Why just first trimester?

[Brambila]

America is not getting more pro-life. It is making an attempt to resolve the issue by offering limited choices to abortion, but still legal abortions nonetheless. The common argument is that because the fetus in the first trimester isn’t aware or has a conscious, it’s not a human. Further, it can’t feel pain, so abortion is fine. There are many flaws in this argument- feeling pain and having a conscious are not requirements for life.

The first argument, feeling pain, is quite ridiculous. There are cases where children are born unconscious, and lacking the ability to feel pain. Should these children be allowed to be killed? Clearly not. What about people in comas? Many of the times, they are unable to feel pain. Does that mean we should be allowed to kill them? Of course not. Both are still humans.

The second argument is because the fetus is not conscious, it is not a human being, and/or can be killed because of it’s inability to process thoughts. This is, once again, flawed. Several years ago my mother (when she was working at Kaiser Hospital) knew a woman who’s child was born unconscious- meaning, the child was mindless. The only brain activity she had was electrons going place to place, similar to your nervous system (which the fetus develops at six weeks, but is not the mind). Shortly after the child was born, she regained consciousness, and- though she had some mental damage- was able to be a very charming and healthy infant. While this child was unconscious, did the mother have the right to abort her? Clearly not. The mother knew, as most pregnant mothers know, that there was a very high chance her child would survive. But even though it was a chance, she took it.

Clearly, abortion cannot simply be limited to the first trimester. I must be limited to its fullest. Abortion is always killing a human being, as is therefore always homicide.

[angus]

America is not getting more pro-life. It is making an attempt to resolve the issue by offering limited choices to abortion, but still legal abortions nonetheless. The common argument is that because the fetus in the first trimester isn’t aware or has a conscious, it’s not a human. Further, it can’t feel pain, so abortion is fine. There are many flaws in this argument- feeling pain and having a conscious are not requirements for life.

The first argument, feeling pain, is quite ridiculous. There are cases where children are born unconscious, and lacking the ability to feel pain. Should these children be allowed to be killed? Clearly not. What about people in comas? Many of the times, they are unable to feel pain. Does that mean we should be allowed to kill them? Of course not. Both are still humans.

The second argument is because the fetus is not conscious, it is not a human being, and/or can be killed because of it’s inability to process thoughts. This is, once again, flawed. Several years ago my mother (when she was working at Kaiser Hospital) knew a woman who’s child was born unconscious- meaning, the child was mindless. The only brain activity she had was electrons going place to place, similar to your nervous system (which the fetus develops at six weeks, but is not the mind). Shortly after the child was born, she regained consciousness, and- though she had some mental damage- was able to be a very charming and healthy infant. While this child was unconscious, did the mother have the right to abort her? Clearly not. The mother knew, as most pregnant mothers know, that there was a very high chance her child would survive. But even though it was a chance, she took it.

Clearly, abortion cannot simply be limited to the first trimester. I must be limited to its fullest. Abortion is always killing a human being, as is therefore always homicide.

I agree with you.  Abortion is abortion.  I say make it legal from day one to day 270.  I disagree with you that it should be illegal, but I respect your consistency.  Those mugwumps that try to appease both sides have little conviction whatsoever.  Either you don't have a problem with terminating pregnancy or you do.  A fetus can legally be destroyed or it can't.  Period.

[migrendel]

Exactly. We posit views laden with contradiction in our futile attempt to placate everyone.

[Brambila]

Well I'm glad you guys understand that the fetus is either human, or it's not.

[muon2]

I'll throw in my consistent but different definition.

The end of human life is defined by the lack of normal heart and brain activity. Human life should not be a unipolar existence, defined one way at the beginning and a different way at the end. I think that consistency demands that one apply the same definition for the onset as the end - that is human life begins with the onset of normal heart and brain function.

For most pregancies this happens between weeks 7 and 10. That is before the artificial date (week 13) ending the first trimester.  Form a technical view, one can consider it close to the line separating the embryo from the fetus.

I have some real scientific problems with extending the definition of an independent life back to conception. As medical technology advances the ability to take a cell or group of cells and use them to create a clone becomes more likely - even as we actively discourage such attempts for ethical reasons. Conception as a starting point presents too slippery a slope, since any human cell (as potentially clonable) takes on individual rights.

Some might argue that an individual cell is not a unique genetic pattern. This argument would appear to work, except that the separate lives with identical twins would not both be protected by human rights. Thus unique genetic information cannot be the determining factor.

The only consistent test I can apply for humananity is a test that can apply at any time during human life.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I would apply a consciousness test.  At what point in a pregnancy is a fetus able to retain memories?  I'm not sure of the answer, but I'm inclined to draw the line there, wherever it is.

For fetuses that are born unconscious (having never been conscious), I guess I wouldn't oppose killing them, but I don't think the law should permit it because I think it would be preferable to establish a time rule that everyone can easily follow without the need for advanced medical opinions as to each individual case.

[Platypus]

a fetus is a fetus when it is a fetus

fetus's should be aborted unless the mother's life is in danger, or rape, etc etc.

but an embryo is an embryo when its an embryo, and they should be allowed to be aborted. they don't have distinctive human functions. If you say we can't 'kill' an embryo you might as well say we can't kill an ant. perhaps we shouldn't, but I bet every single person here has killed an ant, or at least something similar. Embryos are not nearly as important as the fetus.

[ilikeverin]

fetus's should be aborted unless the mother's life is in danger, or rape, etc etc.

Freudian slip?

[Platypus]

should, shouldn't...what's the difference

[© tweed]

The baby starts to develop very rapidly at 12 weeks I hear...After one trimester you should have your mind made up...etc...

[Brambila]

Why does that mean anything? Once you turn 12, you grow rapidly. Once you turn 2, you grow rapidly. All babies grow rapidly. Sure, he doesn't have a mind, but again, if you were put into a scenario where you KNEW somebody would wake up from a coma (a newborn baby specifically), would you kill him while he was in the coma?