NationStates Jolt Archive

The motion, not the act

03-06-2004, 19:42
Abortion is necesary if a disease threatens to kill the baby and its mother then abort. Why wouldnt you? Whats wrong with abortion? Anybody who has a problem with it should think about what they are saying.

The nation would like to address this inappropriate quotation. I will not use the opinion that abortion is murder. I will not insinuate that the mother and doctors/nurses who allow such actions to be taken are murderers and accessories to the fact.
My problem is not with abortion. It is instead with the phrasing of the motion. Therefore, I will address the motion itself.

This motion does not take into account when life begins. With a very loose interpretation, a child that is just born could be "aborted." While I know that this is not the intention of the author of this proposal, this proposal would allow it.
When, then, does life begin? Certainly we can assume that the mother and father are alive, as are their "donated" chromosones and cells which carry important genetic information that we consider to be "alive." But these cells are only half alive as only half the information is present. It is not until conception that the chromosones combine to form the first whole cell of a fetus. It takes approximately 40 weeks for a fetus to become fully developed. However, a brain, spinal cord, eyes, lungs, a heartbeat, fingers and toes, have been formed long before the 40 weeks is up. Does life exist when the heartbeat begins then? Or must one wait until the fetus is removed from the mother's womb for it to be considered "alive?" Premature children are not fully developed, though they are "born." Can a fetus existing outside of the womb be aborted then? Or since it has been removed and "born," so to speak, is it then considered to be alive?
I have read several discussions that have spoken of trimesters. Most seem to agree that if abortion is to be legalized, it should take place before the end of the 2nd, or beginning of the 3rd, trimester. Therefore, a limitation as to when abortion should take place during the pregnancy should certainly be a worthwhile addendum to this proposal.

Also, while the rights of the mother are certainly one which includes choice to an entity that is a part and dependent upon her, the rights of the unborn fetus are not taken into account! Jefferson defined these as the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (some philosophers have used property as the third right [Montisque]). I do not imply that an unborn fetus can voice their opinions regarding abortion, not by any means. Must we then wait until cognition exists until the child is consdiered to be alive? Certainly not.

Medically speaking, I would much prefer for a woman to be able to go to a doctor to have their abortion than to have to go to some shady building or alley to have hackneyed practioners or coat hangers to abort the child instead. Such a process causes immense physical and psychological damage to the potential mother, damage that is preventable and unnecessary. I will not address the problem of abortion being used as a form of birth control here. However, the issue of birth control may need to be addressed. Condoms, spermicides, diaphragms, birthcontrol pills, morning after pills, or even abstinence, in proper condition and use, have shown to be (mostly) effective means of birth control for consensual intercourse.

As I have said, my contention is not with the actual legalization of abortion. It is the phrasing of this motion that my nation is opposed to. This motion should be voted down with another proposal written to set limits of when abortion can take place. It is therefore in my opinion that the author should withdraw their motion and revise more carefully, or that this motion be voted down and a new proposal be written as soon as possible.
Thank you, Daemon Faa. I believe I have now thought about it.