Abortion

[7Deadly$ins]

Wonderful, wonderful point. Why is *this* so different? If pro-lifers are all about valuing life, the sanctity of life, etc, then why is there no huge debates about forcing healthy people to donate organs so someone can *live*, or giving blood to someone who might die, etc etc etc? If it's *really* all about *life*, we should be living in a society where if someone is dying and needs a kidney transplant, anyone in the area would immediately be forcefully tested to see if they might be a donor. Because, life!

 

But that's not how it works, is it? So why do fetuses get such a huge priority?

 

I admit, I don't read every single post in this thread, but I'm just going out on a limb here and thinking (hoping?) that anyone arguing pro-life means *fetuses over 21 weeks*. And logic would dictate that even pro-lifers should have no problem with abortions performed before that time. According to *way* too many websites, the *very* earliest known fetus surviving outside the womb was at 21 weeks.

 

If it can't survive outside the mother's body, I see no reason discussing it's "rights".

Almost no one debates about abortions past 21 weeks. The general consensus among the pro-choice community seems to be a bit varied, but generally that it's best only if medically necessary. Most pro-life people here are straight up what you'd expect, no abortions, ever...

[KageSora]

Wonderful, wonderful point. Why is *this* so different? If pro-lifers are all about valuing life, the sanctity of life, etc, then why is there no huge debates about forcing healthy people to donate organs so someone can *live*, or giving blood to someone who might die, etc etc etc? If it's *really* all about *life*, we should be living in a society where if someone is dying and needs a kidney transplant, anyone in the area would immediately be forcefully tested to see if they might be a donor. Because, life!

 

But that's not how it works, is it? So why do fetuses get such a huge priority?

 

I admit, I don't read every single post in this thread, but I'm just going out on a limb here and thinking (hoping?) that anyone arguing pro-life means *fetuses over 21 weeks*. And logic would dictate that even pro-lifers should have no problem with abortions performed before that time. According to *way* too many websites, the *very* earliest known fetus surviving outside the womb was at 21 weeks.

 

If it can't survive outside the mother's body, I see no reason discussing it's "rights".

Exactly! If I'm dying from kidney failure, I can't demand they grab random passersby off the street until they find a match and forcibly cut out a kidney to give me.

 

If I'm dying of bloodloss and for some reason they don't have enough of my type to keep me alive until I get patched up to stop the bleeding, they can't just grab random passersby to find somebody who I'm compatible with and just drain off their blood to keep me alive.

 

If I'm in need of a bone marrow transplant, they can't just start grabbing random people until they find a match and take some against their will.

 

 

So why, if I were to be raped (since that's the only way in the forseeable future I could end up pregnant what with the whole "asexual, not in a relationship, and not looking for a relationship" thing goin' on and all), can I just be forced to hand over my body to something I don't want, regardless of what that does to me?

[ebony ink]

So I think I have a question/debate for pro-choice people, now I'm pro-choice absolutely -not just for medical/rape reasons but for others as well - because I think that factors like welfare of the child (and parents) once it is born is important: so I believe factors like current income, relationship status (I don't mean if you're single or in a relationship or married but what if you're in an abusive relationship?), etc. are equally important. As in the future of the child (and the parents) needs to be considered in terms beyond physical health.

 

And depending on your country putting your child for adoption is not really a good option: if the adoption rates are low then they'll stay in state care for all of their childhood etc. I'm sure there are many statistics on this topic - point being in the majority of countries state care for children isn't perfect.

 

Human population is growing, and I see no reason to have a child unless it would be cared for and cherished and provided for to the best of the parent(s) abilities. Because women are born with about 300,000 eggs, and in general parents only have resources for under 10. Most only for 2-3 max. So why shouldn't parents choose when to have their children? (Even after conception.)

 

So my questions is how do you feel about that? Or what you think of it?

 

tl:dr Abortion should happen for all reasons not just medical/rape. Opinion?

 

[Shienvien]

I am one of those "any reason is valid for a woman to have an early abortion' people. Late abortions are to be weighed more carefully. (Since the fetus is more developed.)

[BlitzDrake]

So with the Republicans trying to pass that law/rule, what is this going to entail? I read it was passed already but I'm not too sure of that.

[KageSora]

-snip-

I think that any woman who says "I do not want to go through with this pregnancy" should be allowed an abortion (provided it's really what she wants and she's not being forced into it by others--it's about CHOICE, after all).

 

Financial reasons are a good one. Having a kid can is hella expensive, and that's if it's a fully healthy child.

 

Actually, just any reason is a good one. I kinda view it as any time a woman does NOT want to go through with a pregnancy, it counts as a medical reason because it's not mentally/emotionally healthy for her to be forced into carrying to term if she doesn't want to.

 

 

And the adoption and foster systems are just so... They're too filled with kids as it is, chucking another kid into the system isn't really great for that kid. I mean, if you can arrange for the adoption beforehand and have everything ready within a few days of the birth, more power to you! But just dumping it into the system isn't... I mean, I'm an adoption success case and I still think it's not necessarily the best idea to birth and put up for adoption.

 

Every case is different, of course--and that's why the right to choose is so important, so that they can pick what's right in their case.

[potterwolf]

Except then that would give a fetus greater rights than any humans.

 

You cannot just force a random person off the street to give blood or a kidney because another person is dying and needs it to live. You cannot force another person to donate their organs even in death.

 

So why, then, does a fetus suddenly have the right to take over a woman's body to preserve it's own life? When that same woman would not be forced to give blood to a dying person?

That's a very good point, and I'm in no way disagreeing with you there. My point was just that it isn't fair to frame this issue in such a way that pro-lifers are valuing the "life" of a clump of cells over the "life" of a woman.

 

The example you use is slightly different than the issue of abortion though. In the case of a pregnancy, the woman most likely had a role in the creation of the life she is being forced to save. Presumably, if it wasn't for her, there would be no dying person worth saving, right?

 

That doesn't make your point entirely invalid, but it's an important qualification because abortion is a tricky issue. It's not going to be solved by making false comparisons.

[Shienvien]

The example you use is slightly different than the issue of abortion though. In the case of a pregnancy, the woman most likely had a role in the creation of the life she is being forced to save. Presumably, if it wasn't for her, there would be no dying person worth saving, right?

In most cases, she also did everything in her power to avoid it. Or, given the poor education in some cases, did not even know she could get pregnant this way or that there are things she can do against it. And so forth.

 

The only way to make it absolutely certain that you won't run someone over with a car is to not drive a at all, what with people occasionally darting across the road at random places and so forth. The last time I checked, you aren't required to give blood to a person you accidentally ran over with a car, either, although the person's condition would still have been caused by you. - To continue the dying person / right to your body analogy.

[Fuzzbucket]

Laws should never be based on religion. Those whose religion or lack of it leads to a stand on either side of this issue can follow their principles, but should not impose them on those who don't share their views.

 

Pro-choice, here. And by the way, my father was a Christian minister and was also POWERFULLY pro choice.

Edited June 25, 2013 by fuzzbucket

[potterwolf]

In most cases, she also did everything in her power to avoid it. Or, given the poor education in some cases, did not even know she could get pregnant this way or that there are things she can do against it. And so forth.

 

The only way to make it absolutely certain that you won't run someone over with a car is to not drive a at all, what with people occasionally darting across the road at random places and so forth. The last time I checked, you aren't required to give blood to a person you accidentally ran over with a car, either, although the person's condition would still have been caused by you. - To continue the dying person / right to your body analogy.

Agreed. I'm pro-choice, I just think it's important to distinguish why the issue of abortion is a trickier issue than a lot of pro-choicers make it out to be.

[TCA]

Has there been a discussion yet about whether you can believe that abortion is morally wrong for religious reasons and still allow the choice for others?

[Shienvien]

Has there been a discussion yet about whether you can believe that abortion is morally wrong for religious reasons and still allow the choice for others?

There have been people speaking up who do have the "I think abortion is wrong, I will never have one myself, but I am not going to stop others from having one" mindset.

[Fuzzbucket]

There have been people speaking up who do have the "I think abortion is wrong, I will never have one myself, but I am not going to stop others from having one" mindset.

And I applaud them.

 

There are a few religious practices I think are profoundly wrong, going by my personal moral standards, but (short of female genital mutilation, sorry about that...) I am not going to try and prevent members of that religion from practising them.

Edited June 26, 2013 by fuzzbucket

[BlitzDrake]

So what will this lead to? Will this Texas incident lead to it eventually effecting all states?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/24/t..._n_3488965.html

[HeatherMarie]

*is deliberately avoiding the Texas news stuff at the moment*

 

In response to the earlier question.... I strongly believe that a woman should have the choice of early abortion without *any bias towards her reasons*. ie, there might be some reasons I don't agree with, but I certainly wouldn't roadblock anyone who had those reasons, and I also don't think doctors should push the whole "are you SURE????" issue. Education on other options is one thing, but there is a line.

 

Medical reasons are of course top of the list, imo. If the mother is high-risk, may not survive, etc. Rape, *definitely* a valid reason.

 

And then there are other just as valid reasons, like financial status, job security, home security... If you know you may be laid off soon, if you are struggling just to pay your own bills, if you've gotten warnings because of late rent payments, etc, there is no *way* you can adequately provide for a child, not financially.

 

And then, I've said it before, but I know the foster system too well in this country. I would rather my fetus never take a breath then to be shoved into that hellhole system.

Edited June 26, 2013 by Marie19R

[KageSora]

In most cases, she also did everything in her power to avoid it. Or, given the poor education in some cases, did not even know she could get pregnant this way or that there are things she can do against it. And so forth.

 

The only way to make it absolutely certain that you won't run someone over with a car is to not drive a at all, what with people occasionally darting across the road at random places and so forth. The last time I checked, you aren't required to give blood to a person you accidentally ran over with a car, either, although the person's condition would still have been caused by you. - To continue the dying person / right to your body analogy.

Yeah, this is exactly it.

 

I mean, I'm generally a pretty careful driver. I keep a watch out, I do what I can to generally drive safely (even if it means not 100% obeying the laws if it means preventing an accident due to the poor driving of somebody else).

 

But if a person in dark, non-reflective clothes darts out of a poorly-lit area at night and jumps in front of my car... Well not much I could have done about that aside from not having driven my car (abstinence). Oh, but I suppose it's my fault for going out so late at night (women who are at fault because society discounts any precautions they take if those precautions happen to fail).

 

Has there been a discussion yet about whether you can believe that abortion is morally wrong for religious reasons and still allow the choice for others?

I love when people say that. They recognize that while they believe it to be morally wrong, not everybody shares their view and they respect that.

 

 

Texas legislature changes timestamps on SB5 vote

 

So, it's looking like our own lawmakers are forced to resort to some very underhanded (illegal, more like) tactics to manage to get their way. :/

 

Why are these people allowed in power again? They clearly don't care how many things they have to do wrong to get their way.

[Marrionetta]

My dad is a religious Muslim man but he knows that he can never presume to know a stranger's life or motivations. Out of respect for human autonomy and from his ability to imagine other human beings like the complex creatures we are, he is fervently pro choice.

 

I kind of feel like putting reason restrictions on abortion is mostly supported by flat unempathizable caricatures of what women who seek them are like. "Oh she's looking for an easy fix" or "She's just unwilling to take responsibility for her under thought out actions" are some that I hear a lot from certain members of the religious right. To those people, the very same who claim God knows a child's soul in the womb, I ask you this; do you really presume to know a stranger's soul, their hopes, fears, motivations, better than God?

 

Shame on anyone who pretends people are uncomplicated and not worth having good intentions assumed of them.

[sparkle10184]

This isn't quite a fair question. Unless you're talking specifically about situations in which the woman's life is in imminent danger as a result of pregnancy, the conflict isn't between valuing the "clump of cells" over the woman.

 

Presumably a person's right to life is more valuable than a person's right to choose not to carry a pregnancy to term. If this premise is accepted, then it would make sense that a fetus's right to life would override the mother's right to choose.

 

The point of contention between pro-life advocates and pro-choice advocates is not about whether the fetus is more important than the woman. Rather, it is about whether or not a fetus has rights at all. If not, then its right to life doesn't factor into the equation. If, however, a fetus does possess human rights, then the protection of those rights would have to take priority.

Well, actually, I've been reading through the thread and I see that some people think the fetus does deserve to live more than the woman because it has never had a chance. My question wasn't for all pro-life people (sorry, I should have been more specific) it was for those who think, even if the mother's life is in danger, the fetus should have rights over the mother.

[KageSora]

Rick Perry Calls Second Special Session To Pass Abortion Restrictions

[Fuzzbucket]

Lord, this sounds like if I cook dinner enough times sooner or later that egg will turn into a steak...

 

I wonder if that would work.... probably only in Texas !

[KageSora]

Lord, this sounds like if I cook dinner enough times sooner or later that egg will turn into a steak...

 

I wonder if that would work.... probably only in Texas !

I just feel so sorry for all the decent people in Texas who realize this is BS, but who are getting trouble from other people just for living in Texas. :/

 

I mean, this was pretty expected, of course.

 

I just wonder how does "causing women to end up in back-alley clinics where they may die from improper procedures or become permanently sterile, causing women to force to things such as ingesting potentially harmful or deadly chemicals in an attempt to induce a miscarriage, causing women to do things such as throw themselves down stairs, causing women to cross state lines, closing clinics that do more than abortions thus resulting in MEN, non-pregnant women, and CHILDREN (maybe even BABIES) to lose access to their trusted healthcare providers" translate into "valuing life" and "protecting women and the unborn"?

 

I really just want a straight answer to that. These pro-forced-birth people seem to think abortion only came about in the modern era, completely ignoring that women have been aborting for ages? Making it illegal won't stop abortion--it'll just drive up the casualty rate from people trying to get rid of a pregnancy they don't want/can't handle.

[Kai]

Do you know for certain that reason doesn't exist? Sounds like an absolute knowledge claim to me. How do you know reason doesn't exist? Did you reason your way to that conclusion?

 

Again, I'm not arguing that reason doesn't exist. I believe in objective, universal laws of logic. I'm saying that apart from the existence of an immutable being to provide these immutable laws, there is no explanation for them other than "we just think they exist."

 

You think you're really clever to regurgitate William Lane Craig. There are no universal laws of logic. Get over it.

[hydrargyrum]

I just feel so sorry for all the decent people in Texas who realize this is BS, but who are getting trouble  from other people just for living in Texas.  :/

 

I mean, this was pretty expected, of course.

 

I just wonder how does "causing women to end up in back-alley clinics where they may die from improper procedures or become permanently sterile, causing women to force to things such as ingesting potentially harmful or deadly chemicals in an attempt to induce a miscarriage, causing women to do things such as throw themselves down stairs, causing women to cross state lines, closing clinics that do more than abortions thus resulting in MEN, non-pregnant women, and CHILDREN (maybe even BABIES) to lose access to their trusted healthcare providers" translate into "valuing life" and "protecting women and the unborn"?

 

I really just want a straight answer to that. These pro-forced-birth people seem to think abortion only came about in the modern era, completely ignoring that women have been aborting for ages? Making it illegal won't stop abortion--it'll just drive up the casualty rate from people trying to get rid of a pregnancy they don't want/can't handle.

... Those would be very logical arguments, except you're arguing with people who believe things like that women's bodies can shut down the reproductive process in the case of "legitimate" rape and that rape kits can clean a woman out before she gets pregnant . Real logic and concrete facts have no place with these people; they just deny whatever facts are inconvenient to their cause. I think they really believe that if they outlaw abortions, then suddenly every pregnant woman will realize how much she really loves her unborn baby, and they'll magically earn enough money to be financially secure, and everyone will just be such a happy family. They deny that women seriously injure (or even kill) themselves trying to get illegal abortions or that planned parenthood does anything besides abortions, and no amount of facts can dig them out of their "all women are mentally equipped to be good mothers" fairy tale.

[KageSora]

... Those would be very logical arguments, except you're arguing with people who believe things like that women's bodies can shut down the reproductive process in the case of "legitimate" rape and that rape kits can clean a woman out before she gets pregnant . Real logic and concrete facts have no place with these people; they just deny whatever facts are inconvenient to their cause. I think they really believe that if they outlaw abortions, then suddenly every pregnant woman will realize how much she really loves her unborn baby, and they'll magically earn enough money to be financially secure, and everyone will just be such a happy family. They deny that women seriously injure (or even kill) themselves trying to get illegal abortions or that planned parenthood does anything besides abortions, and no amount of facts can dig them out of their "all women are mentally equipped to be good mothers" fairy tale.

I still hold out hope that some of them can see reason. I mean, I used to be pro-birth but then people showed me facts that I realized really weren't able to be argued with--well, not reasonably anyway.

[hydrargyrum]

I still hold out hope that some of them can see reason. I mean, I used to be pro-birth but then people showed me facts that I realized really weren't able to be argued with--well, not reasonably anyway.

I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I think all pro-lifers/pro-birthers are that irrational; I'm sure many of them are intelligent people who just don't know all the facts yet. But the politicians who are pushing this BS are the ones I'm talking about. After some of the they've said, I think it's pretty obvious that they will never see reason.