dust1n
Zindīq
I hope to be back there one day. With new improvements, of course.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is it okay to kill this?
- Thread starter neves
- Start date
I hope to be back there one day. With new improvements, of course.
Why wouldn't it be?
Once again, we get another glimpse into the nightmare state of nnmartin, hahaha.
Why only 3? Sounds rather arbitrary - what if by the fourth time an abortion was necessary for some reason? For example if the pregnancy/birth posed a threat to the mother-to-be? Would you be turning the girl away saying, "sorry darling, you've had your three, you're just gonna have to risk death now"
Well, nice to see you thinking things through as you plan your fascist regime. How would you enforce it? And what would count as reasonable justification?
Me Myself
Back to my username
I have a similar idea:
Everyone has to go into an organ donor registry. If you come up as a match as a kidney donor for someone, then you can refuse to donate the first time no questions asked. The second and third times, you have to give a "reaaonable justification" for why you can't get by with just one kidney. The third time you come up as a match, there's no option - they just take it.
What's wrong with this system?
Edit: other than the fact that you don't have a uterus but you do have kidneys, so this would affect *you* this time, I mean.
HerDotness
Lady Babbleon
Why is it so dreadful when some extremely serious birth defects aren't detected until after 6 months gestation?
U.S. states which allow late-term abortions have strict guidelines. It's not a matter of the woman's deciding that's simply what she wants to do unless the abortionist is unethical.
HerDotness
Lady Babbleon
Not that I know of. Late-term abortion on demand is regarded as unacceptable by every U.S. state as far as I know. I could be wrong, of course, since I'm no lawyer.
The U.S. in general is not as abortion-happy or nonchalant as some people here and elsewhere prefer to think it is.
The U.S. in general is not as abortion-happy or nonchalant as some people here and elsewhere prefer to think it is.
What do you mean "back to front"? I think it's perfectly straightforward: in every other situation, we consider a person's right to bodily security paramount... even over and above another person's right to life.
If you need a kidney, bone marrow, or a pint of blood from your mother but she doesn't want to give it to you, too bad for you.
It doesn't matter if she's the only match. It doesn't matter if you will certainly die without it. It doesn't matter if you can clearly demonstrate your "personhood", your intelligence, your capacity for pain or your desire to live. It doesn't matter that she's responsible for you coming into the world. Her right to decide what happens to her body overrides your right to life.
The only class of person who we discard this principle for is pregnant women.
And it gets worse, because even if your mother died, the fact that she refused to donate her organs or tissues would mean that you couldn't even get them after her death. The system you propose would put women in a position where they wouldn't even have the rights that we grant to corpses.
That's what I'm getting at: bodily security is a right that, in general, society treats as paramount. If you want to dismantle this so you can railroad pregnant women into behaving the way you want them to, then this raises all sorts of important questions: why are pregnant women being denied this important right? Does the justification you're using to deny these rights to pregnant women apply to any other class of person?
nnmartin
Well-Known Member
don't forget though that the woman can have 3 abortions.
After this time she should have learned that there are such things on the market as condoms, birth control pill or other methods.
a woman chooses to get pregnant, but in general , a person does not choose to need a transplant.
different issues here.
After this time she should have learned that there are such things on the market as condoms, birth control pill or other methods.
a woman chooses to get pregnant, but in general , a person does not choose to need a transplant.
different issues here.
dust1n
Zindīq
My friend watched a video of one the other night. I couldn't imagine why! Late-term abortions are truly terrible procedures... as far as visuals are concerned, but if it predates developed connections nuerologically, the little guy won't feel anything. IT really doesn't make the process any less nauseating. Thank goodness those procedures are extremely rare!
HerDotness
Lady Babbleon
So, I suppose that when a woman using birth control faithfully experiences a failure, she doesn't deserve to get an abortion? She should have been "more careful." Even the best oral contraceptives used consistently do have a small failure rate.
Which doesn't answer Penguin's point--that a woman ought to have the same right to bodily security as does someone refusing to donate an organ.
Not all pregnancies are the woman's fault, and not all serious birth defects are apparent before gestation has advanced beyond the usual point of viability. The latter occurrence is rare, but by saying "No late-term abortions at all," we'd be demanding that parents attempt to cope with a child that will never have any reasonable quality of life and will be a neverending financial and physical burden upon the parents.
HerDotness
Lady Babbleon
I saw a documentary on Dr. George Tiller's clinic a few years before his sad death.
One woman, face concealed, said that he had performed a late-term abortion for her. She cried throughout what she said--that her fetus was discovered in about the 7th or 8th month to have no brain but the part that controls heartbeat, lungs and the major automatic systems. In essence, had the parents decided to carry to term, they'd have ended up with a baby of sorts that might with extraordinary means have been enabled to "survive," if you can call that surviving.
Modern medicine often can do wonders, but there still are some defects that become apparent much later in pregnancy than we would ever wish.
Yes, I'm sure watching a late-term abortion would be extremely upsetting and unpleasant. I can't imagine myself why anyone but medical personnel would want to do that.
Brann_ørn
New Member
Personally I'm tired of hearing about abortion, we have to many things wrong with the world yet we occupy ourselves with these trivial issues. If a person wants to get a abortion, then that is non of our business, morals have nothing to do with it.
Besides, is it right to force this woman to birth a child she does not want, or is it right to bring another human into the world when we cannot take care of all that we already have? We are already feeling the effects of overpopulation, many people just don't know it yet. All this could just be avoided if people would just use a damned condom in the first place.
Besides, is it right to force this woman to birth a child she does not want, or is it right to bring another human into the world when we cannot take care of all that we already have? We are already feeling the effects of overpopulation, many people just don't know it yet. All this could just be avoided if people would just use a damned condom in the first place.