Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 80

Thread: Abortion

  1. #21
    Well Spiked Stoney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Blighty
    Posts
    5,892
    Thanks
    5,812
    Thanked 7,270 Times in 2,990 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Destiny View Post
    The thing is, that calling it "killing a life" just seems like such a misplaced expression. Because youīre absolutely right that it is a life form, but at this point it is a life form like any other. It is not a human being in the sense we view them, you canīt really apply the personhood to the (at the point of abortion maximum 12w old) fetus. At least not in the sense of what a human being is. It is a life form, but so are seedlings, so are eggs and all the other life forms that donīt hold any rights. Calling abortion killing is not right, because you are not killing another person, you are terminating a life form just like people do on an everyday basis. On the same note we could just go ahead and authomatically call every person who owns a gun a killer, because they have the potential to use it. A human fetus has a potential to become a person, but itself it is not one, therefore can we really call it a "killing"?
    Abortions can, I believe, be performed up to 24wks and, at this point, a premature baby would stand a chance of survival so there really isn't a comfort zone. It is all about disassociation I feel. To call the baby a fetus and remove its distinction as a growing human being entirely is strange to me. At what point does the fetus become 'human' then? Is it just when it is no longer legal to terminate??

    By 20wks a fetus...
    - can hear and recognize the mother's voice.
    - is growing toenails and fingernails
    - is developing nerve cells serving each of the senses; taste, smell, hearing, sight, and touch into their specialized area of the brain
    - a girl fetus' uterus is fully formed this week and she also has primitive eggs in her ovaries

    Disassociation also applies to the semantics of words such as nullify for me. If the act of aborting required some physical act from the mother beyond taking some tablets perhaps people wouldn't be as able to distance themselves. It is a sniper action from afar.

    Quote Originally Posted by nixennacht
    Yes, and? There is a woman living in that body, she decides what happens with it and the foetus cannot survive a separation.To sustain that life or not is a decision, both ways.
    There is no both ways, it is a one sided decision. I don't have a problem with people making their own choices though I object to the callous sentiment some have of abortion as the solution to birth control, responsibility should occur before then. But, anyway, I don't object to people choosing to have abortions, I know I would in some circumstances, I object to it being sugar coated though so people don't acknowledge what they are choosing to do which, with whichever wording makes you feel happy, is to end a developing life.

  2. #22
    Team Sanity Nixennacht's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,685
    Thanks
    26
    Thanked 66 Times in 25 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KingofCretins View Post
    I know you don't agree with the position, but I really wish the people thinking that this is all just blythe disregard for personal sovereignty would at least attempt to process the issue the way those who feel this way do -- imagine every pregnant woman as having a life/death tether to another entirely separate human being walking around behind them. Like the All-State "Mayhem" character, if you like.
    But you do concede that everyone with say two healthy kidneys has the very same line to someone else who might need their healthy kidney? There we don't even need to discuss the status of personhood. Full fledged person.

    Would you say that people should be forced to donate organs they don't necessarily need to survive to those who do? Would you really honestly say that it should simply be taken from them instead of leaving them the choice whether to donate or not?

  3. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Nixennacht For This Useful Post:

    MikeB (13-12-14),TimeTravellingBunny (10-02-12),Zugma (20-08-15)

  4. #23
    fandom whore Jenni Lou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    AWESOMEville
    Posts
    5,811
    Thanks
    938
    Thanked 1,146 Times in 340 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stoney View Post
    I don't object to people choosing to have abortions, I know I would in some circumstances, I object to it being sugar coated though so people don't acknowledge what they are choosing to do which, with whichever wording makes you feel happy, is to end a developing life.
    A fair point. Which goes back to those women I was talking about that abuse their right to choose abortion. It is sickening that some will use it as a form of birth control. For example. When I was sitting in the waiting room I was crying and sad and ashamed. And there is this girl, younger than me (I was 17 at the time) who was having her third abortion. And her mother was with her. I was just disgusted. Here I am, doing this horrible thing that I wish I didn't have to do and it's just another day to this little brat. That young girl wised me up more than anything. It took me 6 months before I had sex again, I was so afraid of the consequences. Some people could do with a little fear, they could learn something. If anything, society could use a little more conscience. The world is full of self-entitled, narcissistic asses.

    The abuse of a woman's right to choose is the strongest argument against that right imo. It's not the baby/fetus/zygote. It's a case of some rotten apples spoiling the bunch.

    follow daydreaming on twitter / livejournal / tumblr / facebook for instant site updates!

  5. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Jenni Lou For This Useful Post:

    Bre (09-02-12),Ehlwyen (09-02-12),Stoney (09-02-12),Thomas (10-02-12)

  6. #24
    What? KingofCretins's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Big Honkin' Castle
    Posts
    13,302
    Thanks
    213
    Thanked 3,239 Times in 1,540 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nixennacht View Post
    But you do concede that everyone with say two healthy kidneys has the very same line to someone else who might need their healthy kidney? There we don't even need to discuss the status of personhood. Full fledged person.

    Would you say that people should be forced to donate organs they don't necessarily need to survive to those who do? Would you really honestly say that it should simply be taken from them instead of leaving them the choice whether to donate or not?
    Well, that's just it -- if kidneys had a well-established history of popping out from between ribs on an enneamonthly basis and requiring clothing, feeding, and ipods, our perception of the proper deference owed to them while they were still in the original "host" body would probably be quite a bit different. Looking through your lens of the "it's just tissue" like view of the early stages of natal development, yes, I totally get why it wouldn't be a big deal.

    I just don't think it's a definition that holds up to much scrutiny. I think close analysis definitely favors the "person on a string" model over the "organ" model.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jenni Lou View Post
    A fair point. Which goes back to those women I was talking about that abuse their right to choose abortion. It is sickening that some will use it as a form of birth control. For example. When I was sitting in the waiting room I was crying and sad and ashamed. And there is this girl, younger than me (I was 17 at the time) who was having her third abortion. And her mother was with her. I was just disgusted. Here I am, doing this horrible thing that I wish I didn't have to do and it's just another day to this little brat. That young girl wised me up more than anything. It took me 6 months before I had sex again, I was so afraid of the consequences. Some people could do with a little fear, they could learn something. If anything, society could use a little more conscience. The world is full of self-entitled, narcissistic asses.

    The abuse of a woman's right to choose is the strongest argument against that right imo. It's not the baby/fetus/zygote. It's a case of some rotten apples spoiling the bunch.
    But, one really can't divorce the abuse from the "proper" forms when the subject is whether or not it's a discretionary choice. You're either buying in for all or for none of it. That's why I've never been puzzled by what I'm getting the impression is the uniquely American cultural tendency to go "thumbs up" to having the choice but "thumbs down" to making that choice.

    Banner by LRae12

  7. #25
    Team Sanity Nixennacht's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,685
    Thanks
    26
    Thanked 66 Times in 25 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KingofCretins View Post
    Well, that's just it -- if kidneys had a well-established history of popping out from between ribs on an enneamonthly basis and requiring clothing, feeding, and ipods, our perception of the proper deference owed to them while they were still in the original "host" body would probably be quite a bit different. Looking through your lens of the "it's just tissue" like view of the early stages of natal development, yes, I totally get why it wouldn't be a big deal.

    I just don't think it's a definition that holds up to much scrutiny. I think close analysis definitely favors the "person on a string" model over the "organ" model.
    I think you are misunderstanding my analogy here. This analogy has nothing to do with "it's just cells". This is fully within your view of personhood. A healthy kidney can save another human's life. The analog of the Baby is the other human being, not that kidney. In every organ exchange there is a "person on a string" to the donor (just as you described from potential kid to mother). So my question remains. Do you think people should be forced to donate organs so others can live? Should that other life be saved at the cost of someone else's sovereignty over their body?
    Last edited by Nixennacht; 09-02-12 at 08:57 PM.

  8. #26
    fandom whore Jenni Lou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    AWESOMEville
    Posts
    5,811
    Thanks
    938
    Thanked 1,146 Times in 340 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KingofCretins View Post
    But, one really can't divorce the abuse from the "proper" forms when the subject is whether or not it's a discretionary choice. You're either buying in for all or for none of it. That's why I've never been puzzled by what I'm getting the impression is the uniquely American cultural tendency to go "thumbs up" to having the choice but "thumbs down" to making that choice.
    The "thumbs down" stems from the recognition that the choice is not an easy or desirable one. Simple as that. I can't imagine being happy about making the choice. Doesn't mean it isn't a viable one.

    follow daydreaming on twitter / livejournal / tumblr / facebook for instant site updates!

  9. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Jenni Lou For This Useful Post:

    Destiny (09-02-12),Ehlwyen (09-02-12),Nixennacht (09-02-12),sueworld (09-02-12),Veverka (09-02-12)

  10. #27
    Library Researcher Destiny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Czech Republic
    Posts
    203
    Thanks
    287
    Thanked 527 Times in 116 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stoney View Post
    By 20wks a fetus...
    - can hear and recognize the mother's voice.
    - is growing toenails and fingernails
    - is developing nerve cells serving each of the senses; taste, smell, hearing, sight, and touch into their specialized area of the brain
    - a girl fetus' uterus is fully formed this week and she also has primitive eggs in her ovaries.
    Well yes, abortions can be performed up to 24th week (not including), and the fetus can do all the things you named above, but these are medically necessary abortions. A woman will not get this abortion unless either her life is threatened by the pregnancy, or the baby has no chance of normal survival. I donīt really consider these the issue here, because this should be something that goes without a question - if the fetus needs to be aborted at this point, it is not really the womanīs choice, or a happy choice at least. Even if the mother is told she is carrying a genetically ill baby, this information is available before for example 20th week. At this point, a woman can not get an abortion because she wants one. At this point abortions are administered because they need to be.
    The voluntary abortions are the matter of this discussion, because this is where people "can" and tend to call the woman a "killer of innocent life". Which is another thing which is such an unfair abuse of information, because people almost usually tend to argument with all the cute things the fetus does - it has nails, it hears, it reacts to a motherīs voice, itīs a part of the life. Yes, it is, but at the point where woman chooses to have abortion, it does not have nor do any of these things. Fetus that far during the pregnancy is not aborted just because someone chose to. Very often it is not even about the fact, that the mother chooses not to sacrifice her whole life to a disabled and cathatonic child she wants to keep, it is simply about the fact that the damage to the fetus is so extensive that the pregnancy needs to be terminated.
    In the end, we all are who we are, no matter how much we may appear to have changed.


  11. #28
    What? KingofCretins's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Big Honkin' Castle
    Posts
    13,302
    Thanks
    213
    Thanked 3,239 Times in 1,540 Posts

    Default

    Ah, I understand. Well, first, let's get to apples-to-apples. First, permanent donation doesn't apply; we need to adopt the idea of a fictional organ lending science whereby someone can borrow a kidney for about nine months and then have it back. Secondly, we can't grab people at random, we are talking about parent and child here. So having dressed the terms a bit more precisely, I think my answer is....

    Yeah, pretty much. I don't think a legal duty for a parent to play "brother can you lend a kidney" in this fictional lending program sounds unreasonable. Furthermore, I can't think of a single parent I know who would balk at it. Hell, I would have and the kid wasn't mine.

    See the thing about life is... it's life. It's not fungible, it can't be substituted in value for time or money or prestige. One of my favorite episodes of "House" features a sick and dying Foreman arguing with the Dean of medicine over regulations against an autopsy that would diagnose him. "And the penalty for violating (those regulations)... is it death? Because frankly I don't care if you have to pay a fine, or lose your license, or even if you have to spend a couple of years in jail if it saves my life!" That's a sentiment I can readily relate to the abortion question.

    A point about the role of the parent I should clarify here -- I unequivocally believe that a parent has moral duties to their children that supercede their duties to themselves in almost every context. Furthermore, I sincerely believe that where sex was consentual, pregnancy was as well, regardless of preventative measures -- assumption of the risk.

    My only hesitation with your hypothetical is that there is an individual rights issue where the donation is mandatory, but what crosses my mind is that if it's the only kidney in the worls that can help, why would I even need to be forced for my child's sake?

    Now, I'd have to ask -- if abortion could be wholly replaced with an embryonic transplNt process, and the end result for the mother is the same -- she's not pregnant and has no obligation -- would that be okay to require? Assume for this purpose an unlimited supply of willing recipients. I'm probing to see what the real goal here is -- that neither prgnancy nor parenthood are problems she has to face, of if the child not comingbinto being at all is a goal unto itself.

    Banner by LRae12

  12. #29
    Well Spiked Stoney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Blighty
    Posts
    5,892
    Thanks
    5,812
    Thanked 7,270 Times in 2,990 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Destiny View Post
    Well yes, abortions can be performed up to 24th week (not including), and the fetus can do all the things you named above, but these are medically necessary abortions. A woman will not get this abortion unless either her life is threatened by the pregnancy, or the baby has no chance of normal survival. I donīt really consider these the issue here, because this should be something that goes without a question - if the fetus needs to be aborted at this point, it is not really the womanīs choice, or a happy choice at least. Even if the mother is told she is carrying a genetically ill baby, this information is available before for example 20th week. At this point, a woman can not get an abortion because she wants one. At this point abortions are administered because they need to be.
    The voluntary abortions are the matter of this discussion, because this is where people "can" and tend to call the woman a "killer of innocent life". Which is another thing which is such an unfair abuse of information, because people almost usually tend to argument with all the cute things the fetus does - it has nails, it hears, it reacts to a motherīs voice, itīs a part of the life. Yes, it is, but at the point where woman chooses to have abortion, it does not have nor do any of these things. Fetus that far during the pregnancy is not aborted just because someone chose to. Very often it is not even about the fact, that the mother chooses not to sacrifice her whole life to a disabled and cathatonic child she wants to keep, it is simply about the fact that the damage to the fetus is so extensive that the pregnancy needs to be terminated.
    Well not strictly so because my niece opted to have an abortion at 20 weeks. Perhaps they let her because she was underage, I don't know, but she was past 20 weeks when it happened and there was nothing wrong with the baby.

    I don't see the things I listed as 'cute' stuff, it is just they are things that people can recognise as human development and the argument appeared to be that a foetus that would be aborted would not have classified as 'human' yet. I was merely using them to illustrate components of a developing person that would have occurred within the timeframe you can legally have an abortion within.

    So, as I put before, at what point does the foetus become 'human' then? The human stuff, cute or not, isn't just there in the later stages. At 12 weeks the foetus is fully formed. All its organs, muscles, limbs and bones are in place, and the sex organs are well developed. It is now just growing and maturing it is already moving about but its movements can't be felt yet. Some of the other developments I have seen for this stage include: the foetus can suck its thumb and hiccup. The vocal chords are complete, the baby can cry sometimes and the brain is fully formed and the foetus can feel pain. Reflexes are developing: touching the palms makes the fingers close, touching the soles of the feet makes the toes curl down and touching the eyelids makes the eye muscles clench. I'm sure some of these are reached by then and some sometimes come a bit later but you see where I am going, when is the foetus human?

  13. #30
    What? KingofCretins's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Big Honkin' Castle
    Posts
    13,302
    Thanks
    213
    Thanked 3,239 Times in 1,540 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jenni Lou View Post
    The "thumbs down" stems from the recognition that the choice is not an easy or desirable one. Simple as that. I can't imagine being happy about making the choice. Doesn't mean it isn't a viable one.
    It may not be an easy choice, but it exists to be easier than other ones available. The entire premise of the fight for the abortion right was to create more choice, more control, more ease of lifestyle, to end slavery to one's own uterus. It necessarily follows that the point of having the choice at all is because it's the one to make because you don't like the others -- the easier one. The "thumbs down" comes, from the perception, that far too many of these things are taking place for no medical necessity and that people are using the choice they have to eschew both a great responsibility and a great gift.

    Banner by LRae12

  14. #31
    Detective Veverka's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Twelfth Precinct
    Posts
    788
    Thanks
    70
    Thanked 98 Times in 39 Posts

    Default

    I think a problem with arguing against OR for abortion is the idea that one side says the abortion means killing a living creature and the other says... what? That having an abortion is meaningless?

    I don't think that's the case. Yes, there's life there. Yes, an abortion ends that life. So what?

    I am pro abortion (you'll notice I do not use the term "pro choice"- let's not hide behind "nice phrases".) I am pro abortion and do not think a fetus is "not alive". I think it is worth ending the life of an unborn child on the decision of the potential mother. I think it is worth it if it means an unborn fetus is dead instead of being born addicted to drugs, handicapped, born into a life of abuse, or simply unwanted. I think its okay to end the pregnancy.

    Now, once the child is here, you cannot wish it away, and you hope for its best chance in life, but an unwanted child? I believe all children have the right to be wanted.

    The argument that people who choose abortion are choosing to ignore the fact they are carrying a life? I think that's a gross generalization. I think the strength it takes to choose the best outcome for oneself, knowing that much of society would judge, is amazing.

    I look at the men (and yep, 90% men) who protest outside a clinic near my place, all these middle aged folk, and I wonder- how do they think it is a better way to spend their time than actually going to volunteer somewhere that could help people, here or overseas? Perhaps they could better spend their time teaching people how to prevent unwanted pregnancy!

    The world has more than enough people. Population myth or not, really the best thing for the planet would be NO people!

    Anyway, I don't expect people to agree with me, but I am at a point where I am planning my family, and just because I am choosing to think about allowing a parasite feed off my body for a long time (9 months on the inside, then breastfeeding...!)... going through that if I didn't really really want a child out of it? What's the point?!

  15. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Veverka For This Useful Post:

    Bre (09-02-12),elusivebreath (23-07-12),Jessica M.C. (23-07-12),Nixennacht (09-02-12)

  16. #32
    Team Sanity Nixennacht's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,685
    Thanks
    26
    Thanked 66 Times in 25 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KingofCretins View Post
    Ah, I understand. Well, first, let's get to apples-to-apples. First, permanent donation doesn't apply; we need to adopt the idea of a fictional organ lending science whereby someone can borrow a kidney for about nine months and then have it back.
    Please don't water it down. A pregnancy is not just borrowing a body for nine months either. The body is left, just like after a transplantation, with severe damage that heals more or less well, with a not negligible risk of permanent damage (say diabetes). I think the original analogy with the kidney does a good job, it's not an easy procedure and you can be left with a more or less severe aftermath.

    Secondly, we can't grab people at random, we are talking about parent and child here.
    Why can't e grab people at random? Why do you think (as someone who would instate a law) that society is not as a whole responsible for the kid? Say it has no parents, does it have to die then?

    Also many people getting pregnant involuntarily are not choosing to do so. It happens just as any person could be picked by our giant fictive kidney lottery.

    So having dressed the terms a bit more precisely, I think my answer is....
    I think they were more precise before.

    Yeah, pretty much.
    Now that is something I can respect, as long as you would be asking it from all people.

    Because my main problem with the debate is that men are often horribly quick to sign away women's rights over their bodies, but would never allow their own bodies to be so severely affected by state law. It's far easier for me to respect your position if you apply it to men too.

    A point about the role of the parent I should clarify here -- I unequivocally believe that a parent has moral duties to their children that supercede their duties to themselves in almost every context. Furthermore, I sincerely believe that where sex was consentual, pregnancy was as well, regardless of preventative measures -- assumption of the risk.
    And if the sex was not consensual?

    My only hesitation with your hypothetical is that there is an individual rights issue where the donation is mandatory, but what crosses my mind is that if it's the only kidney in the worls that can help, why would I even need to be forced for my child's sake?
    But is that really the question? Many people who are pro choice (including me) would not have an abortion themselves, because their state of life does not require it. Question is not would you donate the kidney, but would you think it good to force people to organ donation.

    I also wonder how you think about organ donation after death. Shouldn't there be a large pro life movement asking for it to me mandatory for everyone to become a donor at least after death?

    Now, I'd have to ask -- if abortion could be wholly replaced with an embryonic transplNt process, and the end result for the mother is the same -- she's not pregnant and has no obligation -- would that be okay to require? Assume for this purpose an unlimited supply of willing recipients. I'm probing to see what the real goal here is -- that neither prgnancy nor parenthood are problems she has to face, of if the child not comingbinto being at all is a goal unto itself.
    I think if you could go totally uterine replicator and a woman's body would not be needed to sustain a zygote into a baby and there is the unlimited supply of willing recipients you talked about, then abortion would become indeed fairly obsolete.

  17. #33
    fandom whore Jenni Lou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    AWESOMEville
    Posts
    5,811
    Thanks
    938
    Thanked 1,146 Times in 340 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KingofCretins View Post
    It may not be an easy choice, but it exists to be easier than other ones available. The entire premise of the fight for the abortion right was to create more choice, more control, more ease of lifestyle, to end slavery to one's own uterus. It necessarily follows that the point of having the choice at all is because it's the one to make because you don't like the others -- the easier one. The "thumbs down" comes, from the perception, that far too many of these things are taking place for no medical necessity and that people are using the choice they have to eschew both a great responsibility and a great gift.
    Fine. Easier choice. Have it your way. But I won't feel guilty for having an abortion when it was my first time having sex. When a condom was being used. When the guy broke up with me just days after it happened. I won't feel guilty for not carrying it term to keep or to give away. I won't.

    Before it happened I used to say that I was pro-choice but would never choose the abortion option for myself. Well, you just don't know until you are put into the position. I was 16. (17 when I had the procedure, to clarify.) I was responsible. I was already in college and working a full time job. As long as the option exists, there will always be people to abuse it. But you can say that about anything. Abortion as a legal alternative is the easier choice? Sure. Maybe in the grand scope of things. But don't think for a moment that it's easy for anyone with a heart. It's not. It took me nearly a decade to get to a point where it didn't cross my mind at least once a day. It haunted me. Haunted me that I had to confront that choice at all. But it was the choice I felt was right. Easy? I think not.

    follow daydreaming on twitter / livejournal / tumblr / facebook for instant site updates!

  18. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Jenni Lou For This Useful Post:

    Ehlwyen (10-02-12),Mara (10-02-12),Thomas (10-02-12),vampmogs (10-02-12),Zugma (20-08-15)

  19. #34
    What? KingofCretins's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Big Honkin' Castle
    Posts
    13,302
    Thanks
    213
    Thanked 3,239 Times in 1,540 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nixennacht View Post
    Please don't water it down. A pregnancy is not just borrowing a body for nine months either. The body is left, just like after a transplantation, with severe damage that heals more or less well, with a not negligible risk of permanent damage (say diabetes). I think the original analogy with the kidney does a good job, it's not an easy procedure and you can be left with a more or less severe aftermath.
    No it is, physically it is. You can argue that there are life-long emotional effects, etc, etc, but they do not a metaphor for losing an actual organ make, I'm sorry. An accurate metaphor requires the same temporal component as actual pregnancy.

    Why can't e grab people at random? Why do you think (as someone who would instate a law) that society is not as a whole responsible for the kid? Say it has no parents, does it have to die then?
    Because those who are expecting a child as a result of consentual sex are consentually expecting. They assumed specifically the risk of impregnation. Nobody ever got pregnant walking down the street and tripping over a shipping crate on accident.

    Also many people getting pregnant involuntarily are not choosing to do so. It happens just as any person could be picked by our giant fictive kidney lottery.
    I don't know how many people get pregnant involuntarily -- because the only circumstances in which that term genuinely applies would be in the case of rape or in the case of bizarre kidnapping/impregnation plot. Everybody else that thinks they got pregnant "involuntarily", just didn't read the label -- either on the condom, the pill bottle, or on life.

    I think they were more precise before.
    They were horrible before -- pregnancy is not a random incident that affects random people who bear no responsibility for the situation in the first place, and it's not a permanent state of being.

    Now that is something I can respect, as long as you would be asking it from all people.
    I would make a live kidney donation to a total stranger as cost of doing business if it would be enough to give a hypothetical mother to my hypothetical child the necessary encouragement not to end our child, just so she'd consider us "even".

    And if the sex was not consensual?
    Then the pregnancy is not consensual... but, that said, just like other areas in which the law protects the interests of interested 3rd parties, I would consider the life of the child to be a superceding interest -- but that's a moral question, not a legal one; I concede that she would still have the choice, I just wouldn't agree with it. I would however very much support a law that would require that any fines or civil settlements associated with a court finding of rape that produced a child would result in treble damages if the child is brought to term, with one third placed in a trust in the child's name and the balance payable tax free to the mother.

    But is that really the question? Many people who are pro choice (including me) would not have an abortion themselves, because their state of life does not require it. Question is not would you donate the kidney, but would you think it good to force people to organ donation.
    Those are two questions. The third is "what would I think of someone who didn't give the organ whether they had to or not". Sorta like Buffy telling Walsh that how she treats Willow has nothing to do with her job.

    EDIT:

    Quote Originally Posted by Jenni Lou View Post
    Fine. Easier choice. Have it your way. But I won't feel guilty for having an abortion when it was my first time having sex. When a condom was being used. When the guy broke up with me just days after it happened. I won't feel guilty for not carrying it term to keep or to give away. I won't.

    Before it happened I used to say that I was pro-choice but would never choose the abortion option for myself. Well, you just don't know until you are put into the position. I was 16. (17 when I had the procedure, to clarify.) I was responsible. I was already in college and working a full time job. As long as the option exists, there will always be people to abuse it. But you can say that about anything. Abortion as a legal alternative is the easier choice? Sure. Maybe in the grand scope of things. But don't think for a moment that it's easy for anyone with a heart. It's not. It took me nearly a decade to get to a point where it didn't cross my mind at least once a day. It haunted me. Haunted me that I had to confront that choice at all. But it was the choice I felt was right. Easy? I think not.
    I don't disagree with a thing you've said. You've conceded the point I consider meaningful -- it is the easier way, that doesn't make it easy. Sometimes the choices are being stabbed, shot, burned, flayed, or mauled; none are easy, some are easier. I know perfectly well that it's not easy; I've been through those doors and sat in those lobbies, granted, before I ever really contemplated how I felt about the subject.

    Not going to tell you anything you don't know, but I hope it still matters to hear me say it -- you don't owe me an explanation for anything you think, feel, or have done. I am not your maker, your father, your brother, your cousin, your husband, or your son -- and if I were, most of those aren't anyone you owe any explanation to either. I "GET IT" with abortion, whether or not anybody believes that.
    Last edited by KingofCretins; 09-02-12 at 10:46 PM.

    Banner by LRae12

  20. #35
    Team Sanity Nixennacht's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,685
    Thanks
    26
    Thanked 66 Times in 25 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KingofCretins View Post
    No it is, physically it is. You can argue that there are life-long emotional effects, etc, etc, but they do not a metaphor for losing an actual organ make, I'm sorry. An accurate metaphor requires the same temporal component as actual pregnancy.
    You are downplaying the permanent effects of pregnancy. Unless you accept the reality that there are lasting physical consequences too, I can't take your argument seriously.


    Because those who are expecting a child as a result of consentual sex are consentually expecting. They assumed specifically the risk of impregnation. Nobody ever got pregnant walking down the street and tripping over a shipping crate on accident.
    Aha, so about we instate that everybody who has sex has his lot thrown into the kidney lottery?

    I don't know how many people get pregnant involuntarily -- because the only circumstances in which that term genuinely applies would be in the case of rape or in the case of bizarre kidnapping/impregnation plot. Everybody else that thinks they got pregnant "involuntarily", just didn't read the label -- either on the condom, the pill bottle, or on life.
    Since rape is not exactly a rare occurrence and sex ed is lacking in many parts of the world, I think we can safely assume we are talking about involuntary pregnancies most of the time. I doubt there are many cases, of "yay, I want a Baby......ups maybe not".

    They were horrible before -- pregnancy is not a random incident that affects random people who bear no responsibility for the situation in the first place, and it's not a permanent state of being.
    It's also not something people plan every time it occurs and it has permanent effects on the body. Sorry, downplaying pregnancy really does not strengthen your argument.

    I would make a live kidney donation to a total stranger as cost of doing business if it would be enough to give a hypothetical mother to my hypothetical child the necessary encouragement not to end our child, just so she'd consider us "even".
    But see, that would be a personal choice (which is all the pro-abortion people are asking for). Question is how would you vote on a law forcing everybody to do so?

    I think all those questions of "What would I personally do...", "What would I think of this particular person with her particular circumstances getting an abortion..." they are a different construction site for me. What I know is that it is important that everybody can make this decision herself.

    It's not actually a choice any law can really take away. Only make it more difficult, leading to more back alley procedures and suicides. A law can merely provide a somewhat save and informed environment for that choice.
    Last edited by Nixennacht; 09-02-12 at 11:10 PM.

  21. #36
    What? KingofCretins's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Big Honkin' Castle
    Posts
    13,302
    Thanks
    213
    Thanked 3,239 Times in 1,540 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nixennacht View Post
    You are downplaying the permanent effects of pregnancy. Unless you accept the reality that there are lasting physical consequences too, I can't take your argument seriously.
    I'd call them roughly equivalent to the surgical scars left by removing the kidney. If you want permanent physical consequences, abortion itself is just as like, if not more, to produce permanent consequences (vis a vis harm) than actually delivering a child, up to and including infertility.

    Aha, so about we instate that everybody who has sex has his lot thrown into the kidney lottery?
    Then the random guy on the street that willingly bought his ticket is in play for my "yeah, pretty much", sure.

    Since rape is not exactly a rare occurrence and sex ed is lacking in many parts of the world, I think we can safely assume we are talking about involuntary pregnancies most of the time. I doubt there are many cases, of "yay, I want a Baby......ups maybe not".
    It's not exactly rare, but it's not exactly common, either. Adding the births and the abortions and taking a total stab at other factors, there are probably north of 170 million conceptions every year. About 30-40 million abortions; do you think we're even into double digit percentage of those that are as a result of rape? I would be surprised. The parts of the world where I'd say the odds of sexual assault are highest are also places where I'd guess legal abortion is rarest, so statistically speaking, they sort of wash. And in the US, I think the vast, vast majority of non-medical abortions are discretionary lifestyle choices made after consensual sex.

    But see, that would be a personal choice (which is all the pro-abortion people are asking for). Question is would you vote on a law forcing everybody to do so?
    I'm in favor of a culture in which no such law would ever need be contemplated; it would be instinctive. I've never been against the legal choice (well, yes and no; it's ground I'm willing to concede, is the point) other than in a federalist context (i.e. I disagree with Roe because the rightful authority to determine the legal status of abortion belongs at the state level). But I don't approve of the choice. The best I can ever manage is sympathy for the choice, but I could never genuinely "approve" in all but the most dire of medical circumstances. Almost anyone I know whose had or contemplated having an abortion, I understand their feelings, and contrary to what feels like this boogeyman mindset built up around pro-life people, I don't beat them over the head with it, anymore than I would someone that cheated on their spouse or something else that is legal but that I find distasteful or wrong.

    It's not actually a choice any law can really take away. Only make it more difficult, leading to more alley procedures and suicides. A law can merely provide a somewhat save and informed environment for that choice.
    I agree in part, but I disagree with the premise that there is some immutable rate at which abortions will always occur, legally or illegally. And the suicide thing... people that get them do that, too. It doesn't really factor into a discussion over abortion in general to me.
    Last edited by KingofCretins; 09-02-12 at 11:29 PM.

    Banner by LRae12

  22. #37
    fandom whore Jenni Lou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    AWESOMEville
    Posts
    5,811
    Thanks
    938
    Thanked 1,146 Times in 340 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KingofCretins View Post
    I'd call them roughly equivalent to the surgical scars left by removing the kidney. If you want permanent physical consequences, abortion itself is just as like, if not more, to produce permanent consequences (vis a vis harm) than actually delivering a child, up to and including infertility.
    Yeah. I'm gonna go ahead and say this all depends on the individual. You can't make lump generalizations. So many factors are in play. Age, race, family history, pre-existing conditions, etc. But for me, nothing was different after my abortion. But after I had my daughter? Lots of things changed. 1. My periods last longer. 2. I experience PMS which I never had before. 3. For some reason, I am so clumsy now. I somehow lost some of my coordination. 4. Increase in migraine activity. That's all from the top of my head at the moment. I think you're trying to make abortion sound worse than childbirth because you simply don't like the idea of abortion. Because, no offense, but you are not a woman and you are not a doctor. You cannot make claims like this without any real evidence save for your conjecture. You cannot generalize the outcomes of abortion vs. childbirth. Too many variables to take in account.

    follow daydreaming on twitter / livejournal / tumblr / facebook for instant site updates!

  23. The Following 13 Users Say Thank You to Jenni Lou For This Useful Post:

    Bre (10-02-12),Ehlwyen (10-02-12),Jessica M.C. (23-07-12),Lyri (11-02-12),Mara (10-02-12),MikeB (13-12-14),Nixennacht (10-02-12),Sky (12-02-12),sueworld (10-02-12),Thomas (10-02-12),vampmogs (10-02-12),Veverka (10-02-12),Zugma (20-08-15)

  24. #38
    Slayer cheryl4ba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,232
    Thanks
    60
    Thanked 21 Times in 19 Posts

    Default

    I am not, under normal circumstances, pro abortion. I am pro life, admitting that there will always be an exception to every "rule". The only thing that I truly wanted to add to this debate is my feelings on the only real issue that matters when having a conversation like this. The truth as I see it.

    It is written that children are a gift from God and I am not condoning abortion in anyway when I say this next part, I hope that is clear. I am 100% against it.

    A woman who makes a mistake and has an abortion, for what ever reason and I do consider it a mistake, does not forfeit her gift from God. God does not work that way... as if you make one or even 1000 mistakes and your out. God holds onto your gift for you, in this case as a resident of Heaven, until the day that you are present to receive it back.

    Whosoever Shall Call Upon the Name of the Lord Shall Be Saved!

  25. #39
    Team Sanity Nixennacht's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,685
    Thanks
    26
    Thanked 66 Times in 25 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KingofCretins View Post
    I'd call them roughly equivalent to the surgical scars left by removing the kidney. If you want permanent physical consequences, abortion itself is just as like, if not more, to produce permanent consequences (vis a vis harm) than actually delivering a child, up to and including infertility.
    This is simply not true.There are huge medical differences. Yes, every medial procedure can go wrong but an early abortion under professional conditions is far less likely to cause permanent problems.

    I have two friends who are pregnant at the moment, one of them has just gotten pregnancy diabetes (which has a 50% probability of sticking with you after the pregnancy is done. The thing with the migraines, it has increased for her too after her first child.

    Look back to vampmogs list if you want. There is a whole bunch of known and lasting side effects.




    I'm in favor of a culture in which no such law would ever need be contemplated; it would be instinctive. I've never been against the legal choice (well, yes and no; it's ground I'm willing to concede, is the point) other than in a federalist context (i.e. I disagree with Roe because the rightful authority to determine the legal status of abortion belongs at the state level). But I don't approve of the choice. The best I can ever manage is sympathy for the choice, but I could never genuinely "approve" in all but the most dire of medical circumstances. Almost anyone I know whose had or contemplated having an abortion, I understand their feelings, and contrary to what feels like this boogeyman mindset built up around pro-life people, I don't beat them over the head with it, anymore than I would someone that cheated on their spouse or something else that is legal but that I find distasteful or wrong.
    In that case, that is fine with me. My aim is not really to change anyone's opinion about abortion, but about the question if it should rest in the hands of the lawmaker or the woman in question.

    I agree in part, but I disagree with the premise that there is some immutable rate at which abortions will always occur, legally or illegally. And the suicide thing... people that get them do that, too. It doesn't really factor into a discussion over abortion in general to me.
    It's likely not immutable and of course it is very hard to obtain data about illegal abortions but it is known through what dangerous and desperate things women will go if they don't want to have a child. And we know it is not a negligible number.

  26. #40
    bewitching the mind Mara's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Amsterdam
    Posts
    490
    Thanks
    932
    Thanked 943 Times in 287 Posts

    Default

    Destiny first of all just want to say how interesting t is to me to hear someone who is studying medicine talk about this. I am studying law, and specializing in so called medical law, where the question of when life begins is a big one right now. So to hear someone with a medical education talk about an issue like abortion is so interesting to me.

    Destny
    So this is the current law. Of course that "status of embryo", how current ethics calls this problem, is much more complex than that, even though these are just hypothetical questions, seeing as legally the subject matter is already solved.
    I would disagree, the subject legally in my opinion is far from solved, in fact one of the current discussions within international law has to do with the question of when life starts. Granted the debate revolves more around medical research using human embryos, rather then focussing on abortion. I would not say that the issue is solved. Legally speaking, and I am talking Dutch law now, personhood, and thereby legal rights are granted to the foetus at the moment of birth. Legal scholars ecnolige the fact that medically the moment right before birth and right after birth the baby/foetus is the same, but it is considered a legal reality. The mother under Dutch law has only the responsibility to care for herself, her own body. She has a minimal responsibility towards the foetus. The mother is not seen as a vessel to where the foetus is developing, nor does the mother legally speaking have the responsibility to carry on the pregnancy. Dutch law is rather strict n this, the mother has a right to do what ever she wants with her own body, and at no point does the foetus have a rights while in the mothers body. Personhood however comes, gradually according to the law, the cells go trough a transition at 12 weeks I believe and then again at 24 weeks where legally they go from being cells to being a pre- potential life, to being a potential life, to ultimately at birth becoming a person. As the state of personhood changes and matures so do rights that are granted to the foetus. So a pre-potential life will have more rights than a cluster of cells but less rights then the born person. Within international and European law, the subject of debate right now is weather the lines that are drawn by the law should be drawn differently for example to allow medics to do research on embryos unhindered by the law. On the plane of the European Union there have recently been some court cases that move this debate along. Another related debate right now is how to read Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights which grants a right to life stating:

    Article 2 – Right to life
    1. Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.
    2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:
    a. in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
    b. in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;
    c. in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.
    There is a debate within international law, on how to properly understand this article, considering that there is a debate on when a right to live begins. I personally think that in the coming time the question of the beginning of life will be one of the most important within international law, and I think that under the influence of legislation from the European Union the member states of the EU will be forced to look at their national laws concerning abortion and the right to life. So would not say that legally speaking the problem s solved quite the contrary.


    Cheryl4ba
    I am not, under normal circumstances, pro abortion. I am pro life, admitting that there will always be an exception to every "rule". The only thing that I truly wanted to add to this debate is my feelings on the only real issue that matters when having a conversation like this. The truth as I see it.

    It is written that children are a gift from God and I am not condoning abortion in anyway when I say this next part, I hope that is clear. I am 100% against it.

    A woman who makes a mistake and has an abortion, for what ever reason and I do consider it a mistake, does not forfeit her gift from God. God does not work that way... as if you make one or even 1000 mistakes and your out. God holds onto your gift for you, in this case as a resident of Heaven, until the day that you are present to receive it back.
    I was wondering weather you would join this debate, I value your viewpoints even if I don’t agree with them. I have a bit of a problem with your choice of words here the one real issue here is not the truth, as this is a very personal concept and it is defiantly not the truth as you see it, as that is not the truth it is an opinion. I am thinking however that I might have misread these lines, so please I am not trying in any way to offend you.

    I do agree with you fully, that debating this issue and not touch upon God/ the religious aspect means not debating this issue fully from all aspects. I Think that the religious aspect is highly important, and yes this is partly because I believe in God but also because, religious opinions and groups influence this debate in a real way. Coming from a very strict Jewish background I can say that in Judaism, bearing healthy children is one of the first obligations that humans have however abortion is permitted, and on the subject of ensoulment there is great debate. I am linking an article with some explanation
    http://www.religioustolerance.org/jud_abor.htm

    Now there are spiritual believes that place ensoulment at the point of conception, there are others that place ensoulment at the point of birth, if am not mistaking Islam believes that at some point during the pregnancy the mother to be is visited by an angel that gives the child a soul after which point abortion becomes prohibited. I personally think that the reason God granted us free will is for us to make up our own mind, so coming from that standpoint I think the mother to be should make up her own mind about weather or not to keep the unborn. I do believe that if a soul needs to be on earth God will place it on earth, if not within one family than within another.

    So for those who are still reading this, my opinion. I am a 100% pro- choice, and I am not sugar coating it, to me pro - chose means exactly that to have a choice and to leave that choise with the mother to either have the child or to have an abortion. I strongly believe that abortion should be legal. It is human nature to find solutions to their problems either way a woman who doesn’t want to have the child will find a way to not have the child and I believe it is part of the responsibility of any government to provide the necessary medical help, so that the woman can precede with an abortion without risking her health. When my mother was growing up in Russia there were no abortion clinics provided by the government, there were also no methods of preventing pregnancy available. Women had to go, go to some half backed doctor types who didn’t know what they were doing and half the time caused infertility as a ‘side effect’ of the abortion. I remember my mum going in to a Dutch supply store for the first time and seeing a row of condoms on display next to the registry, she was literally jumping up and down. Knowing that I could have ways to protect myself from unwanted pregnancy meant the world to her. So I have been raised with the believe that legalising abortion is necessary. (Next to that my mum is just a feminist so I have been raised with women power! Yey! Slogans all my life but that is besides the point)

    So now to the question would I do it? The answer to that is simple, I don’t know. As a religious person I believe all life is sacred and although I am a firm believer in abortion, I would like to hope that I would turn out to be the kind of person who would keep the child. But then I am 24 years old, I have discussed the issue extensively at home, I know I have the support of my mother and I know I can raise a child on my own and deal with the dissaprovment of the rest of my family. So I have a situation where for me keeping the child is a no brainier. But again if and when I come to that bridge I don’t know how I will cross it.

  27. The Following User Says Thank You to Mara For This Useful Post:

    sueworld (10-02-12)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •