Would this Change your Position on Abortion?

[FTNZ]

Mammalian pregnancy evolved over millions of years. It's one of the main functions of our species. Actually, it's the main function of our species because none of us would be here without it. It would make zero evolutionary sense for pregnancy to carry higher negative risk than potential positives. That would be disadvantageous to the species' survival.

http://www.todaysparent.com/pregnancy/pregnancy-perks-the-health-benefits-for-mom/

The species can survive if some pregnant women die. In the modern world, women don't have to take the kind of risks they did in the past. For example, if they need a c-section, in most cases they can get one, and their life can be saved. To bring this back to the topic of the thread, I don't think women should be forced to continue with a pregnancy they don't want, just because some people argue that there are some benefits to pregnancy. Clearly, if you don't want to be pregnant, then being denied a medical procedure to address that because of other's people's opinions on your body, is hardly likely to bring health benefits.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The species can survive if some pregnant women die.

But not if pregnant women dying was a frequent thing and if they were suffering serious medical risks from it as a common occurrence. That makes no sense, in terms of natural selection.

In the modern world, women don't have to take the kind of risks they did in the past. For example, if they need a c-section, in most cases they can get one, and their life can be saved. To bring this back to the topic of the thread, I don't think women should be forced to continue with a pregnancy they don't want, just because some people argue that there are some benefits to pregnancy. Clearly, if you don't want to be pregnant, then being denied a medical procedure to address that because of other's people's opinions on your body, is hardly likely to bring health benefits.

I think that if you don't want to be pregnant, then don't get pregnant in the first place (excepting for rape, but that's fairly rare). The truth is that many, many people are simply irresponsible when it comes to sex. They don't use condoms or other birth control all the time and man is ejaculating in the vagina. Then they act surprised when they're pregnant. I don't understand this. Is it so difficult to keep semen out of your vagina? Sure, birth control can fail, but there's a very low risk of that when it's used correctly and an almost non-existent risk when you don't allow semen by your vagina in the first place.

Also, I never said anything about "forcing" anyone to do anything. I don't support blanket outlawing of abortion. There should be exceptions for health reasons. To me, the problem is people's irresponsible behavior.

 

[FTNZ]

But not if pregnant women dying was a frequent thing and if they were suffering serious medical risks from it as a common occurrence. That makes no sense, in terms of natural selection.

I think that if you don't want to be pregnant, then don't get pregnant in the first place (excepting for rape, but that's fairly rare). The truth is that many, many people are simply irresponsible when it comes to sex. They don't use condoms or other birth control all the time and man is ejaculating in the vagina. Then they act surprised when they're pregnant. I don't understand this. Is it so difficult to keep semen out of your vagina? Sure, birth control can fail, but there's a very low risk of that when it's used correctly and an almost non-existent risk when you don't allow semen by your vagina in the first place.

Also, I never said anything about "forcing" anyone to do anything. I don't support blanket outlawing of abortion. There should be exceptions for health reasons. To me, the problem is people's irresponsible behavior.

Contraception has quite a high failure rate, actually, even when used correctly. There is good scientific evidence to support this. IMO anyone wanting to deny women access to legal abortion on demand is basically forcing her to continue a pregnancy.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Contraception has quite a high failure rate, actually, even when used correctly. There is good scientific evidence to support this. IMO anyone wanting to deny women access to legal abortion on demand is basically forcing her to continue a pregnancy.

Can you please provide evidence for that claim?

The only legal restrictions on abortion I support are banning late-term abortions when an exception for extreme medical risks.

 

[FTNZ]

Can you please provide evidence for that claim?

The only legal restrictions on abortion I support are banning late-term abortions when an exception for extreme medical risks.

Information on contraceptive effectiveness can be found at the Planned Parenthood website.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I disagree on this. I think organ donation should be opted out from by citing emotional/familial/religious objection rather than opted in. The default should be organ donation and not the other way round.

I don't agree, personally. I think that all uses of the body, live or dead, should come with consent, not assume consent unless otherwise told. Still, in my example I made sure to say that they made it very clear they want their body to be buried whole. So stressing the 'no' to donation.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Information on contraceptive effectiveness can be found at the Planned Parenthood website.

I looked at the PP site but it has different pages for each method. I found this, though: http://americanpregnancy.org/preventing-pregnancy/birth-control-failure/

 

[FTNZ]

I looked at the PP site but it has different pages for each method. I found this, though: http://americanpregnancy.org/preventing-pregnancy/birth-control-failure/

Well, the info is all there. Condoms, IIRC have about a 92% success rate, and the birth control pill is about 96%. If you're one of the 4 women in 100 using the pill correctly and you still get pregnant, reproductive rights tend to become rather important to you. The most effective method short of sterilisation (which can still fail) is the intra-uterine contraceptive device, with an over 99% success rate. But this method is expensive and requires a minor surgical procedure every 5-7 years. I don't think it's realistic to expect women who are attracted to men to abstain from sexual intercourse just because some people are opposed to legal abortion.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Well, the info is all there. Condoms, IIRC have about a 92% success rate, and the birth control pill is about 96%. If you're one of the 4 women in 100 using the pill correctly and you still get pregnant, reproductive rights tend to become rather important to you. The most effective method short of sterilisation (which can still fail) is the intra-uterine contraceptive device, with an over 99% success rate. But this method is expensive and requires a minor surgical procedure every 5-7 years. I don't think it's realistic to expect women who are attracted to men to abstain from sexual intercourse just because some people are opposed to legal abortion.

I didn't say that people with hetero attractions should abstain from sex. I am saying that people need to be more responsible and more mature about sex, though. If that means, for example, not having drunken/drugged up one-night stands, practicing moderation, generally being proactive about their body and gaining knowledge about sex and reproduction, so be it. All the better for all involved. A bit of forethought can make a huge difference.

 

[Jumi]

Who would all the unwanted babies be given to? The state?

 

[Thanda]

I have immense regard for human life. The fact remains that in the battle between fetus and woman, woman wins (where laws allow) because woman is a legal person.

You are arguing that a being that is not a legal person should have more rights than a being that is a legal person. This is nonsensical.

Your last paragraph is just a strawman argument.

Using the legal person argument is a sign that you're losing the argument. The categorisation of what a legal person is an arbitrary human standard that could well have been different in the past and which could also change in the future. It does not speak at all to the morality of the matter - which is what we're debating here.

 

[Thanda]

There's nothing neglectful about abortion.

You're jumping around now. I thought we were talking about a living child?

 

[FTNZ]

Using the legal person argument is a sign that you're losing the argument. The categorisation of what a legal person is an arbitrary human standard that could well have been different in the past and which could also change in the future. It does not speak at all to the morality of the matter - which is what we're debating here.

LOL.

 

[Thanda]

If the procedure is cheap, widely available and mother is free to decline any and all responsibilities for the child.

Thanks. However why is there a caveat that the mother should be able to decline responsibility for the child when a father currently doesn't have such a freedom?

 

[Thanda]

LOL.

To stress the point black people were once not legal persons in some countries.

 

[Thanda]

I highly disagree with this. It is no stick because nobody else has the right, or should have a right, over body autonomy. And no considerations which would change that to me.

Take for example a situation where someone has died and there is a dire need for their organs to save multiple lives. But the person who died didn't sign a donor card, and expressed clear wishes to be buried whole. Even though you could argue that once you die the harm to you is inconsequential compared to the harm it would inflict on others, I would still fight to preserve the will of the deceased to not have their body used against their wishes. Even if more people die because of it.

Do I think people should be donors? Yes. Do I think people should take the precautions to prevent abortion from even becoming an issue? Yes. But I wouldn't legislate against their body autonomy.

You would fight for the bodily autonomy of the dead - what of the bodily autonomy of the unborn child?

 

[Thanda]

Who would all the unwanted babies be given to? The state?

Their parents. Just like unwanted babies are currently forced on the father.

 

[Curious George]

Their parents. Just like unwanted babies are currently forced on the father.

Is that what this thread is about? Please. Plenty of mothers pay child support. As far as parenting time, no parent is required to spend time with the child. Both parents can choose to give up the baby and walk away from responsibility. If one of the parents wants to keep a baby after birth the other parent also bears financial responsibility for that child. No child is forced on any parent. Child support is when it is enforced, but that is forced on mothers as well as fathers.

In regard to your op, if it was safer, less invasive than any form of abortion presently designed at the time of the procedure, then I would not support abortion. Though I am hesitant to suggest the regulation of body autonomy, or the privacy, no right is unfettered.

 

[Thanda]

Is that what this thread is about? Please. Plenty of mothers pay child support. As far as parenting time, no parent is required to spend time with the child. Both parents can choose to give up the baby and walk away from responsibility. If one of the parents wants to keep a baby after birth the other parent also bears financial responsibility for that child. No child is forced on any parent. Child support is when it is enforced, but that is forced on mothers as well as fathers.

Indeed, but those mothers had the option of having an abortion - and thus avoiding the financial responsibility. And those mothers who didn't have enough money to get an abortion are unlikely to ever be forced to pay child support even if they did lose custody of the baby.

 

[Jumi]

Their parents. Just like unwanted babies are currently forced on the father.

Sounds like a recipe for disaster.