This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.5
PTR
10.2.6
Abortion Debate
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Ksero
If there was an option to take the fetus out of the mother and put it in an incubator to be put up for adoption, I would choose that every time.
Do you think that should that be put into abortion law? For example, would you mind if abortion beyond 5-6 months was codified as illegal, and any 'abortions' would instead need to be induced delivery instead? Because as it stands, with abortion being restricted for people past 5-6 months, that's exactly what would happen practically speaking.
I wouldn't mind at all.
I don't believe there is any reason, other than the mothers life is at risk, for a termination of pregnancy at 8.5 months.
What if their financial situation changed? Father lost his job, mother's company went into bankruptcy, parents divorced? You would be happy with those reasons being used at any earlier point in time. At what point are they no longer reasonable, assuming that there isn't an available incubator / emergency service to take on board a premature baby?
They aren't reasonable at that time BECAUSE there are those services are available, there is also the option of carrying it full term and putting it up for adoption. someone who has gone that far through the pregnancy would have some emotional attachment to her unborn baby, it's not like someone loses there job and thinks,"well, better get an abortion now." Of course there would be questions on how they would make it work, but if you had set out to be a parent I don't believe something like that would instantly change your mind.
If someone decided to stab a pregnant mother in the gut, with the intention of killing the baby (and this has happened), I would charge him with murder, as his intent was to end the life, before it had even started.
How far through pregnancy do you think this should apply? 8.5 months is obviously a specifically chosen extreme case - how about 8 months, or 7 months (or 6, 5, 4, etc.)?
At any time after the baby was viable to be born, if you want an exact number, sometime around 21 weeks. for the same reason I would not condone an abortion after that time.
Post by
Squishalot
They aren't reasonable at that time BECAUSE there are those services are available, there is also the option of carrying it full term and putting it up for adoption.
The problem is, there is always the option of carrying it full term and putting it up for adoption...
I wouldn't mind at all.
So basically, if we were to codify that, it would be:
"If you don't want your baby, go to hospital and induce it out, as safely for the baby as possible, one way or another. If the health service can save it, then it will, but either way, it will not be your responsibility any more."
In this way, if it were viable, it would be saved and life would be preserved; if it were not viable, then you don't consider it a 'child' and it's of no significant moral consequence. (Not trying to sound cold or rude, just can't think of a better way of putting it).
Is that about right then?
Post by
Ksero
well mostly, I don't think that someone getting an abortion should ever do it without giving a great deal of thought about it first, I don't think it's of "no significant moral consequence," but it's up to the mothers morals to decide what is the right thing to do.
They aren't reasonable at that time BECAUSE there are those services are available, there is also the option of carrying it full term and putting it up for adoption.
The problem is, there is always the option of carrying it full term and putting it up for adoption...
The difference is that the people who want an abortion early on are not comfortable with being pregnant, where those who are already 5 months through are comfortable (I can't think of a better word than "comfortable" I know it's not exactly the right term).
Post by
Squishalot
Yeah, that's what I meant by the fact that I wasn't trying to sound rude about it, I just couldn't think of a good way of putting it. Either way, there should be no legal consequence.
The difference is that the people who want an abortion early on are not comfortable with being pregnant, where those who are already 5 months through are comfortable (I can't think of a better word than "comfortable" I know it's not exactly the right term).
I know what you mean, but in the interests of attempting to preserve life, why would it be OK to ask someone to wait out another two months, but not to wait out another four months?
Post by
Ksero
It would mainly be based on how much emotional trauma the person would have to go who has just become pregnant would have to go through, forcing someone to go through something like that would be an extremely negative experience in their life, possibly causing lasting psychological damage. Whereas with someone who has already been pregnant for 5 months, and knew/thought that they were going to be a parent, and was already "comfortable" with the notion of being pregnant, the negative psychological damage would be minimal.
Post by
Skreeran
Another question: If a fetus at 21
months
weeks (derp) is technically viable, but at high risk of dying during attempted transplantation, do you think it would be fair to require the mother to wait a few more weeks to give the fetus a higher chance of survival?
Abortion clinics already require women to wait 10 to 12 weeks to get an manual abortion.
Post by
Squishalot
I don't think that someone who has already been pregnant for 5 months is necessarily 'comfortable' with the notion of being pregnant. It could be that they're required to wait, as per Skreeran's comment, it could be that they've been under social pressure not to, and as such haven't felt comfortable going and asking for an abortion. It could be that they simply didn't know they were pregnant until they were 4 months in, and then it took them a while to argue out with their partner whether they wanted to keep it or not.
That's a pretty big claim, regardless of whether 'comfortable' is the right word or not.
Post by
Ksero
I don't think that someone who has already been pregnant for 5 months is necessarily 'comfortable' with the notion of being pregnant. It could be that they're required to wait, as per Skreeran's comment, it could be that they've been under social pressure not to, and as such haven't felt comfortable going and asking for an abortion. It could be that they simply didn't know they were pregnant until they were 4 months in, and then it took them a while to argue out with their partner whether they wanted to keep it or not.
That's a pretty big claim, regardless of whether 'comfortable' is the right word or not.
We were talking about people who already knew they were pregnant, and then wanted an abortion because there was a change in their life that made it a bad idea to have a child at that time, they are definitely more "comfortable" than someone who just found out they were pregnant, and didn't want to be in that situation from the start.
It's impossible to cover all situations when the answer is very specific for each case, anyway, I've had enough of my personal views being torn apart for one night, I'll be back tomorrow.
Post by
Adamsm
Off topic, but you can use copy and paste if you need to go back farther on other pages so you don't lose your current post.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Or click links with your middle mouse button or ctrl+shift+left-click to open them in a new tab and browse through them there without losing your main page.
Post by
Gone
So society caring about the welfare of women leads to death camps well that's probably one of the silliest things I read on the internet.
You've got your analogy back to front. The Nazi's had the death penalty for Aryan women having an abortion. Abortion was only allowed for a deformed or disabled fetus. In common with the Pro Life group, women had no reproductive rights and the fetus had all the rights.
With such a callous disregard for their own women, is it any wonder the Nazi's ended up with death camps?
Are you an idiot or something? The analogy was with the logic of your argument, not the subject of it.
"Let's allow a potential injustice in order to solve a societal problem." That's what the Nazis used to justify tossing minorities into death camps, and that's what I took issue with in you're argument. The actual morality or lack there of in abortion had nothing to do with it.(##RESPBREAK##)16##DELIM##asakawa##DELIM##Discussions on divisive issues like this can only take place as long as everyone keeps a basic level of politeness. "Are you an idiot or something?" oversteps those bounds. Please seek to maintain your composure in future.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
1082463
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
This bill is making the lives of women who are already going through hell even harder. The majority of the women that need to even consider a late term abortion want these pregnancies to go to term. Every time I hear someone say “I am pro-life after 20 weeks” I want to punch them in the face. Then I have to take a step back and realize, it’s not their fault. They’re uniformed – and it’s legislation like Perry’s that is fooling them into believing that being “pro-life after 20 weeks” is even a stance they need to take.I'm of the opinion that if the life of the mother is threatened, then exceptions should be made as necessary.
When I say I'm "pro-life after 20 weeks" I'm talking about abortion of unwanted pregnancies, not medical emergencies.
Post by
Gone
Remember last month, when Texas State Senator Wendy Davis stood on her feet for 11 hours with no water breaks, bathroom breaks, or food to successfuly filibuster one of the most restrictive anti-abortion bills the country has ever seen? You may or may not know that Governor Rick Perry of Texas almost immediately negated her hard work by calling another special session to bring the bill up for a vote. Well, that special session was yesterday. The bill passed.
Without saying whether or not I agree with the bill, I'm glad the filibuster was negated. Filibustering represents an absurd exploitation of a technicality that completely end-runs democracy. The spirit of the Constitution is 'majority rule, minority rights' not one person bypassing the law to force a minority stance.
Every time I hear someone say “I am pro-life after 20 weeks” I want to punch them in the face. Then I have to take a step back and realize, it’s not their fault. They’re uniformed – and it’s legislation like Perry’s that is fooling them into believing that being “pro-life after 20 weeks” is even a stance they need to take.
If you’re pro-choice and you find yourself using the words, “pro-life” try “anti-choice” instead. Don’t do their faulty PR for them"
This makes you sound like an extremist psycho. Several points I wanna make in response to this.
1) Using physical violence to stifle an opinion you don't like is what a bully does.
2) Just because somebody doesn't share your opinion, that doesn't make them uninformed. They may very easily have all the information and still choose to disagree with you. Ever think maybe you're the one that's ill informed?
3) Using the term "anti choice" is the same as a pro lifer using the term "pro death" or "anti life." You're goal should be to convince others to your side with facts and persuasive arguments, not by branding your opponents with insulting and misleading labels. The fact that you're encouraging others to do so as well makes your own argument that much weaker.
EDIT: You made many good points noting that the majority of abortions occur after the 20 week mark, and your arguments about body autonomy. Although I am extremely skeptical of the 99% figure. However when your argument is weighed down by, what seems to me, as extremist soap box preaching, it makes me, and I'm sure others, disregard the good points that you made. I would try to be more objective and less of an advocate if you wish to persuade anyone.
Post by
1082463
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
On that note - I thought it was you writing as well. I'd use the \ and \ tags to indicate the areas which are copy/paste from another website, just to make it clearer. There isn't really a clear distinguishing break between the copied text and your own opinions.
Post by
1082463
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
Dammit, lost my post.
Without trying to derail the topic too much, I'd just like to say that as a moderator, I draw the line between "you are an idiot" and "your argument is idiotic". Ryjacork's comment was aimed at your (the article's) argument. I think there's enough respect in the rest of his points that his post should be read in context and appreciated, irrespective of his opening statement. Just my two cents.
Post by
1082463
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.