opinions of spontaneous abortion in regards to policy on human abortion? For those not familiar with the term, spontaneous abortion is found in certain other mammals (primarily rodents, although apparently there is a new study [and by new I mean published this week] that suggests it is also found in some primates) and is just what it sounds like- an abortion of the fetuses due to certain events- in the case of rats this is often when the father leaves and a new male comes within the vicinity of the female. The female's body spontaneously aborts the children as male rats (of the species that do this) tend to be infanticidal towards babies that aren't theres and basically it is the female not wasting the energy to give birth to kids that will die- basically biologically making a tough call between 2 crappy options. Do you think this natural occurrence should have some significance in the human debate? After all, a lot of the women who end up aborting do so because they are not quite in optimal situations to have and raise children anyway.
I am not saying we should stop spontaneous abortion of animals
(because we can't and why would be want to). What I am saying is, how does that affect your views on human abortion policy?And in the case of the rat it is wasted energy, just basically cutting the losses though.
I am not saying we should stop spontaneous abortion of animals
And in the case of the rat it is wasted energy, just basically cutting the losses though.
What does a natral abortion have to do with this debate. A person who dies is just dead, not murdered.
This thread is about abortion. The debate often centers around life and what is natural and what could be murder. Spontaneous abortion could be relevant since it is natural and again, about abortion.
Spontaneous abortion is not always natural. Sometimes other factors cause it. The Dalkon Shield killed our unexpected first child and nearly ended my wife. Granted, we got a generous settlement, but our first son was still dead. A miscarriage can have the same emotional impact as the unexpected death of a family member. An abortion which is planned would carry powerful emotions too, but in a different way.
You have my full sympathy for the loss of your child. My adult daughter was killed in 06 and I still feel the loss every day.
A miscarriage isn't synonymous with a spontaneous abortion. Spontaneous abortion is naturally found in high prevalence in certain species (not humans), but my question is whether that should be relevant in our discussion since after all it is life and even that life has evolved to weigh the risks of having babies that will be in danger or not be able to survive.
And truly sorry to hear about your loss.
my point here is "the female not wasting the energy to give birth to kids that will die- basically biologically making a tough call between 2 crappy options. " biologically -she has no choice her body does
but if you are trying to say human females should have a choice or not have a choice then i believe they should but the goverment should not be paying for it rather monitering these clinics to make sure the live up to a tough stardard.
A miscarriage is a spontaneous abortion since the mother’s body is rejecting the fetus and thus aborting it. The studies on mice determined that certain male pheromones in urine can elicit a hormonal reaction in female mice causing the mother’s body to reject the fetus. While we don’t know the triggers which cause human miscarriages, it is this same sort of reaction within the female which causes the pregnancy to end.
As to the philosophical side of the question…spontaneous abortion in mice is not a choice. In fact, pregnant mice are more aggressive than non-pregnant females because they are protecting their unborn babies. Since this discussion is about choice I don’t see the relevance of a natural hormonal reaction, especially since pregnant rodents also have the natural reaction to defend their unborn.
Similar threads
