I believe a woman can have an abortion right up until birth

OK WOW THAT IS FUCKING INSANE.

Now I know you like to say things that go against the grain in Finland but that is so fucked up. Here is a video of a 20+ week BABY, my as yet undelivered baby girl. If you scrub in a few mins you will see the 3d images and as you can see she moves, looks, and is a whole living thing….

Now I really belive in abortion, morning after pills and a whole plethora of things regarding the ‘right to choose’ but there is a point before a woman gives birth that a child is no longer a cluster of cells, or an entity that cannot survive on its own without serious medical attention. I grant the line is grey but UPTO BIRTH???

My sister-in-law is a week past due, should she really be able to take a (hopfully) perfectly healthy baby and kill it?

I reread what you wrote and the context and I am so stunned at such comments, I understand the debate, I have a child and a second coming, even going into this one, right up untill all the basic checks were done I was willing to go with my wife and have an abortion in certain cases, but late/full term abortion…

Out of interest do you have a kid?

Well, what a way to ensure that you up your basket of comments.

I think there are way too many people on this planet and too many of them are stupid, annoying or even dangerous. So abortions technically will reduce all of that. The book Freakonomics documents this well.

I believe that every day you are pregnant you have the choice of aborting the pregnancy. Every day that you do not have an abortion, you have made a choise. It goes both ways. A choice is made and it is not only a choice to have an abortion but also a choice to have a baby.

At some point, you have to say enough and stick with the choices that you have made the day before. Every day a woman keeps the baby, the baby is a day closer to surviving outside the womb. Once the baby gets to a certain point, say like 20 weeks, then she should stick with it. We all make agreements every day that we are held accountable to, and this should be no different. You want to give the baby away once their born, then so be it.

Now just because you survive being inside mommy, does not give you a free reign. I am an strong supporter of the death penalty. What I do not understand is why it is ok to kill the baby in the womb but not ok to abort a life after it is born. Just call it a post-birth abortion. (Yes, lets sure that we hang the right person.)

In this day and age many people that get accidently pregnant get that way due to stupidity. There are so many ways to keep from getting pregnant. Aportion should not be the issue it is if those who keep shouting ‘womans choice’ explain to thier children that they have choices they can make to avoid having to make the choice of having an abortion.

Thanks for sharing the 4D baby scan. That’s amazing.

I know plenty of libertarians of this view, and plenty of the opposite. I’m anti-death penalty and anti-abortion, putting me in the small club of consistent minds on the planet, I suppose.

I grant the line is grey but UPTO BIRTH???

How do you feel about Belguim, France, and the Netherlands’ 35th week abortions?

If you believe that abortions after week ‘x’ should be illegal because it’s no longe a fetus, it’s a baby – then shouldn’t you also believe that it should be illegal for a pregnant mother to: smoke, drink, eat nasty foods, take certain types of medication, go on roller coasters et.. ? You’re basically injuring a defenseless child, right?

I believe that every day you are pregnant you have the choice of aborting the pregnancy.

Glad to hear I have at least one support on here

am an strong supporter of the death penalty. What I do not understand is why it is ok to kill the baby in the womb but not ok to abort a life after it is born. Just call it a post-birth abortion.

Heh, good point.

The book Freakonomics documents this well.

I just started this book last night thanks to everyone’s recommendation!

I also believe you should have a choice to abort a pregnancy up till birth, but of course earlier is better.

If I were pregnant I would abort it immediately, but if for some reason I didn’t find out about the pregnancy until it’s in the 9th month the fact that it is in the 9th month would not stop me from aborting it.

I agree with Phil. Late term abortion is pure murder. The earlier the better.

I do not want to condemn abortion totally, but I’m glad that I haven’t have to go through with it.

Abortion is not always a clean procedure. In late term abortions the fetus is killed in uterus and you have to deliver it in a same way as a living baby. A way to go, Vera.

And if you want to argue that at week ???x??? the fetus actually becomes a baby, then it???s only fair that we have an anti-abortion conservative in the debate because their views are equally as valid.

That’s a good point from Phil. I’m very anti abortion but still see the logic behind Phil’s argument. If you abort your baby, you abort your baby. It’s dead & that’s it. Arguing that you did it early enough might make you feel better and yes, when the baby is bigger it probably feels a lot worse, but it still is pretty fucked up.

Not willing to keep the baby if your birth control fails? Then be responsible and don’t have sex.

I am 100% for abortion and death penalty.

I would even like to see mandatory abortions and sterilizations for alcoholics and narcs. Unfortunately that is impossible daydreaming and probably would just backfire.

Personally I would like to see mandatory abortions for people who would “like to see mandatory abortions and sterilizations for alcoholics and narcs”. Call it a stupidity tax.

I would even like to see mandatory abortions and sterilizations for alcoholics and narcs.

I would even like to see mandatory abortions and sterilizations for alcoholics and narcs.
Why do you think that e.g. DEA agents should not reproduce?

I’m thinking he means drug-abusers.

If I were pregnant I would abort it immediately, but if for some reason I didn???t find out about the pregnancy until it???s in the 9th month the fact that it is in the 9th month would not stop me from aborting it.

If you wouldn’t find out about the pregnancy until you are in your ninth month, then you’d have to be seriously screwed up. I know that there have been cases of women living in denial about their pregnancy for several months, but these kinds of cases have been related to some sort of mental illness or serious trauma.

I am trying so hard to be open-minded about this and to understand why someone would abort a child which would be perfectly capable of living outside the womb just because they don’t want the baby.
I haven’t succeeded in my attempt. To me, a person who would have a late abortion is just a narcissistic murderer.

You can always put the unwanted child up for adoption, especially in these times of increasing childlessness.

For the record: I am pro choice. Or more accurately, pro never having to make the choice.

How do you feel about Belguim, France, and the Netherlands??? 35th week abortions?

Well looking into the information at least the French and Dutch systems talk about viability as being the cut off point for abortion, and the need for two doctors to concent, which I am guessing would not be easy as 35 weeks. Either way I disagree with such practices completly.

Again its grey when a cluster of cells is far enough along to be considered a ‘person’. Medical technology might very soon allow for successful birth at less than 20 weeks. But I think this is a bit of a misnomer, if a baby is viable only through special means, and they are put at risk for a whole range disabilities and other issues as their life continues then is that really ‘viable’.

However your point isnt about abortion at all, your point is about your confilicting libertarian views. I.e. abortion being somthing that is a hard topic to tackle which conflict and the rights of the individual (ignoring the question of if the child has rights here)

But tackling the issue this way we could never come to a real solution because as you say even heroine should be legal yet your moral compass tells you that you dont want your family or friends to become adicts. How exactly do you justify these things internally. I asked if you have kids for a reason, if your partner decided at 35 weeks she didnt want a baby anymore how would you feel? esp. as you as the partner have no rights, and no means to say ‘I want the child’.

I know people feel strongly about abortion on all sides, I am more interested here how your conflicting views pan out, and if put in an actual situation how you would act and feel about putting into practice your conflicting views.

(btw, make the comment box bigger, most people write more than 6 lines )

There are over 6 billion idiots who are roaming the earth calling themself humans, I say abort them all for the sake of the planet.

Vera,

What, is being pregnant bad for business?

Phil,
It’s your website, so move my comments if you feel you must. However, does that mean that your regulating our posts? Are you infering that we, the people are not smart enough to judge how to reply to the items you post? It does not sound like a very Libertarian thing to do. Sure the Gore item was interesting. If you had posted that alone I probably would not have bothered commenting at all. If I had, it would have been to point our that Gore is an idiot.

Hmmm, should this comment be posted to the Gore story? I don’t know. Thanks for maintaining the site, its great!

It???s your website, so move my comments if you feel you must. However, does that mean that your regulating our posts? Are you infering that we, the people are not smart enough to judge how to reply to the items you post? It does not sound like a very Libertarian thing to do.

Well it’s the first time I’ve ever moved posts, and there is no regulation on this blog whatsoever (excluding obvious spam). Since I was splitting the post, I thought it was appropriate to split the comments as well – I was afraid people would bitch about it if I didn’t.

However your point isnt about abortion at all, your point is about your confilicting libertarian views. I.e. abortion being somthing that is a hard topic to tackle which conflict and the rights of the individual (ignoring the question of if the child has rights here)

No conflicting libertarian views here. Individuals have rights. If a fetus had “rights”, then shouldn’t we be locking up women who hurt their fetuses with tobacco, alcoholic, and bad foods?

I asked if you have kids for a reason, if your partner decided at 35 weeks she didnt want a baby anymore how would you feel? esp. as you as the partner have no rights, and no means to say ???I want the child???.

No kids here. How would I feel if I wanted the baby and the mother decided to abort? I’d probably be pretty pissed off, whether she did it at week 12 or week 35.

I am more interested here how your conflicting views pan out, and if put in an actual situation how you would act and feel about putting into practice your conflicting views.

Where are my views conflicting?

Where are my views conflicting?

umm here?

It???s pretty fucked up, now wait, it???s really fucked up. I don???t support this, I don???t condone this, I think it???s immoral, unethical, wrong, insane??¦ – But like I always say: Just because I believe something should be legal, doesn???t mean I think it???s right.

Shouldnt we belive in the laws we have and think they are right and make sense? Doesnt thinking somthing is “really fucked up” indicate that there is somthing wrong with a law that would allow such things.

Yeah I know that comment is so open to attack but why dont you see a conflict there, and yeah when has life, government or law ever made real sense. However all I read when you write is ‘I really dont think act x is right, but I belive in the right of Y so I have to accept that the X would be an outcome” Isnt that a conflict?

I agree in free speach no matter what, I dont agree with using free speach as a sheild to insight violence or racist hate or encourage other deplorable acts. See a conflict.

No conflicting libertarian views here. Individuals have rights. If a fetus had ???rights”, then shouldn???t we be locking up women who hurt their fetuses with tobacco, alcoholic, and bad foods?

Also to add, if a woman was a drug addict then yes we need to protect her child in the same way we would take away her child if it was out in the wider world. The thing is its grey, which I think everyone agrees, and we cant just say ah week 24 its ok to do coke, but now its week 25 your coming with me…..

It’s grey and you cant throw your hands in the air and just say ah fuck it hard topic lets just ignore it one way or another, i.e. no abortion or full-term abortion, that is such a cop out. Along with the arguments of, they can go to France so why not let them do it here?, thats such a poor way out of debating anything.

Prison is proven to have very little deternent in street crime, so then why not just throw our hands up and ignore it, after all they will just get a slap on the wrists, lets save the cash, better yet lets give everyone guns and let them ‘defend’ themsleves, yeah fucking wikid idea, maybe we should just legalise everything then if the guns or violent street crime dont get them the heroin will right?

It???s pretty fucked up, now wait, it???s really fucked up. I don???t support this, I don???t condone this, I think it???s immoral, unethical, wrong, insane??¦ – But like I always say: Just because I believe something should be legal, doesn???t mean I think it???s right.

No way. I’ll reiterate: Just because I believe something should be legal, doesn???t mean I think it???s right.

Sniffing paint thinner is perfectly legal, but I’m willing to bet you don’t agree with it, do you? So, does that mean you have “conflicting views”? Of course not. “Legal views” and “Moral views” are two entirely seperate things. (although I know most Reps and Dems in the U.S. have trouble understanding this)

Yeah I know that comment is so open to attack but why dont you see a conflict there, and yeah when has life, government or law ever made real sense. However all I read when you write is ???I really dont think act x is right, but I belive in the right of Y so I have to accept that the X would be an outcome?? Isnt that a conflict?

Everybody’s morals and values are different. And I’d be wrong to impose my morals and values onto the rest of the nation. That’s one of the biggest problems with politics today, everyone thinks that everyone else should share their exact same morals/values.

Also to add, if a woman was a drug addict then yes we need to protect her child in the same way we would take away her child if it was out in the wider world.

Alcohol is just as bad as drugs, but you wouldn’t take away an alcoholics baby? Just the drug users like the pot-smokers?

Anzi: “If you wouldn???t find out about the pregnancy until you are in your ninth month, then you???d have to be seriously screwed up. I know that there have been cases of women living in denial about their pregnancy for several months, but these kinds of cases have been related to some sort of mental illness or serious trauma.”

You are probably right, with the exception if extreme ignorance or some extreme medical circumstances. However I’ve met one perfectly normal woman who did not manage to find out until she was 6th months along. (She had all reasons to believe she was in menopause.)

“You can always put the unwanted child up for adoption, especially in these times of increasing childlessness.”

No, you cannot, you need the father’s permission.

Fred Fry: “What, is being pregnant bad for business?”

Never tried and not going to, but I suppose that being pregnant is bad for everything. Unless you want a baby, anyway.

Alcohol is just as bad as drugs, but you wouldn???t take away an alcoholics baby? Just the drug users like the pot-smokers?

Actually I would take away an alchaolics baby, alcahol is a drug and the baby will be just as adicited when it is born as the parent. But dope smokers… well I would have to see some actual research that showed it to actually have any ill effect, which it probably doesnt because its the most demonised yet pretty harmless substance anyone chose to ban.

???Legal views?? and ???Moral views?? are two entirely seperate things.

sure they are, but they conflict no?

And that paint thinner example is yet another case of equating one example with another that are on entirely differnt subjects. Some idiot wants to kill thir brain with thinners, and someone wants to termante a child at 38 weeks dont equate at ethical debates, nor legal ones for that, and are magnitudes of complexity apart. Of course I dont want to have laws for everything, and I never said such, I basically said:

Near/full term abortion is just wrong, like murder is wrong, like terroism is wrong, and as a result I would act to protect such children from acts of abuse in cases where we would act to help children of abuse who are born. The grey area about what is a child isnt clear to me or anyone but it doesnt stop us dealing with it.

Your response seems to be, we cant legislate it correctly or easily, its difficult because look at all these similar examples of things we cant really make illegal, what do we do about that? Nothng seems to be the answer. In fact much of libertarian rehtoric appears similary binary, there is black and white and we choose to air on the side of being liberal.

What I am trying to understand is how someone so liberal, and so utterly to the left feels when one view they hold that is pretty extreeme, such as the RIGHT to full term abortion might conflict with their own life if it was to happen them. And not the, ‘I think its fucked up but….’ line you copied a few times but some actual consideration to how you would react and feel in a given example. Could you ever look at your partner again? Would you shrug it off and think, ‘its her body! its her body’? I see that as conflict, I dont see it as a way to legislate or how laws should be interpreted, I see it as two opposing views that meet occasionally.

I’m so sick of religious people bringing their arguements into this whole abortion issue. They should stick their “morals” to where the Sun doesn’t shine since morals are always subjective and they sound artificial (as are their supporters). The question is whether this thing – embryo/fetus – is a human being or not. My opinion is that for as long as the kid is biologically dependent on its mother (comparable to a parasite) it’s not a human being and therefore has no human rights.

The question is whether this thing – embryo/fetus – is a human being or not. My opinion is that for as long as the kid is biologically dependent on its mother (comparable to a parasite) it???s not a human being and therefore has no human rights.

Comparable to a parasite. I have heard my share of child-hating slurs, but this one takes the cake.
I have no children, but want to have them some day.

Who cares if embroy is human or not? I don’t think that every living human has right to live, so whole question avout if embroy is human or not, is irrelevant.

My wife was recently doing her internship at NaistenKlinnika in Helsinki
where they perform abortions up to 24 weeks along with govt permission. In one scenario an aborted baby was living outside of the “mothers” body for 30 minutes. The baby was moving, crying ect. As a result of that horrifying experience a few of the medical personnel there quit or transferred out to that particular department. A child is NOT biologically dependant upon its mother after 22 weeeks. A cousin of mine had her baby at 21 weeeks and now the child is 2 years old.
Furthermore, pills are given to the “mother” before the abortion that will keep the aborted baby from feeling pain. A “clump of cells” does not feel pain, Does it? Very few pro-choice people are even aware of the develpmental process of an unborn child. Try reading up on it and maybe you can see why the whole process is barbaric and wrong.

“A child is NOT biologically dependant upon its mother after 22 weeeks”

So it can survive itself without medical care?

“where they perform abortions up to 24 weeks along with govt permission. In one scenario an aborted baby was living outside of the ???mothers?? body for 30 minutes.”

Why did this baby die if it is not dependent?

Fool, if you crash your car and sever your arm YOU WILL DIE WITHOUT MEDICAL CARE. If a baby is 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11 motnhs , 1 year, 2 year, 3 year, 4 year, 5 year toddler will die without help. So you are not a human untill you reach the age of fending for ones self. Brilliant conclusion.
Read the post i responded to before responding to mine- ” BIOLOGICALLY DEPENDANT ON ITS MOTHER (comparable to a parasite) it???s not a human being and therefore has no human” There was no ascertation that it does not need medical care. Did you know that a severve case of ripuli can kill an adult if they dont get medical help.

Here’s my view:

Premise 1: There is no way to say, objectively and definitively, when a fetus becomes a human being. Any distinction you could possibly make is totally arbitrary, so abortion must either be illegal at all times or legal at all times.

Premise 2: A live, born baby is a human being.

Premise 3: A zygote (fertilized egg) is a single, undifferentiated cell, not a human being. A zygote is not a person in the same way that a piece of metal is not a car.

Premise 4: Abortion should only be illegal if it can be determined that the fetus is a human being.

Conclusion: Abortion must be legal at the zygote stage, and therefore, it must be legal at all times, since there is no way to show objectively that a fetus is a human being at any time.

what do you mean a human fetus is not human !!!!!!!!!!!! of course its human.