Abortion - Under what circumstances should it be allowed?

[Navin]

Okay, I guess you could say that pro-forced birth could also be used, but I could also say "pro-death" to describe the "pro-choice" side, and I'm sure people would have a problem with that, so, isn't it just easier to use the terms that are generally recognized?

"Pro-choice" doesn't mean "pro-abortion." People can in fact be 'anti-abortion' but still be "pro-choice" because they ultimately believe it's the woman's choice about what she wants to do with her body. "Pro-death" is an incorrect term (just like "pro-life"), unlike "pro-forced birth" which is incontestable if you are supporting for a complete ban of abortions.

*Sigh* I had to go back and search through this thread to find these but here they are:
[Source1]
According to this, there are 21 deaths per 100,000 live births in the United States. So that means that way less than 1% of births lead in death for the mother.
[Source2]
According to this one, there is at very least 1 recorded death due to abortion, and just 1 time is enough to knock it down from 100% safety.
So there is an under 1% chance of dying from giving birth, and under 1% chance of dying from abortion.

Seriously? You are honestly telling me that this is accurate way of comparing the mortality rates of childbirth vs abortion. By linking an abortion death from a "pro-forced birth" website and then doing a calculation. Not y'know by linking something from PubMed comparing the two: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22270271

And as for calculation - 21 deaths per 100k live births in the US. And for all you know there could be just 1 death per 100k abortions, or even just 1 death per 200k abortions. That's still much less than 21.

[Source3]
According to this article 5% of rapes actually end up in pregnancy.
[Source4]
And this article states a case that was big a while back, it shows that late term abortions are basically murder. And I would like to mention that most of pregnancy-related deaths occur at childbirth, so that means, that at that point, the child is considered sentient and has rights.

That's still tens of thousands of babies being born as a result of rape. As Maedar says, even 1% doesn't excuse it. Let's force these women to go through pregnancy and bear a child from a horrifying experience. That's not going to be traumatic at all.

So.....you kill the fetus.....so you don't have to worry about possibly killing the infant.......what sense does that make?

The issue of when a fetus is 'alive' is a debatable issue and both sides provide even arguments. But y'know what's not sensible - forcing a woman to go through an unwanted pregnancy. Even if you want to label this as "murder," then we are guilty of many other issues. We go to war and people murder each other. We legalize the death penalty and kill someone for his/her crimes. If you're to say that these instances are justifiable, one can easily make the claim for abortion as well. Why is it okay to murder, actually butcher, fully grown adult cows but wrong to murder an embryo or a fetus?

Abortion has happened throughout history. If you ban it, then unsafe illegal abortions will rise, and if women are willing to risk their own lives doing something like that, well the much better alternative would be making abortion legal.

No religious beliefs should ever play a role in such policy. This should solely be a private matter between the woman, her family, and her physician.

 

[Maedar]

The problem with people like him, Maldread, is that he never links people with these statistics. He doesn't realize that those 5% aren't numbers, they're actual women who would have to deal with the horrible agony of being forced to carry a child conceived by such an attack and deal with the complications of pregnancy as a result if the pro-life people got their way. To actually support such a thing and torture a rape victim like that is an abomination.

They just don't get it. Maybe if someone actually made them talk to a few victims of this crime, they'd understand.

 

[GhostAnime]

A baby is thrust onto your doorstep, it will die if you do nothing. You don't want to kill it, but you can't keep it either, so simply find it a new home, there are plenty. (As someone who was adopted, I have firsthand experience with this)

Nah, that isn't a good portrayal of what pro-lifers are truly saying. For one, the amount of effort done to just take the child to social services versus going through pregnancy itself is not comparable in the slightest. Let's try this again:

Let's say there's a homeless man walking around. He's starving or whatever. On the verge of death and all. He knocks on your door and asks you to stay at your place for approximately 9 months.

Well, that requires money. Space. Time. You essentially have to re-plan your life around this man who just came out of nowhere. The only catch is that he dies if you refuse.

Would you force yourself or any other person to house someone for nine months less they die? I highly doubt you would. I highly doubt most people would.

 

[ellie]

Nah, that isn't a good portrayal of what pro-lifers are truly saying. For one, the amount of effort done to just take the child to social services versus going through pregnancy itself is not comparable in the slightest. Let's try this again:

Let's say there's a homeless man walking around. He's starving or whatever. On the verge of death and all. He knocks on your door and asks you to stay at your place for approximately 9 months.

Well, that requires money. Space. Time. You essentially have to re-plan your life around this man who just came out of nowhere. The only catch is that he dies if you refuse.

Would you force yourself or any other person to house someone for nine months less they die? I highly doubt you would. I highly doubt most people would.

i think a better analogy that ive heard before is that you get a diseased person knock on your door and they need to be hooked up to your body as life support for 9 months and if you refuse they will die. because it's more than just money/time/space, it's affecting your own bodily autonomy.

no one (or at least very few people i guess) wants to force people to donate blood, bone marrow, a kidney/lung, etc even if it could save others' lives so i really dont get how people think it's ok to force a woman to give up her uterus for 9 months

 

[Maedar]

I don't "get" it either, but I have seen a movie where that was common. Anyone ever see The Handmaid's Tale?

Yeah, that one. Get the picture?

 

[The Federation]

no one (or at least very few people i guess) wants to force people to donate blood, bone marrow, a kidney/lung, etc even if it could save others' lives so i really dont get how people think it's ok to force a woman to give up her uterus for 9 months

I've never heard it put that way. Great analogy and comparison to donation, I guess it just never came to mind.

 

[Maedar]

See this?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/13/south-dakota-abortion-bil_0_n_4781652.html

Most pathetic attempt yet. I'd love to see someone try to convince me that this is NOT a "trap bill" or that it has any chance of surviving.

 

[The Federation]

See this?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/13/south-dakota-abortion-bil_0_n_4781652.html

Most pathetic attempt yet. I'd love to see someone try to convince me that this is NOT a "trap bill" or that it has any chance of surviving.

This coming from the same policymakers who wanted to legalize murder (as long as you were killing abortion providers).

 

[Maedar]

In a related subject, Texas candidate Greg Abbott is doing a very poor job trying to convince the voters he supports women's rights, if his newest advertising gimmick is any indication:

http://www.straight.com/blogra/5880...votes-gun-loving-texas-republican-greg-abbott

That's right. Ted Nugent himself is going to perform for at least two campaign appearances.

And before anyone even tries to convince me that Ted isn't the misogynist we all know he is, take a look at this article:

http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/02/14/10-misogynist-attacks-from-ted-nugent-greg-abbo/198061

Those are only the ten biggest pieces of evidence that show he IS one.

 

[Steampunk]

Nah, that isn't a good portrayal of what pro-lifers are truly saying. For one, the amount of effort done to just take the child to social services versus going through pregnancy itself is not comparable in the slightest. Let's try this again:

Let's say there's a homeless man walking around. He's starving or whatever. On the verge of death and all. He knocks on your door and asks you to stay at your place for approximately 9 months.

Well, that requires money. Space. Time. You essentially have to re-plan your life around this man who just came out of nowhere. The only catch is that he dies if you refuse.

Would you force yourself or any other person to house someone for nine months less they die? I highly doubt you would. I highly doubt most people would.

I recall a local news story a while back,(I'll try to find a link later) someone had a squatter in their cottage, and it was considered a "Human Rights" violation to cut the power and utilities on the squatter. The homeowner had to pay for the utilities. Now, I'm not condoning this, but it shows that people in situations like this have rights to be considered.

i think a better analogy that ive heard before is that you get a diseased person knock on your door and they need to be hooked up to your body as life support for 9 months and if you refuse they will die. because it's more than just money/time/space, it's affecting your own bodily autonomy.

no one (or at least very few people i guess) wants to force people to donate blood, bone marrow, a kidney/lung, etc even if it could save others' lives so i really dont get how people think it's ok to force a woman to give up her uterus for 9 months

True, but there is a major difference between donating organs, and that is that if you cannot give it, odds are they can get it from another source. But in the case of a fetus, the sole person who can provide it, is the mother.

As I said before, no it's not pretty what the woman has to go through, but when another beings life is involved....

 

[GhostAnime]

odds are they can get it from another source.

Another small difference:

In the analogy, we're already dealing with a live human who has an identity and is capable of feeling pain.

The decision would be even easier with something that hasn't established that right even in the slightest yet. They can't even experience any real loss. Nobody's even connected to it.

You say odds are, they can get the so-called organs in another place, but plenty people die every day because of the lack of donations and sparse funds.. I think that's the point of the analogies we're throwing out to you.

No poor person, no handicapped person, or anybody on the verge of death has the right to anybody's body even if they lose their own life, and something with no identity is no different. That seems to be the biggest argument pro-lifers have. The right of life preceding everything else, and everyone is somehow given it.

But here we have daily examples where that is not clearly the case.

 

[ellie]

True, but there is a major difference between donating organs, and that is that if you cannot give it, odds are they can get it from another source. But in the case of a fetus, the sole person who can provide it, is the mother.

not really. blood most of the time yeah, but bone marrow requires very specific matches, as do organs. and tons of people die every year from being unable to get organ transplants, including ones like kindeys or lungs where somebody could survive with just 1. if, for example, jane doe here was dying of kidney failure and i was the only one who lived close enough to get to her in time, would you say i would be obligated to provide my kidney to her?

hell, we don't even force dead people to give up their organs if they arent a registered organ donor and their family doesn't want to, why is it okay to force a living person to have a major inconvenience for 9 months, have permanent changes to their body, and possibly even risk death?

 

[Maedar]

hell, we don't even force dead people to give up their organs if they arent a registered organ donor and their family doesn't want to, why is it okay to force a living person to have a major inconvenience for 9 months, have permanent changes to their body, and possibly even risk death?

Not to mention the financial burden and responsibilities, all for a child she NEVER wanted or asked for, which I repeat, would serve as a constant reminder of a brutal attack?

I used The Handmaid's Tale as an example earlier, but I take that back. In many ways, that's not as bad, because the protagonist of that horrid dystopian reality... At least she wasn't responsible for the money to care for the children she was forced to carry, unlike any who would have to if abortion were outlawed in this country.

 

[Steampunk]

No poor person, no handicapped person, or anybody on the verge of death has the right to anybody's body even if they lose their own life, and something with no identity is no different. That seems to be the biggest argument pro-lifers have. The right of life preceding everything else, and everyone is somehow given it.

But here we have daily examples where that is not clearly the case.

not really. blood most of the time yeah, but bone marrow requires very specific matches, as do organs. and tons of people die every year from being unable to get organ transplants, including ones like kindeys or lungs where somebody could survive with just 1. if, for example, jane doe here was dying of kidney failure and i was the only one who lived close enough to get to her in time, would you say i would be obligated to provide my kidney to her?

hell, we don't even force dead people to give up their organs if they arent a registered organ donor and their family doesn't want to, why is it okay to force a living person to have a major inconvenience for 9 months, have permanent changes to their body, and possibly even risk death?

Okay, I should have worded that differently. Let my say it this way: "There is a major difference between donating organs, and that is that if you cannot give it, it is possible that they can get it from another source." With a fetus, even if another woman wanted to take it, it wouldn't be possible.

To your Jane Doe example...That is an interesting dilemma. Because on the one hand, there are cases of "Involuntary Manslaughter", where they are charged because the failed to save someone when it was in their power to do so. [Source] But, when another persons body is involved, I suppose you have to take other things into account. Yes, you would most likely be perfectly fine after giving a kidney to Jane Doe, and she would most certainly die without it...

 

[Maedar]

Ansem, have you ever ONCE asked an actual woman's opinion on this? Whether she would be willing to accept a pregnancy that was forced upon her for the sake of the child?

Why don't you, because I'm sure if you did, her answer would surprise you.

And if an actual woman has said it publically, please supply the link.

I cannot recall a single case in the history of American law where someone was charged with involuntary manslaughter for refusing to donate an organ. (I have seen many people try to bring lawsuits against people for refusals like the one you cited, only for them to be disregarded as frivolous lawsuits.) No-one has any right to tell you how your body is to be used. Period.

 

[ellie]

Okay, I should have worded that differently. Let my say it this way: "There is a major difference between donating organs, and that is that if you cannot give it, it is possible that they can get it from another source." With a fetus, even if another woman wanted to take it, it wouldn't be possible.

To your Jane Doe example...That is an interesting dilemma. Because on the one hand, there are cases of "Involuntary Manslaughter", where they are charged because the failed to save someone when it was in their power to do so. [Source] But, when another persons body is involved, I suppose you have to take other things into account. Yes, you would most likely be perfectly fine after giving a kidney to Jane Doe, and she would most certainly die without it...

my point is that it often isn't possible to get it from someone else so it's a pretty fair comparison. with kidneys and other organs it is very hard to find someone who is a perfect match who is also in good enough health to donate one.

also are you kidding me? no i absolutely would not be perfectly fine after giving a kidney to someone else. it's a major surgery that carries a lot of risks with it and the life expectancy is lower than someone who had never donated, there is a reason we are almost all born with 2 kidneys; 1 isnt usually enough to filter out all the waste as effectively. do you know anything about organ donation at all?


and refusing to donate to someone is not the same as involuntary manslaughter at all.. i really don't get what you are trying to argue because it makes no sense.

 

[LDSman]

Ansem, have you ever ONCE asked an actual woman's opinion on this? Whether she would be willing to accept a pregnancy that was forced upon her for the sake of the child?

Why don't you, because I'm sure if you did, her answer would surprise you.

And if an actual woman has said it publically, please supply the link.

http://www.rebeccakiessling.com/PregnantByRape.html

List of women who choose to keep the child forced upon them.

Every woman has a different view on the subject.

 

[Falsetto]

My friend is a rape baby. His mother refused to abort. So she dealt with it. He was devastated when he found out. He's depressed, has family problems, and has, on several occasions, contemplated suicide. He wishes he was never born. I hate seeing him like this. So, is it really that good for the sake of the child? When they grow up to be like this? She only kept him because of her (religious) beliefs. Now look.

 

[LDSman]

My friend is a rape baby. His mother refused to abort. So she dealt with it. He was devastated when he found out. He's depressed, has family problems, and has, on several occasions, contemplated suicide. He wishes he was never born. I hate seeing him like this. So, is it really that good for the sake of the child? When they grow up to be like this? She only kept him because of her (religious) beliefs. Now look.

Every situation is different. Other people may handle it better than your friend is. If the parent blames the child, then there would be more issues than if the parent was loving and supportive of the child.

 

[Maedar]

LDS, I asked if HE had spoken to any.