Abortion

[MysticSang'ha]

Its not because of my experience with preterm newborn.But yes I would keep it as it is ..illegal.

My son thrived actually and was "caught up" like a full term baby after a few months.So its not "because " of my experience I just happen to have first hand knowledge of premies.Please to not imply any more meaning to my experience than that.

Its the idea of the risk involved and you are talking about as early as 25 weeks I suppose.The liklihood if they survive of suffering a life long of serious disabilities that makes its unethical.And by the way as far as that goes on the money end? Who is going to pay for that child for the rest of its life if it has extensive medical needs? Who is going to pay if the child needs constant care for the rest of its life because it can not care for itself?

So rather than enter into a discussion on medical ethics and legal rights, you'd like to make the procedure illegal. I can't agree with that. It's infringing upon a woman's autonomy and bodily security.

You know, pro-life people would heartily agree with how you find it unethical to put a baby through suffering all because a woman just up and decided one day to not be pregnant any more. That bad bad woman!

I'm still figuring my position on who ought to be responsible for the care of the newborn. However, it seems you and I are at odds with what really is the most ethical decision concerning that period of post-viability when a newborn is at most risk for health complications. I can't agree that a woman must maintain a pregnancy against her will at any stage. It's her body, her autonomy. C'est la vie.

 

[NotASockpuppet]

I support abortion up to and including the 9th month of pregnancy for any reason.

There need not be a medical reason for an abortion, in my opinion.

 

[Koldo]

How would you hold them accountable?

Simarly to how the law currently handles situations where one individual willingly puts another one at a high risk for health problems.

Of course. And abortion still happens regardless of the laws of the land. The importance of the pro-choice position is to provide safe and legal access to the procedure. Moralizing about it leads to debates like this.

I don't see that as a compelling reason in itself to legalize abortion on late-term pregnancy. Do you? I am not even talking about induced labor.
Just as i don't see it as a compelling reason to legalize all drugs.

I find the same feelings present against induced labor post-viability as I've heard from pro-life movements, tbh. There still is a desire to moralize about what a woman wishes to do with her body.

I can not unrestrictedly support a woman's right to do whatever she wishes with her body if the consequence is a newborn at high risk of health problems.

 

[DallasApple]

I can't agree that a woman must maintain a pregnancy against her will at any stage.

Well I can agree to it.So...we disagree.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I don't see that as a compelling reason in itself to legalize abortion on late-term pregnancy. Do you? I am not even talking about induced labor.
Just as i don't see it as a compelling reason to legalize all drugs.

Abortion isn't something you legalize or illegalize. It is a biological fact. Babies are the result of sex, which is a messy and personal animal process. (Just try to outlaw that!) Following that are even more messy and personal processes that continue for 9 months, culminating in an excruciating and life risking procedure that maims the woman for life. None of it can be avoided through legislation. The law is helpless to change the way that human life is continued and should not be falsely elevated to a position where it can only interfere rather than create anything. Its like trying to illegalize cold viruses. The law can claim to illegalize cold viruses, but in reality it is powerless to do so. Instead such a law would only keep people from buying cold medicine. You see, illegalizing abortion merely denies its existence and drives it out of public view. The law would be arrogant and blind to reality, and ethically what have you achieved? Ethically all you've done is to make humanity subservient to the law when the laws were meant to serve and help us. Laws don't make us. We make laws.

 

[Koldo]

Abortion isn't something you legalize or illegalize. It is a biological fact.

I almost stopped reading at this point. Seriously.

Babies are the result of sex, which is a messy and personal animal process. (Just try to outlaw that!)

Certain forms of sex are outlawed.
I am not sure why this is relevant to this topic though.

Following that are even more messy and personal processes that continue for 9 months, culminating in an excruciating and life risking procedure that maims the woman for life.

Maims...?
This is a first.

None of it can be avoided through legislation. The law is helpless to change the way that human life is continued and should not be falsely elevated to a position where it can only interfere rather than create anything. Its like trying to illegalize cold viruses. The law can claim to illegalize cold viruses, but in reality it is powerless to do so. Instead such a law would only keep people from buying cold medicine.

We are not talking about making pregnancy illegal though. :sarcastic

You see, illegalizing abortion merely denies its existence and drives it out of public view. The law would be arrogant and blind to reality, and ethically what have you achieved?

Do you mean the ocurrence couldn't possibly be reduced?

Ethically all you've done is to make humanity subservient to the law when the laws were meant to serve and help us. Laws don't make us. We make laws.

If it helps even one child, then it was worth it.

 

[DallasApple]

I think the point Brickjectivity made actually makes the argument more or less arguing for the sake of arguing.Which is O.K too..But since the % of abortions after 21 weeks is such a tiny % of all abortions...I don't see too many women ..that had abortion available to her from the beginning all the way to 24 weeks...to decide at 25,26,27,28 weeks etc that she she doesn't like being pregnant and is fine having a doctor induce labor and having a micro premie child with possible severe and life long disabilities to take care of.Maybe a woman with munchousen biproxy possibly..Usually a woman who has gone that far into pregnancy has long ago developed some sort of mental bond with her unborn ....including thinking of it as her 'baby" not her 'fetus"..and experiencing sensations/patterns that she relates to as 'person hood" such as it getting the hiccups..or waking up the minute she lies down to try to sleep..etc...has envisioned what the child will look like ...thought about what to name it ...she might (and many times does ) complain about her discomfort ...can't wait for this baby to be born I'm miserable etc..but her protective instincts over ride all that.She might jump at the chance to be induced if circumstances arise a few weeks early even but would most likely want reasurance the baby would be born O.K.

So I guess what I'm saying is I'm not too worried about it.I don't see too many women waking up one day at 25, 26 ,26 ,27 ,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36 weeks deciding she doesn't like being pregnant ..its her body ..and to hell with the child's suffering mild to severe short term or lifelong..

As it is..many women have feelings of sadness and grief having an abortion at all at any stage even if they don't believe it was the wrong choice.....its usually not a flippant "just don't want to be pregnant and its my body ".But even in that case I can't see many waiting 25 weeks....by that point you have a "baby" doing hand stands /flip flops in your stomach and most are and have been in maternity clothes..not far from doing the "waddle".

 

[Koldo]

It really ticks me off to think anyone could possibly suggest to me that we should care about someone who entertains the following thought: 'To heck with my child, no matter whether he/she is going to suffer a whole lot. It is MY body.'.

If a woman doesn't even care about her newborn that much, then i will have a really hard time caring about her.

 

[BSM1]

It really ticks me off to think anyone could possibly suggest to me that we should care about someone who entertains the following thought: 'To heck with my child, no matter whether he/she is going to suffer a whole lot. It is MY body.'.

If a woman doesn't even care about her newborn that much, then i will have a really hard time caring about her.

I don't think we're talking about newborns.

 

[McBell]

It really ticks me off to think anyone could possibly suggest to me that we should care about someone who entertains the following thought: 'To heck with my child, no matter whether he/she is going to suffer a whole lot. It is MY body.'.

If a woman doesn't even care about her newborn that much, then i will have a really hard time caring about her.

So you favour the child over the mother acting like a child?
Interesting strawman you have created.

 

[Koldo]

I don't think we're talking about newborns.

Perhaps not you, but i was.

 

[Koldo]

So you favour the child over the mother acting like a child?
Interesting strawman you have created.

What strawman?
Please do elaborate.

 

[McBell]

What strawman?
Please do elaborate.

Whose body is it?
Does the woman's body no longer belong to her when she gets pregnant?

Why do you keep talking about newborns?
You do understand that once it is born it is not longer a discussion about abortion, right?

 

[BSM1]

So, Koldo, let me ask you. Have you ever tried to rescue one of these poor children, say through adoption? Do you know of anyone who has adopted an "unwanted" newborn? Just asking.

 

[Koldo]

Whose body is it?
Does the woman's body no longer belong to her when she gets pregnant?

It does belong to her.
Why do you ask?

Why do you keep talking about newborns?
You do understand that once it is born it is not longer a discussion about abortion, right?

Have you been reading the last pages?
We were not talking about abortion, but rather about induced labor.

 

[Koldo]

So, Koldo, let me ask you. Have you ever tried to rescue one of these poor children, say through adoption? Do you know of anyone who has adopted an "unwanted" newborn? Just asking.

Not at all. Why do you ask?

 

[McBell]

It does belong to her.
Why do you ask?

So you are getting ticked off because a woman wants to make decisions concerning the body she owns?

 

[Koldo]

So you are getting ticked off because a woman wants to make decisions concerning the body she owns?

Not really. Read again what i have said on that post.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It really ticks me off to think anyone could possibly suggest to me that we should care about someone who entertains the following thought: 'To heck with my child, no matter whether he/she is going to suffer a whole lot. It is MY body.'.

If a woman doesn't even care about her newborn that much, then i will have a really hard time caring about her.

Would you say the same about a prospective kidney donor who decides at the last minute that he can't go through with the removal procedure?

The well-being of another person hangs in the balance. It could very well be that the donor's refusal will mean that the intended recipient will be sentenced to a lifetime of kidney dialysis... yet we don't force the person to donate their kidney in that case. What's the relevant difference?

 

[Koldo]

Would you say the same about a prospective kidney donor who decides at the last minute that he can't go through with the removal procedure?

The well-being of another person hangs in the balance. It could very well be that the donor's refusal will mean that the intended recipient will be sentenced to a lifetime of kidney dialysis... yet we don't force the person to donate their kidney in that case. What's the relevant difference?

Are pregnant women losing a kidney when they give birth?