Triggering: Abortion???

[shimmeringfaerie]

Originally Posted by PhoenixAlive

I have already explained this... What is it that you don't understand?

I don't understand why you think it is suitable to let a woman get so upset and distressed that she becomes suicidal. It seems to me that you would want to stop depression before it got that bad. In the same way that you would want to stop bullying before it got to the point where the victim wanted to commit suicide. Why wouldn't you let a woman have an abortion when she starts to get depressed rather than letting it continue?

Originally Posted by PhoenixAlive

If women are so unstable that they will get illegal abortions, they should be in therapy. Women who are at legitimate risk from their pregnancies would not face this issue anyways. And at least this way, fewer people would die than with abortions being legal.

Getting an abortion illegally doesn't make a woman unstable, it makes her desperate. And I'm obviously not talking about people who are in a position to get a medically necessary abortion. Are you seriously saying that a woman's life is worth less than the baby that she is carrying? That is doesn't matter if they die?

Originally Posted by PhoenixAlive

And also, pregnancies are all medically monitored. If a woman is seen be on drugs by her obstetrician and doesn't quit, she can be institutionalized for the remainder of her pregnancy to ensure her health and the baby's. There are many countries where abortion is not legal. It seems to work there.

Who exactly makes sure that all pregnancies are medically monitored? If a woman doesn't want to go to a doctor, who is going to make her? And it seems to me that if she doesn't care about the baby, then she isn't really going to want to spend the money on doctor's appointments and check-ups. I can't imagine that anyone would be able to institutionalise someone for smoking or drinking (unless they're an alcoholic), regardless of whether or not they're pregnant. Don't you think it would be better to allow women to get an abortion rather than make the child grow up with a disability?

Originally Posted by PhoenixAlive

That doesn't sound bad to me at all... I would call that a success, to be honest. I much prefer those numbers to the 1.3 million abortions performed in the US in 2009. So, my statement still stands. It works fine in countries where it is illegal.

How can you call the deaths of 10 000 - 20 000 women a success?

[her_beautiful_mistake]

Having read the last few pages of this thread I actually feel physically sick.

[PhoenixAlive]

Originally Posted by ShimmeringFaerie

I don't understand why you think it is suitable to let a woman get so upset and distressed that she becomes suicidal. It seems to me that you would want to stop depression before it got that bad. In the same way that you would want to stop bullying before it got to the point where the victim wanted to commit suicide. Why wouldn't you let a woman have an abortion when she starts to get depressed rather than letting it continue?

I don't care if a woman is depressed while she is pregnant as long as it is not seriously affecting her physical health. Her feelings are irrelevant to my stance in this debate. All I care about is that both her and the baby survive. She can deal with her feelings in therapy.

Originally Posted by ShimmeringFaerie

Getting an abortion illegally doesn't make a woman unstable, it makes her desperate. And I'm obviously not talking about people who are in a position to get a medically necessary abortion. Are you seriously saying that a woman's life is worth less than the baby that she is carrying? That is doesn't matter if they die?

What I am saying is that I value the life of the mother equally with the value of the baby. So, if 20,000 women die from illegal abortions, this is better than the approximately 20 million babies who die per year from legal abortions alone.

Originally Posted by ShimmeringFaerie

Who exactly makes sure that all pregnancies are medically monitored? If a woman doesn't want to go to a doctor, who is going to make her? And it seems to me that if she doesn't care about the baby, then she isn't really going to want to spend the money on doctor's appointments and check-ups. I can't imagine that anyone would be able to institutionalise someone for smoking or drinking (unless they're an alcoholic), regardless of whether or not they're pregnant. Don't you think it would be better to allow women to get an abortion rather than make the child grow up with a disability?

Where I am living, you don't pay for healthcare. I didn't pay a cent for any of my doctor's appointments or check-ups, or ultrasounds, etc. I was speaking along the lines of if someone is an alcoholic or addicted to drugs. Smoking or drinking very occasionally during pregnancy isn't going to cause severe disabilities to the baby. And even if the baby has a disability, I would prefer both he or she, and the mother to survive the pregnancy.

[Jack]

Originally Posted by PhoenixAlive

What I am saying is that I value the life of the mother equally with the value of the baby. So, if 20,000 women die from illegal abortions, this is better than the approximately 20 million babies who die per year from legal abortions alone.

It's not just 20,000 deaths. It's also the large numbers of women who suffer dangerous, long term or permanent injury.

But as my, and your own, statistics have shown there are just as many unsafe abortions worldwide. 48% unsafe abortions to 52% safe abortions. In what manner is it better to expose these 48% of women to unnecessary danger?

If you consider a 4% difference a success then I guess you're right.....

[PhoenixAlive]

Originally Posted by Jack

It's not just 20,000 deaths. It's also the large numbers of women who suffer dangerous, long term or permanent injury.

But as my, and your own, statistics have shown there are just as many unsafe abortions worldwide. 48% unsafe abortions to 52% safe abortions. In what manner is it better to expose these 48% of women to unnecessary danger?

If you consider a 4% difference a success then I guess you're right.....

Its more like a 50% difference... I'm sure that many of the women who have had legal abortions would not have had them if they had to resort to back-alley abortions. So eliminating the legal abortions throughout the world would cut down the number of abortions worldwide to either medically necessary abortions or those who are desperate enough to get back-alley abortions.

[Jack]

Originally Posted by PhoenixAlive

Its more like a 50% difference... I'm sure that many of the women who have had legal abortions would not have had them if they had to resort to back-alley abortions. So eliminating the legal abortions throughout the world would cut down the number of abortions worldwide to either medically necessary abortions or those who are desperate enough to get back-alley abortions.

No, it's a 4% difference. 52-48 = 4. Assuming 42 million abortions in the world to be correct there are 20.16 million illegal abortions per year and 21.84 million legal ones. If legal abortions and illegal abortions are effectively 50-50 then that shows that making it illegal doesn't work.

No because, as I showed in the post before last which you didn't respond to, legality has no effect on abortion rate. The only thing that has an effect on abortion rate is good sex education and good access to contraception. As abortion legality makes no difference to the rate it is better to have it done safely to the women that want it rather than impose a restrictive law, based on pretty much nothing, which will result in the deaths of tens of thousands of women and the permanent injury of many thousands more.

Originally Posted by PhoenixAlive

Its more like a 50% difference... I'm sure that many of the women who have had legal abortions would not have had them if they had to resort to back-alley abortions. So eliminating the legal abortions throughout the world would cut down the number of abortions worldwide to either medically necessary abortions or those who are desperate enough to get back-alley abortions.

I am not following. Jack said that there were 48% unsafe abortions and 52% safe. Doesn't that mean there really is not that much of a difference? And isn't it safe to assume that if abortions were made illegal everywhere people would still get them done? Given the statistic Jack gave wouldn't it be safe to assume that a good number of people in the world would result to getting back alley abortions which would really cut it down? I don't know. Maybe I am missing something?

In the 60's and 70's (at least in US) abortions were illegal and many woman got them. And many suffered long term affects. It did not stop people from going out and getting abortions.

[PhoenixAlive]

Originally Posted by ~Jenna~

I am not following. Jack said that there were 48% unsafe abortions and 52% safe. Doesn't that mean there really is not that much of a difference? And isn't it safe to assume that if abortions were made illegal everywhere people would still get them done? Given the statistic Jack gave wouldn't it be safe to assume that a good number of people in the world would result to getting back alley abortions which would really cut it down? I don't know. Maybe I am missing something?

In the 60's and 70's (at least in US) abortions were illegal and many woman got them. And many suffered long term affects. It did not stop people from going out and getting abortions.

See that's the thing. I don't know that I believe that if abortion was criminalized worldwide, as many women would still elect to have abortions. While it is legal in many countries, we can never have an accurate statistic as to whether 42 million abortions would still occur if abortion was illegal everywhere.

And I believe that there would be less than 42 million abortions worldwide every year if women faced legal action for having an abortion. That is my point.

EDIT: Sorry for not replying to your post Jack, but as I think this addresses both posts, I figured I'd quote the most recent one.

[MermaidMassacre]

Rape = I'm for abortion.
Anything else against it.
There are a few other things.
Such as a teenager who gets pregnant and the boyfriend leaves.
That means she will be stressed out and alone.
I think she can decide to abort it or put it up for adoption.
Adoption is probably best.
But still rape...go for it.
I would hate being known I was made from rape.
Then put up for adoption because my mother didn't want me.
*shrugs*

[footfoot]

What I am saying is that I value the life of the mother equally with the value of the baby. So, if 20,000 women die from illegal abortions, this is better than the approximately 20 million babies who die per year from legal abortions alone.

Even if you grant that the fetus is a human being and has rights, I find it important to examine the situation in that context - who has rights and whose rights outweighs the others.

This is a very interesting paper by Judith Thomson that explores this issue:

Here is an excerpt:

I propose, then, that we grant that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception. How does the argument go from here? Something like this, I take it. Every person has a right to life. So the fetus has a right to life. No doubt the mother has a right to decide what shall happen in and to her body; everyone would grant that. But surely a person's right to life is stronger and more stringent than the mother's right to decide what happens in and to her body, and so outweighs it. So the fetus may not be killed; an abortion may not be performed.
It sounds plausible. But now let me ask you to imagine this. You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you--we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist is now plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you." Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still? What if the director of the hospital says. "Tough luck. I agree. but now you've got to stay in bed, with the violinist plugged into you, for the rest of your life. Because remember this. All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him." I imagine you would regard this as outrageous, which suggests that something really is wrong with that plausible-sounding argument I mentioned a moment ago.

If you would like to read the whole paper (it is fairly easy to read and quite short) I found it at THIS link. (If you can't open that search Judith Jarvis Thomson: A defense of abortion on google and you can find some full prints on the web).

[PhoenixAlive]

Originally Posted by footfoot

Even if you grant that the fetus is a human being and has rights, I find it important to examine the situation in that context - who has rights and whose rights outweighs the others.

This is a very interesting paper by Judith Thomson that explores this issue:

Here is an excerpt:



If you would like to read the whole paper (it is fairly easy to read and quite short) I found it at THIS link. (If you can't open that search Judith Jarvis Thomson: A defense of abortion on google and you can find some full prints on the web).

That really is an interesting analogy, and I have two comments.

Firstly, most women are able to proceed with their lives during pregnancy. Granted, they may not feel too hot some of the time, but they do not give up their school, work, or social lives for a majority of the pregnancy, so it is really not comparable to being forced to lie in a hospital bed for 9 months straight. There would have to be severe medical complications for this to be the case, and as I have stated before I condone abortion in response to severe medical complications.

Another flaw in this... I don't classify the baby as alive until 10 weeks gestation. So, I have no problem with a woman taking the morning after pill or having an abortion within the first 10 weeks. So the analogy is not comparable. It is more like, the person is given the choice as to whether or not to "plug" yourself into the violinist's body, and if you say yes and don't change your mind before the surgery to plug you in has gone too far, then you have an obligation to save his life.

It is the same with CPR. No-one is forced to give a non-responsive person CPR, but once they have started, they are legally obligated to continue until an ambulance arrives.

[footfoot]

Originally Posted by PhoenixAlive

That really is an interesting analogy, and I have two comments.

Firstly, most women are able to proceed with their lives during pregnancy. Granted, they may not feel too hot some of the time, but they do not give up their school, work, or social lives for a majority of the pregnancy, so it is really not comparable to being forced to lie in a hospital bed for 9 months straight. There would have to be severe medical complications for this to be the case, and as I have stated before I condone abortion in response to severe medical complications.

Another flaw in this... I don't classify the baby as alive until 10 weeks gestation. So, I have no problem with a woman taking the morning after pill or having an abortion within the first 10 weeks. So the analogy is not comparable. It is more like, the person is given the choice as to whether or not to "plug" yourself into the violinist's body, and if you say yes and don't change your mind before the surgery to plug you in has gone too far, then you have an obligation to save his life.

It is the same with CPR. No-one is forced to give a non-responsive person CPR, but once they have started, they are legally obligated to continue until an ambulance arrives.

I don't know if you read the whole paper, but I encourage you to do so. She uses analogies other than the violinist (such as a person occupying a house).

Women are allowed to proceed with their lives as in breathing and living when pregnant but maternal-leave can jeopardize a job not to mention pregnancy in general can challenge or break financial security. Also, pregnancy (of an unwanted child) affects the mental health of a woman as well as any relationships she has with work, boyfriend/husband, parents, etc.

I especially point to Judith Thomson's paper because she addresses the issue of whose rights - mother's or fetus's - outweigh the other's if at all.

Now some people are inclined to use the term "right" in such a way that it follows from the fact that you ought to allow a person to use your body for the hour he needs, that he has a right to use your body for the hour he needs, even though he has not been given that right by any person or act. They may say that it follows also that if you refuse, you act unjustly toward him. This use of the term is perhaps so common that it cannot be called wrong; nevertheless it seems to me to be an unfortunate loosening of what we would do better to keep a tight rein on. Suppose that box of chocolates I mentioned earlier had not been given to both boys jointly, but was given only to the older boy. There he sits stolidly eating his way through the box. his small brother watching enviously. Here we are likely to say, "You ought not to be so mean. You ought to give your brother some of those chocolates." My own view is that it just does not follow from the truth of this that the brother has any right to any of the chocolates. If the boy refuses to give his brother any he is greedy stingy. callous--but not unjust. I suppose that the people I have in mind will say it does follow that the brother has a right to some of the chocolates, and thus that the boy does act unjustly if he refuses to give his brother any. But the effect of saying, this is to obscure what we should keep distinct, namely the difference between the boy's refusal in this case and the boy's refusal in the earlier case, in which the box was given to both boys jointly, and in which the small brother thus had what was from any point of view clear title to half.

I hope that a few people in this thread will read the paper again, here at THIS link, and discuss what it brings up because we have for so many pages hashed and rehashed the same topics over and over. Let us discuss a new angle.

[emma01]

Originally Posted by DeadlySin

Such as a teenager who gets pregnant and the boyfriend leaves.
That means she will be stressed out and alone.
I think she can decide to abort it or put it up for adoption.

So you think it is okay to kill a baby just because a 19 year old didn't choose her boyfriend wisely enough. I certainly don't agree with this - but what did u mean by teenger? 13 years old? 19 Years old? If 13, then well abortion would be a reasonable consequence considering she has no means of looking after this baby by herself. If you mean 19 years old, I definately disagree. A 19 year old should know better about what sex does, and should also know that you don't just have unprotected sex with someone who you wouldn't want to have a baby with, (unless of course contraception failed)

[shimmeringfaerie]

I don't understand why some people think abortion isn't okay if you have unprotected sex by choice, but it is okay if contraception fails. If you are using contraception then you should know that it isn't 100% effective. So why shouldn't they have to deal with the consequences in the same way as people who don't use protection?


[Don't get me wrong, I'm still pro-choice, I just don't understand why there are two different rules...]

[PhoenixAlive]

Okay, I read the rest of the paper, and I have a few more comments.

Originally Posted by footfoot

She uses analogies other than the violinist (such as a person occupying a house).

That is another interesting analogy, however, she did not mention that if a vagrant enters your house and lives there for a year, legally you cannot remove them as they are a squatter and have to leave of their own choice...

There are many laws which precede what I believe should be made law regarding abortion. With regard to squatters, as well as CPR as I mentioned before, you are not obligated to do anything, but after a certain point or a certain amount of time, you are legally obligated to either continue CPR until an ambulance arrives, or allow the person to live in your house until he chooses to leave.

This is the same thing that I want for abortion. Most women discover they are pregnant within 5 weeks. At that point and even a few weeks after, all it takes is a pill to end the pregnancy, and the baby is nothing but a cluster of cells. However, as the author of this article states herself, by 10 weeks the baby "already has a face, arms and less, fingers and toes; it has internal organs, and brain activity is detectable". At this point I would consider it murder to abort the baby, and could only condone it in the case of medical risk to the mother.

Originally Posted by footfoot

Women are allowed to proceed with their lives as in breathing and living when pregnant but maternal-leave can jeopardize a job not to mention pregnancy in general can challenge or break financial security. Also, pregnancy (of an unwanted child) affects the mental health of a woman as well as any relationships she has with work, boyfriend/husband, parents, etc.

Most women don't go on maternity leave until at least 6 months gestation. And by this point they should legally be able to elect to have a c-section to remove the baby, as it would be able to live on its own. Pregnancy can't do anything to financial stability. Its actually keeping the baby that costs money. Pregnancy costs... gas to drive to the doctor's once a month? Most women don't even show until 6 months, so she wouldn't have to tell anyone she was pregnant if she didn't want to. She would just carry the baby until 23 weeks.

I also want to direct your attention towards this portion of the article.

Second, while I am arguing for the permissibility of abortion in some cases, I am not arguing for the right to secure the death of the unborn child. It is easy to confuse these two things in that up to a certain point in the life of the fetus it is not able to survive outside the mother's body; hence removing it from her body guarantees its death. But they are importantly different. I have argued that you are not morally required to spend nine months in bed, sustaining the life of that violinist, but to say this is by no means to say that if, when you unplug yourself, there is a miracle and he survives, you then have a right to turn round and slit his throat. You may detach yourself even if this costs him his life; you have no right to be guaranteed his death, by some other means, if unplugging yourself does not kill him. There are some people who will feel dissatisfied by this feature of my argument. A woman may be utterly devastated by the thought of a child, a bit of herself, put out for adoption and never seen or heard of again. She may therefore want not merely that the child be detached from her, but more, that it die. Some opponents of abortion are inclined to regard this as beneath contempt--thereby showing insensitivity to what is surely a powerful source of despair. All the same, I agree that the desire for the child's death is not one which anybody may gratify, should it turn out to be possible to detach the child alive.

At this place, however, it should be remembered that we have only been pretending throughout that the fetus is a human being from the moment of conception. A very early abortion is surely not the killing of a person, and so is not dealt with by anything I have said here.

This is basically what I have said. Previous to 10 weeks you can terminate pregnancy without any issue as the fetus isn't a person.

After 10 weeks, you can carry the baby for less than three more months and then have a c-section to allow it to survive.

[Jocelyn.]

Originally Posted by ShimmeringFaerie

I don't understand why some people think abortion isn't okay if you have unprotected sex by choice, but it is okay if contraception fails. If you are using contraception then you should know that it isn't 100% effective. So why shouldn't they have to deal with the consequences in the same way as people who don't use protection?


[Don't get me wrong, I'm still pro-choice, I just don't understand why there are two different rules...]

I haven't exactly been apart of this debate, and don't really feel like reading pages and pages of stuff I've heard a million time. I just saw this comment and had to state how much I agree.

If you believe conception creates a life that has rights, then how can the appropriateness of abortion be situational? I don't agree with using abortion as a form of birth control (meaning, being stupid about using contraception and having multiple abortions), but whether you are allowed to have one should not be based on how the life was created. If the legality of abortion would become based on situations, then the only way I could agree with it is if abortion were only legal to those facing health risks because of the pregnancy (pregnancy due to rape and pregnancy in girls who are underage could even fall under this category. I believe "health risk" could be defined in multiple way such a psychological health and physical health). But whether the person got caught up in the moment and didn't use protection, had a condom break, whatever the case, should have nothing to do with it.

[footfoot]

First I want to say thanks for reading the article. This is a much more interesting conversation than the circular arguments which have played out 3 pages too long.

Originally Posted by PhoenixAlive

That is another interesting analogy, however, she did not mention that if a vagrant enters your house and lives there for a year, legally you cannot remove them as they are a squatter and have to leave of their own choice...

There are many laws which precede what I believe should be made law regarding abortion. With regard to squatters, as well as CPR as I mentioned before, you are not obligated to do anything, but after a certain point or a certain amount of time, you are legally obligated to either continue CPR until an ambulance arrives, or allow the person to live in your house until he chooses to leave.

This is the same thing that I want for abortion. Most women discover they are pregnant within 5 weeks. At that point and even a few weeks after, all it takes is a pill to end the pregnancy, and the baby is nothing but a cluster of cells. However, as the author of this article states herself, by 10 weeks the baby "already has a face, arms and less, fingers and toes; it has internal organs, and brain activity is detectable". At this point I would consider it murder to abort the baby, and could only condone it in the case of medical risk to the mother.

Which is why I agree that there should (and is) a point at which abortion is illegal. Of course late-term abortions (for which George Killer was murdered) are thus highly controversial. It is also subjective at what point is a "late term" abortion. I will admit that frowning on late-term abortions is hypocritical in a pro-choice stance, and I have yet to find a way personally to reconcile these two opinions.

Most women don't go on maternity leave until at least 6 months gestation. And by this point they should legally be able to elect to have a c-section to remove the baby, as it would be able to live on its own. Pregnancy can't do anything to financial stability. Its actually keeping the baby that costs money. Pregnancy costs... gas to drive to the doctor's once a month? Most women don't even show until 6 months, so she wouldn't have to tell anyone she was pregnant if she didn't want to. She would just carry the baby until 23 weeks.

I have to disagree. Women have to change their lifestyles, their diets, take nutrition pills, etc. Not to mention a lot of tests that are done (even required in some states) on the fetus to test for preexisting conditions (which is a different topic entirely). While some women have smooth pregnancies, others have horribly intrusive ones in which they suffer morning sickness, exhaustion, bed-rest, etc. These are instances where the mother's life is not in danger but she is physically exhausted by the pregnancy. There's the cliche' Time is Money, so even if say the woman does not have tests, take the extra pills, or go to the doctor often, the inconveniences of pregnancy can affect work-ethic etc (for instance my friend's sister is pregnant and she owns her own company in which she is the only employee. Her pregnancy has affected her ability to work as long or fast as usual and thus her finances are at risk because she has a toddler as well to support.)

This is basically what I have said. Previous to 10 weeks you can terminate pregnancy without any issue as the fetus isn't a person.

After 10 weeks, you can carry the baby for less than three more months and then have a c-section to allow it to survive.

Basically, as I said, I am trying to reconcile my personal feelings on pro-choice with late-term abortions (a point at which a fetus is viable outside of the womb).

Thomson does make issue that what if pregnancy lasted only an hour? Would abortion then be just if it only cost you one hour of your time to have the child? At what point is it not really a burden to carry a child?

Again, suppose pregnancy lasted only an hour, and constituted no threat to life or health. And suppose that a woman becomes pregnant as a result of rape. Admittedly she did not voluntarily do anything to bring about the existence of a child. Admittedly she did nothing at all which would give the unborn person a right to the use of her body. All the same it might well be said, as in the newly amended violinist story, that she ought to allow it to remain for that hour--that it would be indecent of her to refuse.

Now some people are inclined to use the term "right" in such a way that it follows from the fact that you ought to allow a person to use your body for the hour he needs, that he has a right to use your body for the hour he needs, even though he has not been given that right by any person or act. They may say that it follows also that if you refuse, you act unjustly toward him. This use of the term is perhaps so common that it cannot be called wrong; nevertheless it seems to me to be an unfortunate loosening of what we would do better to keep a tight rein on. Suppose that box of chocolates I mentioned earlier had not been given to both boys jointly, but was given only to the older boy. There he sits stolidly eating his way through the box. his small brother watching enviously. Here we are likely to say, "You ought not to be so mean. You ought to give your brother some of those chocolates." My own view is that it just does not follow from the truth of this that the brother has any right to any of the chocolates. If the boy refuses to give his brother any he is greedy stingy. callous--but not unjust. I suppose that the people I have in mind will say it does follow that the brother has a right to some of the chocolates, and thus that the boy does act unjustly if he refuses to give his brother any. But the effect of saying, this is to obscure what we should keep distinct, namely the difference between the boy's refusal in this case and the boy's refusal in the earlier case, in which the box was given to both boys jointly, and in which the small brother thus had what was from any point of view clear title to half.

I am trying to figure out if she is saying then, that abortion can be cruel or indecent, but still should be a woman's "right" despite the 'small inconvenience' posed to her such as a one hour pregnancy. She has already stated, as you pointed out, that the point at which a fetus is a person, but it seems that one could use this paragraph to defend the stance that abortion should be a right even if it is cruel.

[emma01]

Originally Posted by ShimmeringFaerie

I don't understand why some people think abortion isn't okay if you have unprotected sex by choice, but it is okay if contraception fails. If you are using contraception then you should know that it isn't 100% effective. So why shouldn't they have to deal with the consequences in the same way as people who don't use protection?

Okay it may just be me but I thought it was obvious, if you have unprotected sex, you are pretty much setting yourself up to have a baby, usualy when you have unprotected sex, you are either planning on using the ECP, planning to have a baby or just plain stupid. If you use contraception, you are obviously intenting NOT to have kids, and you did everything possible to PREVENT it from happening an shouldn't be punished for somethin that isn't your fault, most people use contraception for a reason.
Isn't that common sence?

[shimmeringfaerie]

Originally Posted by emma01

Okay it may just be me but I thought it was obvious, if you have unprotected sex, you are pretty much setting yourself up to have a baby, usualy when you have unprotected sex, you are either planning on using the ECP, planning to have a baby or just plain stupid. If you use contraception, you are obviously intenting NOT to have kids, and you did everything possible to PREVENT it from happening an shouldn't be punished for somethin that isn't your fault, most people use contraception for a reason.
Isn't that common sence?

But if you are intelligent enough to use contraception, then you should be intelligent enough to know that no contraception is 100%. And if you know that, then sure, you can minimise your risks, but you still know they exist. Doing everything possible to avoid having kids would be abstaining. If you have sex by choice, even if you use contraception, it is still your "fault" if you get pregnant.

Common sense would be not having sex at all until you know you can handle the possibility of getting pregnant.

[PhoenixAlive]

Originally Posted by footfoot

Which is why I agree that there should (and is) a point at which abortion is illegal. Of course late-term abortions (for which George Killer was murdered) are thus highly controversial. It is also subjective at what point is a "late term" abortion. I will admit that frowning on late-term abortions is hypocritical in a pro-choice stance, and I have yet to find a way personally to reconcile these two opinions.

I don't know if you are brushed up on Canadian abortion law, but here we have no late-term restriction. Women can legally get abortions here up until their baby is due, and it is fully funded by the Canadian government. Which is why I am so adamant about this... Also, even in the US late-term abortions are only considered late-term after 25 weeks or so. I see the baby as alive after 10 weeks, so I personally find this very distressing, especially since it has been proven that babies can survive outside the womb as of 23 weeks. So basically it is legal to kill babies which could live on their own.

I'm sorry I can't respond to more of your post right now but I have to go to work. I'll finish later. Cheers.

[PhoenixAlive]

Originally Posted by footfoot

I have to disagree. Women have to change their lifestyles, their diets, take nutrition pills, etc. Not to mention a lot of tests that are done (even required in some states) on the fetus to test for preexisting conditions (which is a different topic entirely). While some women have smooth pregnancies, others have horribly intrusive ones in which they suffer morning sickness, exhaustion, bed-rest, etc. These are instances where the mother's life is not in danger but she is physically exhausted by the pregnancy. There's the cliche' Time is Money, so even if say the woman does not have tests, take the extra pills, or go to the doctor often, the inconveniences of pregnancy can affect work-ethic etc (for instance my friend's sister is pregnant and she owns her own company in which she is the only employee. Her pregnancy has affected her ability to work as long or fast as usual and thus her finances are at risk because she has a toddler as well to support.)

Fair enough, but I was required to do the tests you mentioned, and it took a couple hours out of my day 4 times during my pregnancy. I am assuming that most women who would want to abort would not have another child to support, since for whatever reason they do not feel capable of caring for the baby they are currently carrying.

Originally Posted by footfoot

I am trying to figure out if she is saying then, that abortion can be cruel or indecent, but still should be a woman's "right" despite the 'small inconvenience' posed to her such as a one hour pregnancy. She has already stated, as you pointed out, that the point at which a fetus is a person, but it seems that one could use this paragraph to defend the stance that abortion should be a right even if it is cruel.

I'm not sure... She is definitely making a point of separating the notion of morality from legality and the rights of the woman. The problem with this analogy is that denying the brother a share of the cookies will not cause him to die. The weight of the scenario is horribly downplayed.

The basis which this entire article seems to rely on is that a woman does not invite a baby to inhabit her body, whether or not the sex is consensual, or contraception was used. I agree with this. The legality of abortion should not rely on whether a condom was used. However if a woman does not terminate the pregnancy by 10 weeks (which is quite a large window of opportunity) , by her negligence to do so, she assumes responsibility to continue the pregnancy.

[emma01]

Originally Posted by ShimmeringFaerie

But if you are intelligent enough to use contraception, then you should be intelligent enough to know that no contraception is 100%. And if you know that, then sure, you can minimise your risks, but you still know they exist. Doing everything possible to avoid having kids would be abstaining. If you have sex by choice, even if you use contraception, it is still your "fault" if you get pregnant.

Common sense would be not having sex at all until you know you can handle the possibility of getting pregnant.

Yes, everyone knows that it is not 100% effective, but it is more effective than NO protection. And if you used contraception, you were obviously thinking "I don't want to get pregnant" so at least the woman tried to prevent it.

[shimmeringfaerie]

Originally Posted by emma01

Yes, everyone knows that it is not 100% effective, but it is more effective than NO protection. And if you used contraception, you were obviously thinking "I don't want to get pregnant" so at least the woman tried to prevent it.

I still don't see what your point is. If you have sex by choice, even with contraception, why shouldn't you have to deal with the consequences of your actions? Why should women who use contraception be allowed abortions and women who don't shouldn't be allowed?

[emma01]

Originally Posted by ShimmeringFaerie

I still don't see what your point is. If you have sex by choice, even with contraception, why shouldn't you have to deal with the consequences of your actions? Why should women who use contraception be allowed abortions and women who don't shouldn't be allowed?

I still dont see how you can't see the difference! I don't know how to explain this...okay imagine two women, both having sex but do not want babies. One of these women are on birth control pill, and used a condom when having sex, one of the women didn't use a condom and is not on the pill, they both get pregnant and want abortions. Who would you feel more sympathy for, the one that actualy bothered to make sure her partner had condoms, or the one who didn't use any?

If you still don't see the difference, then I will put it like this, your friend had drowned in the pool and there was not much hope to save her. One girl and performed CPR on her and called for help as quick as possible, but it was too late. Another girl didn't bother trying to save her, and didn't call for help asap. Either way she died, but would you not sympathise more with the girl who tried to prevent her from dying EVEN THOUGH IT WAS NOT AFFECTIVE?
I know this has nothing to do with abortion but im trying to get you to understand what I mean.

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

Originally Posted by emma01

I still dont see how you can't see the difference! I don't know how to explain this...okay imagine two women, both having sex but do not want babies. One of these women are on birth control pill, and used a condom when having sex, one of the women didn't use a condom and is not on the pill, they both get pregnant and want abortions. Who would you feel more sympathy for, the one that actualy bothered to make sure her partner had condoms, or the one who didn't use any?

If I'm understanding your argument correctly, you're saying the lady who did use protection that failed should get more sympathy because she obviously did not intend on having the child. You also asserted that you are more willing to support abortion in cases where there's more sympathy to be given to the female. The thing is and this may be where ShimmeringFaerie is confused, sympathy can be given to both women (same amount or more for one women over the other). It's subjective and flimsy because you can easily make an appeal for sympathy for both women.

I don't see why it matters though as to how they got pregnant, which also may be where ShimmeringFaerie is confused. If a woman has sex but does not want a child, she should have access to abortion simple as that. It should not matter as to whether she used the birth control and whatever else as it's implying the situation of intercourse must meet all the criteria you set forth, otherwise no abortion.

That's pretty dumb to me because the abortion is simply there to end the fetus so the future child does not occur. How one got pregnant is irrelevant to the procedure yet you're making it obligatory and relevant. It's like saying you go into a hospital with a broken arm and the doctor asks how the arm got broken. Depending on the situation, the doctor may say "too bad, you deserved it so no cast, sling, splint or pain medications for you". However, it doesn't matter on the event that occurred when the arm was broken, all that matters is the fact that the arm was broken.

[shimmeringfaerie]

Thank you, I'm glad that someone else understands what I'm saying .

Who would you feel more sympathy for, the one that actualy bothered to make sure her partner had condoms, or the one who didn't use any?

I wouldn't feel sympathy for either of them (assuming they are just two normal women, not children or anything like that). They both chose to have sex, knowing that sex can result in pregnancy. Just because one woman tried to minimise her risks and was just unlucky, that doesn't make her any more deserving of an abortion.

I can see the difference between the two women obviously, but I don't see why that difference matters?

[emma01]

Well just to make it clear, im not for abortion in either cases, but as I have been told I have to either be pro-choice or pro-life, and i certainly don't believe it should be ILLEGAL, because there are certain reasons that I think abortion should be allowed, such as if the woman was raped or is too young to actually look after a baby, there will be other reasons that I would accept to, but simply not wanting a baby is not a good reason for me.
And i get what you mean by the broken arm, but in my defence, here's another example, if two women have cancer, one is 80 and the other is 40, they will treat the 40 year old over the 80 year old. And don't try to proove me wrong as this is happening to my family friend, he has prostate cancer and they are just going to let nature take it's course because he is too old, so YES, doctors do sometimes act depending on the situation.

[shimmeringfaerie]

Originally Posted by emma01

Well just to make it clear, im not for abortion in either cases, but as I have been told I have to either be pro-choice or pro-life, and i certainly don't believe it should be ILLEGAL, because there are certain reasons that I think abortion should be allowed, such as if the woman was raped or is too young to actually look after a baby, there will be other reasons that I would accept to, but simply not wanting a baby is not a good reason for me.
And i get what you mean by the broken arm, but in my defence, here's another example, if two women have cancer, one is 80 and the other is 40, they will treat the 40 year old over the 80 year old. And don't try to proove me wrong as this is happening to my family friend, he has prostate cancer and they are just going to let nature take it's course because he is too old, so YES, doctors do sometimes act depending on the situation.

If simply not wanting a baby is not a reason, and we've already established that someone who has consensual sex with contraception doesn't want a baby, how does that relate to your point? I know that you are against abortion, but I don't understand why you aren't against it if the woman had a contraception failure. Basically, if you have consensual sex (at a suitable age), you know the risks, with or without contraception, and you should have to accept those consequences.

And your cancer example is a completely different situation. Yes, they have the same condition, but age is a factor. In the pregnancy example, the only difference is how they got pregnant (ie with/without contraception).

[Stardaze]

If it's a contraception fail i still think it's wrong. When you have sex you KNOW nothing is 100% effective. The only way to be POSITIVE that your not going to get pregnant is to NOT HAVE SEX AT ALL. So to me nothing is really an excuse.. But that's just my opinion. It should always be in the back of your mind that nothing is one hundred percent effective & if you don't know that, you should be having sex at all, should you?

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

Originally Posted by emma01

Well just to make it clear, im not for abortion in either cases, but as I have been told I have to either be pro-choice or pro-life, and i certainly don't believe it should be ILLEGAL, because there are certain reasons that I think abortion should be allowed, such as if the woman was raped or is too young to actually look after a baby, there will be other reasons that I would accept to, but simply not wanting a baby is not a good reason for me.

Emma, you really should read your previous posts before making another post because you've managed to just disregard what you've been saying. In this post, you say that not wanting the baby is a good enough reason for abortion. However, in the previous post, you were in favour when protection was used but failed and not when no protection was used. Hence, you've just said you're in favour of abortion in either situation equally and in other situations where the woman finds it undesirable to have the baby.

Originally Posted by emma01

And i get what you mean by the broken arm, but in my defence, here's another example, if two women have cancer, one is 80 and the other is 40, they will treat the 40 year old over the 80 year old. And don't try to proove me wrong as this is happening to my family friend, he has prostate cancer and they are just going to let nature take it's course because he is too old, so YES, doctors do sometimes act depending on the situation.

If you understand what my analogy meant, then you wouldn't attempt to refute it with something that is irrelevant to the topic at hand. If you noticed, my analogy was using the same argument as what you were using. This is not about hospital policies, this is about the debate on abortion. If you want to refute someone, make sure your argument or example is something that is relevant, not something that is being nit-picky with the end result being insignificant to this topic. Debate 101.

But to humour your irrelevant tangent, you're right about the age factor. Congrats on that.

[losing touch.]

Originally Posted by Angelina.

If it's a contraception fail i still think it's wrong. When you have sex you KNOW nothing is 100% effective. The only way to be POSITIVE that your not going to get pregnant is to NOT HAVE SEX AT ALL. So to me nothing is really an excuse.. But that's just my opinion. It should always be in the back of your mind that nothing is one hundred percent effective & if you don't know that, you should be having sex at all, should you?

You can't expect people who don't want children to just never have sex.

[emma01]

Originally Posted by WOW!USaidSomethingSmart!

Emma, you really should read your previous posts before making another post because you've managed to just disregard what you've been saying. In this post, you say that not wanting the baby is a good enough reason for abortion. However, in the previous post, you were in favour when protection was used but failed and not when no protection was used. Hence, you've just said you're in favour of abortion in either situation equally and in other situations where the woman finds it undesirable to have the baby..

I read other posts and I have discussed this with mum, my opinion changed...gosh how dare my opinion change I think I need beheaded.

Originally Posted by WOW!USaidSomethingSmart!

If you understand what my analogy meant, then you wouldn't attempt to refute it with something that is irrelevant to the topic at hand. If you noticed, my analogy was using the same argument as what you were using. This is not about hospital policies, this is about the debate on abortion. If you want to refute someone, make sure your argument or example is something that is relevant, not something that is being nit-picky with the end result being insignificant to this topic. Debate 101.

But to humour your irrelevant tangent, you're right about the age factor. Congrats on that.

Okay, I UNDERSTOOD what your anology meant, does not mean i cannot disagree, or give another example. And yes this debate is about abortion, so don't go telling me to stay on topic when I was not the one to bring up broken arms.

[emma01]

Originally Posted by Elle.

You can't expect people who don't want children to just never have sex.

I definately agree with this!

[Algernon]

Originally Posted by emma01

I definately agree with this!

But you can expect them to take charge of their ovulation. The chances when taking the pill, the patch, the ring, the implant... They are pretty much 100% I don't know someone who's gotten pregnant unless they missed their pills or took medicine and didn't ask the doc if it would screw with bc.

Abortion is selfish. I understand if It's going to kill the mother at an early stage, or It's a tubal pregancy... But just because you messed up? Too bad, too sad.

[Algernon]

Example. If you're fourteen, and your boyfriend is 15, and you guys are using condoms only and one breaks and you're too "scared" to get Plan B.... That's just pure idiotic. I've been sexual active for four years. I'm on the pill, been on all kinds of birth control, I've never been pregnant, and I'm STD free. There's NOOOOO reason why the rest of the population can't because I'm just an average woman.

[losing touch.]

Originally Posted by Algernon

But you can expect them to take charge of their ovulation. The chances when taking the pill, the patch, the ring, the implant... They are pretty much 100% I don't know someone who's gotten pregnant unless they missed their pills or took medicine and didn't ask the doc if it would screw with bc.

Abortion is selfish. I understand if It's going to kill the mother at an early stage, or It's a tubal pregancy... But just because you messed up? Too bad, too sad.

But people do get pregnant when they have taken precautions against it. Forcing a woman to go through 9 months or pregnancy and then have a child that she doesn't want is wrong.

I don't think any of us can say what other people should do with their pregnancies, their bodies.

[shimmeringfaerie]

Originally Posted by emma01

I read other posts and I have discussed this with mum, my opinion changed...gosh how dare my opinion change I think I need beheaded.
.

If you've changed the opinion that you've been arguing for the past couple of posts, maybe you'd like to inform people first? And the use of sarcasm is completely unnecessary.

Originally Posted by emma01

Okay, I UNDERSTOOD what your anology meant, does not mean i cannot disagree, or give another example. And yes this debate is about abortion, so don't go telling me to stay on topic when I was not the one to bring up broken arms.

But your example wasn't about the same points at all. Yours was about age rather than how someone got a certain condition. If your case had been about whether doctors will treat someone who has cancer because of a hereditary condition versus someone who has cancer because they refuse to wear sunscreen, then it would be the same thing.

Originally Posted by emma01

I definately agree with this!

Why? You already said that people who just don't want children shouldn't be allowed abortions. So why would you turn around and say that they should keep having sex when at some point that's going to lead to pregnancy?

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

Originally Posted by emma01

I read other posts and I have discussed this with mum, my opinion changed...gosh how dare my opinion change I think I need beheaded.

Hilarious. If you changed your view, then please clearly state so and why you did, otherwise it's confusing to everyone.

Originally Posted by emma01

Okay, I UNDERSTOOD what your anology meant, does not mean i cannot disagree, or give another example. And yes this debate is about abortion, so don't go telling me to stay on topic when I was not the one to bring up broken arms.

You obviously didn't understand what I meant if you think I brought up the analogy of broken arms for the sheer hell of it or if you focus on the superficiality that broken arms were used in my example. The broken arms aren't meant to be taken literally in this view. Re-read my analogy or your cancer one, then look at your hospital policy one to see how it is unrelated.

You can disagree all you want, I have no problem with that. You can give another example, I'm fine also. However, when you bring up an argument or example that is irrelevant to the topic at hand but persist it is relevant, then it becomes problematic.

[emma01]

Oh dear, this is getting extremely confusing. Just forget everything okay. I cannot debate things like this over the internet when people dont understand what I mean by certain things, (my fault not yours - I am not smart enough to know how to explain things to people 4 years older than me) also sarcasm doesn't go well while talking on the internet...my apologies. I don't think any new points are even going to be brought up in this debate, so i'm going to stop commenting because it's doing my head in. Sorry if i've pissed you off.

[Stardaze]

Originally Posted by Algernon

But you can expect them to take charge of their ovulation. The chances when taking the pill, the patch, the ring, the implant... They are pretty much 100% I don't know someone who's gotten pregnant unless they missed their pills or took medicine and didn't ask the doc if it would screw with bc.

Abortion is selfish. I understand if It's going to kill the mother at an early stage, or It's a tubal pregancy... But just because you messed up? Too bad, too sad.

I agree 100%