Abortion

[eritated]

Light, that'd be plausible, but saying she doesn't want to be pregnant for nine months and give birth is like saying that she doesn't want to save a drowning person.

Um... How are the two anything alike?

[Totts]

They are both denying the chance of an unaffected life.

[prairiecrow]

I feel that if the woman feels she is at risk she could have it, but a woman without any complications for birth should be encouraged not to and should at least give a plausible reason to abort.

I'd say not wanting to risk her health and her future by having a child is more than sufficient reason. In my opinion, any other attitude suggests that any worth a woman may claim is always trumped by her responsibility to breed.

 

Also, health-related complications (physical and psychological) can arise at any point during a pregnancy.

[eritated]

They are both denying the chance of an unaffected life.

No. A drowning person already has a life, a family, and people who care about them.

 

A fetus is potential life.

Edited October 13, 2013 by Erica8798

[lightbird]

Light, that'd be plausible, but saying she doesn't want to be pregnant for nine months and give birth is like saying that she doesn't want to save a drowning person.

A fetus isn't capable of feeling pain until ~20th week of development, simply due not having a developed enough a brain for that. Most elective abortions are performed in the first trimester (first trimester). At this stage, the fetus is about as sentient as an amoeba or a flatworm.

 

A drowning person is someone who has been born, grown, made connections to other people, and is NOT comparable to a fetus that has no sentience (yet). An acorn is not an oak.

[prairiecrow]

They are both denying the chance of an unaffected life.

And forcing (yes, FORCING) a woman to carry a child to term is a declaration that HER life is worth less than a potential life (yes, potential, because natural abortions occur and the fetus could die during the pregnancy).

 

Also, here's another way to look at it: if the woman in question is a compatible donor with someone whose kidneys are failing, would you dream of suggesting that she should be hunted down, tied down, and forcibly deprived of her kidney? Heck, if she were DEAD most people would still respect her wishes if she'd stated she didn't want to be an organ donor. Why would you give a living breathing woman less rights than a corpse?

[Totts]

There is no point saying when a life begins, because nobody can prove that, but saying that it is about as sentient as an amoeba or a flatworm still states that it is, Sentient, also praire, I never said anything about forcing, you're distorting my words.

Edited October 13, 2013 by Totts

[lightbird]

There is no point saying when a life begins, because nobody can prove that, but saying that it is about as sentient as an amoeba or a flatworm still states that it is, Sentient.

Except that amoeba and flatworms aren't sentient.

 

Also, the basic unit of life is a cell.

Cancer cells are alive. Should you cherish their right to live and let them grow infinitely?

[prairiecrow]

There is no point saying when a life begins, because nobody can prove that, but saying that it is about as sentient as an amoeba or a flatworm still states that it is, Sentient.

I kill insects and other life forms (including bacteria) on a regular basis. So, your point being?

[Totts]

People are distorting my words, I'm leaving this discussion now.

[prairiecrow]

also praire, I never said anything about forcing, you're distorting my words.

Actually, I thought I was following their implication to its logical conclusion: if the technology to perform abortions is available, and you (or anybody else) tells a woman that she cannot use it and must bring a child to term because the woman doesn't give you a "plausible" enough reason for not wanting a child, then you are, by definition, denying her that abortion she desires. How is that NOT forcing her to do what you wish?

 

If I misunderstood what you were getting at, please feel free to correct me.

Edited October 13, 2013 by prairiecrow

[lightbird]

Actually, I thought I was following their implication to its logical conclusion: if the technology to perform abortions is available, and you (or anybody else) tells a woman that she cannot use it and must bring a child to term because the woman doesn't give you a "plausible" enough reason for not wanting a child, then you are, by definition, denying her that abortion she desires. How is that NOT forcing her to do what you wish?

Exactly.

 

You can't legally force someone to donate their organs to someone who is sick, even if you're histologically compatible with them, you can't even take organs from a CORPSE, if that person hasn't expressed during their life that they're alright with donating organs.

So, forcing a woman to carry a fetus to term (potential life) diminishes her legal rights to less of those of a corpse that won't be bothered about the tidbits of life anymore.

[Totts]

Also I never said she'd have to be forced to give birth, just give a plausible reason not to.

[eritated]

Also I never said she'd have to be forced to give birth, just give a plausible reason not to.

Please explain why "because she does not want to" is not a "plausible" reason.

[Totts]

Because it doesn't have enough explanation.

[TikindiDragon]

Guys, I think you just assumed someone was anti-choice and went a little OTT. I don't feel that suggesting other options is the same as denying people abortions. Really.

[eritated]

Because it doesn't have enough explanation.

Thank you for making me laugh.

 

Who are you to dictate what is a good enough reason for a woman to get an abortion or not?

Edited October 13, 2013 by Erica8798

[lightbird]

Because it doesn't have enough explanation.

Because you most likely don't have the idea of the magnitude of responsibility that is parenting.

[diannethegeek]

Also I never said she'd have to be forced to give birth, just give a plausible reason not to.

Then the natural questions to ask are: what do you consider to not be a plausible reason? And what happens to those women who don't give a good enoough reason?

 

I hope that you understand that I don't think anyone here is trying to attack you. This is just a tactic that's commonly used to restrict abortion access and some of us feel very strongly that this would be a bad thing.

[prairiecrow]

Maybe I'm completely off my nut here, but how does the statement:

 

"Women shouldn't be allowed abortions unless they have a good reason"

 

not lead to, under at least some conditions:

 

"Women who don't have a good reason wouldn't receive abortions"

 

And how, in that case, does deciding that a pregnant woman "doesn't have a good enough reason" not lead to denial of abortion services?

 

Further, how does that denial of abortion services NOT constitute forcing the woman in question to remain pregnant?

 

Hopefully that makes my line of reasoning a bit clearer.

[Totts]

A plausible reason would be: Due to medical complications, Due to feeling they would be inexperienced, Due to the fact it could be harmful to the mother. Not just 'I don't want to.'

 

I feel that Erica is attacking me, for she is laughing at my opinion, that's like me laughing at her religion.

[eritated]

A plausible reason would be: Due to medical complications, Due to feeling they would be inexperienced, Due to the fact it could be harmful to the mother. Not just 'I don't want to.'

 

I feel that Erica is attacking me, for she is laughing at my opinion, that's like me laughing at her religion.

I'm just stating how I feel, the same as you just did. Also, I don't have a religion to laugh at

[TikindiDragon]

Totts didn't say "Shouldn't be allowed" though. The phrase was "Should be encouraged not to." which is totally different.

 

And, yeah guys, you're coming off as pretty hostile.

[prairiecrow]

A plausible reason would be: Due to medical complications, Due to feeling they would be inexperienced, Due to the fact it could be harmful to the mother. Not just 'I don't want to.'

I'm not attacking you here, I'm honestly trying to understand...

 

So if, in your world, a woman got pregnant and said "I don't want to be pregnant", and gave no other reason, you would deny her the abortion and force her to carry the child to term?

 

Why? Is her role as an incubator more important than her role as a human being with goals and desires of her own? Why (as asked earlier) would you deny her the same rights that our society extends to other living human beings, and even to corpses, to maintain her bodily autonomy?

 

ETA, to Tiki: What makes me annoyed is the contention that a woman's desire not to be pregnant is insufficient reason for her not to be pregnant. That's a line of reasoning that's used to demean, condemn, and yes, terrorize women every day.

Edited October 13, 2013 by prairiecrow

[Totts]

As for forcing them to give birth, take a look at the film never let me go, It's about people being forced to give their organs. Anyways they would be given the option to abort, the whole reason of the plausible reason thing would be to keep a record for the government, to see if people felt unequipped, so the government could alter things to make people more comfortable, example is if teenage pregnancies and abortions were on the rise, the government would give out more classes in school about contraception and make access to it easier, I never stated they would HAVE to give birth.

 

Erica, I still could make fun of atheism, even if it is my own belief

Edited October 13, 2013 by Totts