Should the viability of the fetus be considered a good cut-off point when thinking about the legal time frame of abortion?

  • Fetal Viability and Murder

    In Indiana law in order to pursue a charge murder of a fetus the fetus must meet the criteria for fetal sustainability. The cutoff for abortion should be before point that someone can be charged can be charged with murder of a fetus. Afterwards the mother should be charged with murder just as if she had killed a post-birth child.

  • The fetus is alive, but abortion is not murder.

    It is a scientific fact that life begins at conception. At that point, DNA from the mother and father combine to form a unique combination that can never be duplicated. An individual is created, and development begins. "Pro-lifers" would argue, using this logic, that abortion should be outlawed because it is no different than murder. This is a fallacy. Up until fetal viability, the fetus is completely physically dependent on its mother, meaning the mother acts as a host for the fetus's life. Without the mother, the fetus cannot survive. In essence, the mother, through pregnancy, provides a service to the fetus, which she has the right to discontinue at any time. However, at fetal viability, the fetus is no longer physically dependent on its mother, and therefore, if the mother wishes to abort the pregnancy, the life of the fetus must be protected. In this case, a premature sea-section can be performed. If a premature sea-section was to be performed before fetal viability, the fetus could obviously not survive, and the procedure becomes irrelevant; hence, the term abortion is used.

    Analogies can never perfectly illustrate an issue, but I will try nonetheless. Suppose I am providing life to another man through an IV connection. Suppose that by ceasing this connection, the man dies. Is it considered murder if I cease the connection? Do I have a legal obligation to provide another human being with life at my expense? According the Constitution, no, I do not.

    The fetus is alive. It is a human being, and should be treated as such. This does not mean abortion should be outlawed; quite the opposite is true.

  • When a baby could survive out of the womb, it is a person and should be protected.

    I am a big believer that babies develop faster than generally known. Babies in the womb can hear sounds and recognize voices. They respond to music and being read to. To me a viable baby is a human being that should be protected.

    Posted by: ddeathnote
  • I agree that the viability of a fetus should be considered a good cut-off point when thinking about the legal time frame of abortion, because aborting a fetus when it could survive outside of the womb is unethical.

    If a fetus can survive outside of the womb then, at that moment, they become a person, as opposed to a collection of cells. Usually, after around 23 weeks, a fetus can survive outside of the womb. This would be the logical cut-off point for the legal time frame of abortion.

    Posted by: ProfuseDominick
  • If a fetus is viable, then it could be considered murder.

    Women deserve the right to abort, but if they carry a fetus until it is old enough to live outside the womb, they have had more than enough time to decide. Once a fetus is viable, it is like killing a human being or a person with a disability or someone too old to take care of themselves.

    Posted by: CeIIoBurke
  • I oppose abortion, but if a person must have one, then viability should be taken into account.

    The viability of the fetus should be considered in all abortions. No one should be able to abort a fetus, in my opinion, after three months. Six months is unacceptable, because the baby could be born at that point, even if it's prematurely. I see no reason to destroy a healthy fetus, when it could be put up for adoption.

    Posted by: babiblu3
  • Abortion shouldn't be done in the first place.

    If you have sex and get pregnant or make someone else pregnant, you brought that upon yourself. You should have the baby and take responsibility for your actions. If it is a situation of rape, it is more understandable; but there are people who have gone through that, had the baby and just gave it up for adoption.

    Posted by: baarammulan
  • Yes, this is the point in which the fetus could survive on its own, without the mother, and thus makes it too late to abort.

    Once the fetus becomes viable, it becomes a baby: a person capable of sustaining its life away from its mother. Not only is it morally wrong to kill a fetus at that point, but it is also a good scientifically measurable point for a law to define. It gives abortion lawmakers an exact point to cut off an abortion, instead of the somewhat vague trimester method.

    Posted by: H_Baird
  • The viability of the fetus is a good cut-off point when considering the legal aspects of abortion because it is the ONLY time point in a pregnancy that can be specifically identified.

    The point at which a fetus is considered viable is medically specific. Prior to this point the fetus would not survive; after this point it may or may not survive. Since we are discussing the LEGAL time frame for abortion, it must be specific and measurable. The point of viability is such a point during a pregnancy.

    The only other non-arbitrary points might be the first trimester, second trimester and third trimester. These can be problematic, first, because they involve the longer time periods of three months, and, second, because the precise date of conception can not always be determined--only estimated.

    Using the point of viability as a cut-off point for legal decision-making has the added advantage of calming some of the moral issues in the minds of many. Aborting a non-viable fetus is much more palatable than aborting a fetus that could, conceivably, survive outside the womb.

    Posted by: CI3Iike
  • Viability IS the point at which a human baby becomes a person.

    Once a fetus is a person (with moral worth), it would be immoral for it to be aborted, unless it is in the self-defense of the mother. At viability, the baby is capable of living outside of the mother anyways. It is its own person at this point. Not before, and certainly no later. Someone mentioned that a fetus can feel pain before viability, but sadly, this does NOT matter, because who cares if something with no moral worth feels pain? It can feel the pain, but it has no idea what it means and it won't remember it when it is older.

  • It should not

    For one thing, viability is relative to the level of medical technology available at the time. It is a moving line that moves earlier as technology improve. Currently viability is about 20 weeks, 50 years ago the would have been inconceivable (pun intended). In any case however, the fetus is a living human person and should therefore not just be killed.

  • If viability mattered, then a whole lot of elderly and disabled would be in a heap of trouble.

    Visit any nursing home. The elderly and disabled people are completely dependent on outside help in order to stay "viable". Legalizing abortion has taken us down this slippery slope where the extremists have to start putting values on human lives. It seems the Popes and the Catholics were right all along.

  • Conception should be the legal time frame for abortion.

    It doesn't matter whether or not a baby could survive on its own outside the mother's body, a baby is a living being when it is conceived. If we are considering whether or not to wait until they are viable on their own outside the womb then we might as well be killing anyone who needs help to complete the basic necessities of life. So get ready to have all of your handicapped or sick or elderly friends and family get put in the gas chamber!

    Posted by: MariaR
  • NO,

    Killing a baby after it is born is murder. What the difference between a 9 month old baby inside the uterus and a 9 month old baby outside of the uterus? For example, if somebody asked you to bomb a building, you wouldn't do it because there would be a chance that people are inside of it. What's the difference? Why would you kill someone innocent? Abortion is nothing less than a silence scream of a modern HOLOCAUST.

  • Once the baby is created... that should be the cut-off.

    Why should a baby be killed because it hasn't matured enough to live without it's mommy. Come on. So, when people can't live without medical equipment - portable oxygen, insulin implants, inhalers, etc. - should they be fair game for murder? Just because a child is a few days, or weeks, shy of "viability" doesn't make it ok to end their life.

    Posted by: MohaI0v35
  • I believe that regardless of the stage of birth that the fetus is in, the only time an abortion should be performed is when there is a health or safety risk.

    Putting a time frame or cut-off point on performing abortions seems to send the message that as long as it is before that time, it should be considered acceptable. However, I think women are using abortions as a form of birth control and that is simply unacceptable. Abortions should be allowed to be performed but only under the threat of serious risk to the mother or baby, regardless of the stage of birth.

    Posted by: D35General
  • Viability is not a good cut-off point for abortion because the fetus can feel pain before viability.

    Viability is not a good cut-off point for the eligibility of an abortion because scientific studies have suggested that the fetus can feel pain before it is viable. Inflicting pain and death on a fetus is unethical and laws should protect fetuses from experiencing the process of abortion, regardless of viability.

    Posted by: w00dwitch
  • Viability is not a good standard for justifying abortion as legal because life is precious according to God from conception.

    Viability is not a point where the baby becomes human. The baby is a human from conception and so abortion is murder from conception on. From God's perspective He is involved as a creator and an authority from the beginning. God spoke to Jeremiah and said while you were yet in your mothers womb I appointed you a prophet to the nations. If that happened today with modern abortion law Jeremiah may have never lived to become the prophet God ordained.

    Posted by: TasticBran
  • I disagree with this point, because the viability of the fetus is too subjective.

    When speaking of abortion, many people have a black or white belief on the issue. Abortion is not just a "yes" or "no" question. The variables that factor in to each abortion are numerous, whether it be rape, incest, or any number of reasons. When we lay down a blanket policy on the viability of the fetus, we create a set standard that cannot cover all scenarios in the abortion issue and, thereby, also allow for the right to choose to be diminished.

    Posted by: ObedientMervin
  • I don't believe that the viability of the fetus is a good cut-off point when thinking about the legal time frame of abortion, because it creates a slippery slope.

    I am a strong proponent of a woman's right to choose what she can and cannot do with her body. Making abortions illegal would have many negative health consequences for women and set the country back. Viability is not a good option for judging when an abortion can be legally performed. With the advent of technology, viability will change. Abortion opponents will use viability in an attempt to make all abortions illegal. The definition of viability is also suspect. Who actually gets to decide the legal definition of viability? I think abortion should be legal and the debate ends there. Viability simply clouds the issue.

    Posted by: AmbitiousScott96

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.