Abortion

[Alceste]

I'm asking, in your logic, if a woman says she want's an abortion because she was raped (one of the only reasons to get one in your opinion) will she be able to get one just by making the claim without having to prove that she was actually raped? Not all victims of rape are left bloody and bruised up you know. Some have no choice in the matter. And if she points at someone as the attacker and he says "I didn't rape her! She consented!" What then? She still gets the abortion anyways?

Just trying to understand your logic.

Back in the bad old days when abortion was restricted, women would just claim to be suicidally depressed, since that was one of the exceptions. All they needed to find was a doctor willing to check the box.

Whatever restrictions we impose, women who do not wish to be pregnant will quickly learn to claim they are exempt from them, regardless of the truth. If that means claiming to have been raped, that's what they will do.

 

[yoda89]

Because once the child is born, we seem to prefer that men do the killing, via capital punishment and war.

Once the child is born. People don't seem to care. It's highly more a political issue. Perhaps somewhat religious but more political. Good way to win an election.

But I'm defiantly down for killing as long as it is for my country, my work, lack of faith, ethnicity. You know anything that isn't me or people tell me to fear. I'm still waiting for what those in power tell me what is right and wrong. It's much easier not thinking for myself. Plus they give out free fanny packs with their logos and you know the fannies are coming back.

 

[DallasApple]

Once the child is born. People don't seem to care.

Of course they don't.Its not their problem.Its only their problem that a woman who spreads her legs and gets pregnant has a baby .What happens to the child after that is not any of their concern.

 

[McBell]

You can try to justify your believe any way you can...you still know that it's wrong.

Says who?
You?
Big deal, you think it is wrong.

 

[averageJOE]

Back in the bad old days when abortion was restricted, women would just claim to be suicidally depressed, since that was one of the exceptions. All they needed to find was a doctor willing to check the box.

Whatever restrictions we impose, women who do not wish to be pregnant will quickly learn to claim they are exempt from them, regardless of the truth. If that means claiming to have been raped, that's what they will do.

Which goes back to the possibility of innocent men being labeled a rapist. That is why I don't agree with the idea of "abortion only in the case of rape".

 

[Falvlun]

Which goes back to the possibility of innocent men being labeled a rapist. That is why I don't agree with the idea of "abortion only in the case of rape".

Not to mention, philosophically speaking, the exemption doesn't make much sense.

If the position is that fetuses are babies with the full rights of personhood, then the circumstances of their creation shouldn't make a difference. You would be murdering a person simply because his or her dad was a bad guy.

The rape exemption is done out of compassion-- essentially, it would be heinous to force a woman to carry to term a child that was the result of a brutal assault, a constant reminder of the violation done to her.

But if compassion is a criterion upon which it can be determined that it is permissible to abort a person-- and particularly, compassion due to the horrible effects of forcing a person to do something with her body that she did not wish to do-- then how can a line of "this much compassion and no more" ever be rationally supported? It is completely arbitrary.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not to mention, philosophically speaking, the exemption doesn't make much sense.

If the position is that fetuses are babies with the full rights of personhood, then the circumstances of their creation shouldn't make a difference. You would be murdering a person simply because his or her dad was a bad guy.

The rape exemption is done out of compassion-- essentially, it would be heinous to force a woman to carry to term a child that was the result of a brutal assault, a constant reminder of the violation done to her.

But if compassion is a criterion upon which it can be determined that it is permissible to abort a person-- and particularly, compassion due to the horrible effects of forcing a person to do something with her body that she did not wish to do-- then how can a line of "this much compassion and no more" ever be rationally supported? It is completely arbitrary.

I've heard quite a few people in the pro-choice movement argue that there's a strong undercurrent in the anti-abortion movement that also extends into other positions: that it's about enforcing a particular view of how a woman should behave. In this view, a woman's supposed to be a virgin until marriage and then wed for life and devote herself to raising a family. Abortion is about pushing the woman into this standard of behaviour by punishing her if she doesn't follow it.

In that context, the rape exception makes perfect sense: she didn't choose to be raped, so she doesn't need to be punished for THAT sex. Also, she's suppose to be having lots of babies with her husband; raising the child of a rapist doesn't fit that view of a woman's role either.

This isn't the only issue where the anti-abortion position only becomes rational when we take it as being about punishment for unapproved sex and not about saving "babies". Take contraception: it significantly reduces unwanted pregnancy, and nothing leads to abortion like unwanted pregnancy. Anyone who actually thought that abortion was murder would be all about encouraging contraception... but in general, they aren't. In fact, I'd say most anti-abortion groups are ANTI-contraception. And I think this speaks volumes about their motivations.

 

[Falvlun]

I've heard quite a few people in the pro-choice movement argue that there's a strong undercurrent in the anti-abortion movement that also extends into other positions: that it's about enforcing a particular view of how a woman should behave. In this view, a woman's supposed to be a virgin until marriage and then wed for life and devote herself to raising a family. Abortion is about pushing the woman into this standard of behaviour by punishing her if she doesn't follow it.

In that context, the rape exception makes perfect sense: she didn't choose to be raped, so she doesn't need to be punished for THAT sex. Also, she's suppose to be having lots of babies with her husband; raising the child of a rapist doesn't fit that view of a woman's role either.

This isn't the only issue where the anti-abortion position only becomes rational when we take it as being about punishment for unapproved sex and not about saving "babies". Take contraception: it significantly reduces unwanted pregnancy, and nothing leads to abortion like unwanted pregnancy. Anyone who actually thought that abortion was murder would be all about encouraging contraception... but in general, they aren't. In fact, I'd say most anti-abortion groups are ANTI-contraception. And I think this speaks volumes about their motivations.

Those are excellent points.

I truly have never understood the "abstinence only sex education" and "anti-contraceptive" movements in relation to pro-life, but this does explain it rather well.

 

[maninthewilderness]

Which goes back to the possibility of innocent men being labeled a rapist. That is why I don't agree with the idea of "abortion only in the case of rape".

No system is perfect.
Innocent men get accused of rape all the time with our current system, and no abortion law is ever going to change that.
And if the fear that they might be labeled a rapist would prevent more men from sleeping around so much and having unprotected sex then all the better.

And of course the woman would have to provide evidence that supports her claim that she was raped.
No evidence to support the rape claim, then no abortion.

Does this mean that there would be instances where the woman could not provide any evidence of rape (for whatever reason), and would be denied an abortion?
Yes.
No system is perfect.
But it would still be better than the system we have now where woman are killing their unborn children at an astounding rate, and mostly just because the pregnancy is inconvenient or because she just doesn't want a child right now (which is something she should have considered BEFORE having sex).

 

[maninthewilderness]

The rape exemption is done out of compassion-- essentially, it would be heinous to force a woman to carry to term a child that was the result of a brutal assault, a constant reminder of the violation done to her.

But if compassion is a criterion upon which it can be determined that it is permissible to abort a person-- and particularly, compassion due to the horrible effects of forcing a person to do something with her body that she did not wish to do-- then how can a line of "this much compassion and no more" ever be rationally supported? It is completely arbitrary.

Not arbitrary at all...

A raped person did not choose to engage in sexual intercourse.

But a woman who chooses to engage in sexual intercourse always knows that there is a chance of pregnancy.
And if she also knew that abortions were outlawed, and she STILL chose to engage in sexual intercourse, then she could hardly make the claim that she was being forced to do something she didn't want to do by having the child.
What she got was the result of her own decisions.
And what she got was another human inside her, not an inconvenient piece of garbage to toss in the trashcan.

 

[BSM1]

Not arbitrary at all...

A raped person did not choose to engage in sexual intercourse.

But a woman who chooses to engage in sexual intercourse always knows that there is a chance of pregnancy.
And if she also knew that abortions were outlawed, and she STILL chose to engage in sexual intercourse, then she could hardly make the claim that she was being forced to do something she didn't want to do by having the child.
What she got was the result of her own decisions.
And what she got was another human inside her, not an inconvenient piece of garbage to toss in the trashcan.

So, are we back to subjugating women? I would be willing to bet that the abortion issue would be viewed in a different light if there was a 50/50 chance that the man or the woman could get pregnant by having sex.

 

[Falvlun]

Not arbitrary at all...

A raped person did not choose to engage in sexual intercourse.

But a woman who chooses to engage in sexual intercourse always knows that there is a chance of pregnancy.
And if she also knew that abortions were outlawed, and she STILL chose to engage in sexual intercourse, then she could hardly make the claim that she was being forced to do something she didn't want to do by having the child.
What she got was the result of her own decisions.
And what she got was another human inside her, not an inconvenient piece of garbage to toss in the trashcan.

So, just as 9-10ths_Penguin said, it's about punishing women for having sex, and not about treating fetuses as if they were children-- real people.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I always wonder though, who will pay the thousands of dollars necessary for preemie incubators, care and life support? If the mother is expected to pay it, I think you'll see lots of coat hangers. I'm okay with the state paying for it- or new adoptive parents. It's a detail that I can't recal having seen anyone address.

You're right, and that it hasn't been addressed. It's a great question, and one that has me thinking a bit more deeply about it.

It all depends on whether or not a woman wishes to be a mother. If she wishes to terminate the pregnancy but wants to gain custody of the newborn, then of course she ought to carry the burden of the cost out of pocket if she can or through insurance. If, by any chance, that induced labor is made part of legislation, and the woman does not wish to be a mother of the newborn (if the newborn survives), I don't believe the women should carry the financial burden of the procedure and the NICU staffing and maintenance costs.

Who should be responsible for the cost burden is a good question, and one I don't have an answer for yet. My reasoning for the woman not carrying the burden herself is I'm under the assumption that induced labor for a fetus post-viability is a part of legislation, and is imposed for the purpose of allowing a fetus a realistic chance of survival outside of the uterus while respecting a woman's right to decide whether or not she is pregnant.

Again, great question. And I wish to avoid coat hangers and illegal and unsafe abortions as much as possible.

 

[maninthewilderness]

So, just as 9-10ths_Penguin said, it's about punishing women for having sex, and not about treating fetuses as if they were children-- real people.

No, not "punishing the woman for having sex", merely refusing to allow the murder of a child (albeit an unborn child) simply because the woman made questionable lifestyle choices.

How anyone can justify murdering a child simply because the woman gambled on the chance of pregnancy, and lost, is beyond me.

It all depends on whether or not a woman wishes to be a mother.

Yes!
But if a woman does not want to be a mother, then she should choose to avoid practices that might make her a mother.
Murder in the name of giving women the "freedom" to be completely devoid of responsibility for their choices is insane!

 

[desideraht]

Pro-Abortion.

Reason: Medically necessary.

People are going to need abortions, whether the reason being that they do not desire a pregnancy, or that the pregnancy may be hazardous to them. Not wanting a pregnancy is just a valid. A woman will find means to get rid of the baby. Or, if she is forced into it, she may not perform sufficient pre-natal care. This sort of thing is really important. If a woman doesn't want a child, it needs to be terminated and extracted immediately, its stem cells harvested and used to cure diseases. I really feel this is common sense. It is better to prevent a life than to nurture one that may lead to a life of suffering. We have enough people on this planet already, enough unwanted, unadopted children.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, not "punishing the woman for having sex", merely refusing to allow the murder of a child (albeit an unborn child) simply because the woman made questionable lifestyle choices.

How anyone can justify murdering a child simply because the woman gambled on the chance of pregnancy, and lost, is beyond me.



Yes!
But if a woman does not want to be a mother, then she should choose to avoid practices that might make her a mother.
Murder in the name of giving women the "freedom" to be completely devoid of responsibility for their choices is insane!

I don't think you're being honest with us. If you really thought that abortion was murder, why would you allow it in the case of rape? Do you really think that being raped justifies murder?

Taken at face value, your position is illogical and unreasonable. This is why I think you have a hidden motive that you aren't telling us about. Maybe you've rationalized it using different terms, but I think that it amounts to punishing women for having sex you don't approve of.

 

[desideraht]

Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being.

You can't call abortion, a medical procedure, murder, until it is criminalised. By your logic, a miscarriage is manslaughter.

 

[maninthewilderness]

I don't think you're being honest with us. If you really thought that abortion was murder, why would you allow it in the case of rape? Do you really think that being raped justifies murder?

I'm being honest.
If you choose to not believe me then that is your right.
I don't feel a need to convince you of my sincerity.
But to answer your question, yes abortion is murder.
But not all murders are unjustified.
If I shoot someone and kill them, in self defense, that is still murder....but a justified murder (provided a court supports the self defense plea).
I don't LIKE it. And I would hope that even a raped women would choose to not kill the child inside her.
But I can conceded that choosing to do so MIGHT be a justified murder in the eyes of the law.

Taken at face value, your position is illogical and unreasonable.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I seriously doubt that you are the authority on logic and/or reason.

This is why I think you have a hidden motive that you aren't telling us about.

I don't have a "hidden motive".
Again, if you choose to not believe me that is your right.
And again, I don't feel the need to convince you of my sincerity.

Maybe you've rationalized it using different terms, but I think that it amounts to punishing women for having sex you don't approve of.

So if you can't debate the message then attack the messenger!

Again, it's not about punishing anyone.
It's about not allowing the murder of a child simply because the woman made questionable choices.
Since when did motherhood become a punishment?
Do you really believe that all the pregnant women out there and all the mothers out there are being punished by evil men?!?!

Basically, you think that our society should murder unborn children simply because the woman says "Gee, this was a mistake....I really wasn't prepared to get pregnant when I chose to have sex. Oops, careless me! But I'm really sorry and I promise to never do it again. Well, I'm not going to say never again. So Doc, will you murder my child for me now, I've got some errands to run....".

 

[maninthewilderness]

You can't call abortion, a medical procedure, murder, until it is criminalised. By your logic, a miscarriage is manslaughter.

I don't know the legal definition of manslaughter.

I suppose if the woman purposefully did something to cause the miscarriage, then maybe.

But we are talking about abortion.
Where a pregnant woman goes and actively seeks out someone to kill her otherwise viable unborn child.
Not even remotely in the same ballpark as a miscarriage.
This is a very weak ploy.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm being honest.
If you choose to not believe me then that is your right.
I don't feel a need to convince you of my sincerity.

Maybe you're not being honest with yourself, then.

But to answer your question, yes abortion is murder.
But not are murders are unjustified.
If I shoot someone and kill them, in self defense, that is still murder....but a justified murder (provided a court supports the self defense plea).

That wouldn't be murder, actually. Not all killing is murder.

I don't LIKE it. And I would hope that even a raped women would choose to not kill the child inside her.
But I can conceded that choosing to do so MIGHT be a justified murder in the eyes of the law.

Why?

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I seriously doubt that you are the authority on logic and reason.

I'm not an "authority"; I can just recognize irrationality when I see it.

I don't have a "hidden motive".
Again, if you choose to not believe me that is your right.
And again, I don't feel the need to convince you of my sincerity.

I didn't say you did. I'm not demanding that you tell me why I should believe you; I'm just saying that I don't believe you. If you don't care about my opinion, that's fine - it's no skin off my nose.

So if you can't debate the message then attack the messenger!

I am debating the message. The message implies that "murder" of a "baby" is sometimes acceptable. I'm pointing out that this is inconsistent with the idea that murder is wrong.

... though you've reconciled the inconsistency somewhat by explaining that you don't think that murder is always wrong. However, this points to another question: if murder is sometimes good and sometimes bad, then how can you be sure that the "murder" of a fetus that wasn't conceived in rape is always bad?

Again, it's not about punishing anyone.
It's about not allowing the murder of a child simply because the woman made questionable choices.
Since when did motherhood become a punishment?

Most people consider it a negative thing to be forced into something against their will.

Do you really believe that all the pregnant women out there and all the mothers out there are being punished by evil men?!?!

No, only the ones who were forced into having the child by those men.

Basically, you think that our society should murder unborn children simply because the woman says "Gee, this was a mistake....I really wasn't prepared to get pregnant when I chose to have sex. Oops, careless me! But I'm really sorry and I promise to never do it again. Well, I'm not going to say never again. So Doc, will you murder my child for me now, I've got some errands to run....".

No, I'm not. I'm saying that just as you should have the right to have your decision respected if you decide not to provide your bone marrow or kidney - even if it would save a life - a pregnant woman should have the right to have her decision respected if she decides not to provide her uterus.

If you choose not to donate blood, I'm not going to demand that you provide a good reason before you're allowed not to donate. Even if you've already consented, even if the donation is already underway, if you want it to stop, it should stop... for whatever reason you choose. Even if there is a patient waiting in the next room for that pint of blood and they'll surely die if you don't give it, I think that your consent throughout should be required to take your blood.

And that's just blood: that's something where it's taken with virtually no risk to the donor. Pregnancy has very significant risks associated with it... so much so that I think it's always within the realm of reason for a woman to decide that she doesn't want to be pregnant. I think this decision should always be respected, even if it happens while a woman is pregnant.