Forced abortion

[Russ]

The fact that it's an incubator is incidental to the fact that it's her body and certainly doesn't outweight her right to be the sole arbiter of what happens to her body.

Accepting the responsibility that you may conceive a baby does not mean you can follow that through to the conclusion that abortion is not acceptable. Abortion can be a responsible choice to the fact that you're pregnant (if you dispute this, please demonstrate that it is always irresponsible...)

A baby is a human being, yes. That's why I said, when the foetus can survive outside her body, it's alive. Before that, it's potential, nothing more and you sure can't say that it has any rights that compare to that of the mother.

[MonsieurHulot]

It's not a human being if it cannot survive on its own outside the womb, thus making it no better than a parasite, thus at that point the woman's right to her own body is paramount and she may do whatever she wishes

Why is it not a human being if it can't survive outside the womb?
A parasite doesn't have the amazing potential that a human foetus does, whether or not it is technically a human being at that time. For that reason, it should be protected. If the mother's life or health is at risk, then she should come first, but aborting an organism that, if left to grow naturally, will become a human being, is in my opinion wrong.

The fact that it's an incubator is incidental to the fact that it's her body and certainly doesn't outweight her right to be the sole arbiter of what happens to her body.

Accepting the responsibility that you may conceive a baby does not mean you can follow that through to the conclusion that abortion is not acceptable. Abortion can be a responsible choice to the fact that you're pregnant (if you dispute this, please demonstrate that it is always irresponsible...)

A baby is a human being, yes. That's why I said, when the foetus can survive outside her body, it's alive. Before that, it's potential, nothing more and you sure can't say that it has any rights that compare to that of the mother.

First, babies that cannot live unsupported out of the womb- e.g. very premature babies- have been successfully raised and become healthy, normal people with the help of machines, and doctors. For that reason I believe that a baby does not necessarily need to be able to survive outside of the womb to be called human.
Second, I think that the only time an abortion could be called 'responsible' is if the mother's health is at great risk.

Can we not turn this into an abortion debate? This is not an abortion debate, and the original issue can be discussed without having to discuss abortion, but I see where both Russ and MonseiurHulot are coming from.

Yes, it is the responsibility of the woman if she chooses to have sex without protection, however, there may be special cases which we haven't considered yet, so I think it's not something that we can say is right or wrong, it depends on the situation.

Yes, sorry.

[paulsterio]

I generally find that there are people who believe that abortion is wrong "just cause" and they have no real reasons behind it, but here's what I think on abortion.

Abortion should be allowed but I don't think that it should be a free-for-all, we don't want to be reckless and have women performing abortions as a means of being careless and not using adequate protection. Moral issues aside, there's also a financial issue, abortions are not exactly cheap to perform.

Apart from that, I agree that there are situations where an abortion should be allowed - for example when the mother cannot care for the baby...etc. I'm sure you can think of some.

But all in all, I just think it's a case-by-case thing, I'm neither for nor against abortion, I just think that we have to consider every case on its merits rather than use the "blanket" system.

[Russ]

Yes, it is the responsibility of the woman if she chooses to have sex without protection, however, there may be special cases which we haven't considered yet, so I think it's not something that we can say is right or wrong, it depends on the situation.

Is this a serious post or did you rush it and not express yourself well?

[ninwa]

@MonsieurHulot, since when is "amazing potential" a criterion for being human. Does that make your sperm human? Are you committing infanticide every time you jack off? What about every time a woman has her period, because that's when she loses an egg, which also has "potential" to become human?

An abortion is responsible where the mother and/or father is incapable of supporting a child and giving it the good life it deserves.

Frankly, if you think you have more right to dictate what a woman does with her OWN body than the woman herself, you are a terrible, evil person and you should take a very good look at yourself and your "morals".

[paulsterio]

Yes, it is the responsibility of the woman if she chooses to have sex without protection, however, there may be special cases which we haven't considered yet, so I think it's not something that we can say is right or wrong, it depends on the situation.

Is this a serious post or did you rush it and not express yourself well?

Neither really, it was just to be diplomatic with MonseiurHulot because I think that was what he was getting at with his last post, basically I was just saying "that might be the case, however..."

[Russ]

I meant more that you were putting responsibility for contraception onto the woman >.<

First, babies that cannot live unsupported out of the womb- e.g. very premature babies- have been successfully raised and become healthy, normal people with the help of machines, and doctors. For that reason I believe that a baby does not necessarily need to be able to survive outside of the womb to be called human.

I am aware of this, yes. My point is that they required medical attention. If you have a reason to think that something that, by itself, is not capable of 'living' or developing and surviving should be termed human, please let me know. If you take a fertilized egg out of the mother at any stage before it becomes capable of survival, it will die. Because of this, why should our interventions matter? Surely you're not putting "potential" above actual life?

Once you buy into the idea that potential life is valuable, how do you justify the loss of other potential? When you lose cells every day, that technically have the potential to become people, isn't that morally the same?

Second, I think that the only time an abortion could be called 'responsible' is if the mother's health is at great risk.

Isn't this just agreeing with me that her right to life and what that entails takes precedence over the 'life' of a foetus?

Moral issues aside, there's also a financial issue, abortions are not exactly cheap to perform.

Wut, they're definitely cheaper than the inevitable cost to the state of a new baby and subsidizing its life

[MonsieurHulot]

@MonsieurHulot, since when is "amazing potential" a criterion for being human. Does that make your sperm human? Are you committing infanticide every time you jack off? What about every time a woman has her period, because that's when she loses an egg, which also has "potential" to become human?

No, because in neither of those cases is the egg fertilised, which is the first step for creating a baby. Before fertilisation, the two need each other before there is the possibility of a baby being conceived.

An abortion is responsible where the mother and/or father is incapable of supporting a child and giving it the good life it deserves.

Adoption is a much better option in that case.

Frankly, if you think you have more right to dictate what a woman does with her OWN body than the woman herself, you are a terrible, evil person and you should take a very good look at yourself and your "morals".

I don't believe I have any right to dictate what a woman does with her body, but I do believe that I have a right to be able to express  concerns for members of the society I live in. By following your logic, someone who believes that people shouldn't be able to kill one another (dictating what people do with their bodies, to other people's bodies) then they are a "terrible, evil person".

[paulsterio]

Wut, they're definitely cheaper than the inevitable cost to the state of a new baby and subsidizing its life

No, I meant compared to contraceptive measures, like I'm just afraid that there might be some who think "it's OK, I won't bother with the pill, I could always get an abortion."

[Special At Specialist]

I don't think that everyone should have an invariable right to their own body. For example, if you went to a psychiatrist and told them that you had the intention of committing suicide, they would report it to the police who would trap you in an institution to prevent you from harming yourself. Another example is if you were a marine with the responsibility of defending your country and then you chose to abandon your post, you would be liable for charges on desertion. To me, these laws sound quite reasonable. In the same way, I think that a woman who chooses to have sex whilst being aware of the effects of her actions should have to live with the consequences. I make exceptions for disasters such as rape or poverty, and I would also make exceptions if the fetus is less than a certain percent developed, but that's about it.

[ninwa]

Right, I forgot you were the supreme arbiter of at what point something becomes a "potential for life", rather than a "potential for a potential".

Adoption. Are you fucking serious? I'm just going to post this, because she's said it better than I ever could have.

A common rebuttal, when the abortion debate comes up: why abort when there are so many happy, willing, sometimes even desperate adoptive parents just waiting for reluctant moms to hand over newborns?

This argument seems to assume that pregnancy is easy. Or at least not debilitating. I am 4 months pregnant right now, and I can't imagine anyone who has been pregnant telling a young woman to just go ahead and go through with the pregnancy to eventually adopt it out. Mind you, I think it's amazingly generous when women do decide to do that (especially my brother's birth mom, I am grateful to her every day!) but I am frustrated with people pressuring pregnant women into carrying to term.

Many women have "morning sickness" that lasts all day, every day, for many weeks at a time. It's not uncommon to end up in the ER with dehydration that you can't combat with fluids, since you vomit them up. Hope you have good health insurance to cover that! Pregnant women can find themselves cripplingly exhausted, unable to complete work or school assignments. At 7 weeks, I fell asleep in the middle of a high-anxiety standardized exam.

Pregnancy is also quite painful well before labor. Cramps as your uterus grows, something called "round ligament pain" which is a sharp, horrible pain when you sneeze, cough, or just move too quickly (like jumping out of a car), along with other aches and pains.

Later term, pregnant woman can find themselves on bedrest, a treatment the American Pregnancy Association calls "common" and is used to treat a pretty wide variety of complications. Good luck keeping your job or keeping up with your schoolwork if you're not supposed to be leaving a bed! Not to mention that you can't cook, drive or do chores.

And then, the labor. Everyone knows it's painful, but there's also a long recovery after even relatively easy births. My doctor is recommending that I don't plan do to much of anything for at least the first month, and that's assuming everything goes well (as in, no emergency c-section, which is also quite common).

No question, pregnancy is a huge burden on a woman, for the better part of a year, even when nothing goes wrong. It's not a discussion with room for this glib, simplistic response.

Last year, I was a gestational surrogate. I chose to help make a family and sailed through another easy pregnancy (my first was amazing). I delivered a perfectly healthy little girl at 36 1/2 weeks and the parents went home thrilled beyond words. Four days after I got home from the hospital, I was back. But now I was in complete congestive heart failure and my heart was on the verge of giving out completely. I had developed something called Peripartum Cardiomyopathy and my cardiologist said he had never seen any woman deteriorate as quickly as I had. I almost died and I spent 5 days in the hospital recovering. Now, because of the high risk of going into heart failure again, I can't physically risk having any more children of my own. I'm not sorry that I went through with the surrogacy because I absolutely adore that sweet girl and had and I'm great friends with her parents, but to make someone go through a pregnancy just because there are people willing to take the baby is crazy. Imagine if that was your first kid. Imagine that you gave away your only chance at having a baby for the rest of your life. That seems awfully unfair.

I'd just like to add postpartum depression to that list. If you have ever experienced depression, you would know that it is not something to be sniffed at.

You would force an unwilling woman to go through what is a potentially life-threatening, and at the very least an extremely uncomfortable, condition to satisfy your sick sense of "morality"? Then yes, you are an evil person.

By following your logic, someone who believes that people shouldn't be able to kill one another (dictating what people do with their bodies, to other people's bodies) then they are a "terrible, evil person".

I would call that stupid logic, but it would be overly generous of me to even call it logic. What part of killing another person corresponds to doing something with your own body? Because last time I checked, a foetus is part of a woman's body.

I recommend you do some reading and educate yourself. Start with this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion#The_Violinist

[paulsterio]

I don't think that everyone should have an invariable right to their own body. For example, if you went to a psychiatrist and told them that you had the intention of committing suicide, they would report it to the police who would trap you in an institution to prevent you from harming yourself.

I don't think that happens buddy

Another example is if you were a marine with the responsibility of defending your country and then you chose to abandon your post, you would be liable for charges on desertion. To me, these laws sound quite reasonable. In the same way, I think that a woman who chooses to have sex whilst being aware of the effects of her actions should have to live with the consequences. I make exceptions for disasters such as rape or poverty, and I would also make exceptions if the fetus is less than a certain percent developed, but that's about it.

Sometimes contraception does not work, it works most of the time, but not always.
I understand where you're coming from, but it's not black and white, what if the woman had a job when she decided she wanted to have a baby but now lost her job and hence can't support herself + the baby anymore, it's a complicated issue.

[ninwa]

I don't think that everyone should have an invariable right to their own body. For example, if you went to a psychiatrist and told them that you had the intention of committing suicide, they would report it to the police who would trap you in an institution to prevent you from harming yourself. Another example is if you were a marine with the responsibility of defending your country and then you chose to abandon your post, you would be liable for charges on desertion. To me, these laws sound quite reasonable. In the same way, I think that a woman who chooses to have sex whilst being aware of the effects of her actions should have to live with the consequences. I make exceptions for disasters such as rape or poverty, and I would also make exceptions if the fetus is less than a certain percent developed, but that's about it.

Ah I see. Women aren't ever allowed to make mistakes. If they do, punish them forever by saddling them with an unwanted child and the associated financial and emotional burdens! That's totally fair to both the woman and the child.

Jesus Christ I can't believe so-called educated students actually believe this. It's 2012, people.

[MonsieurHulot]

As I've stated before, if the mother's life is at risk, an abortion is an acceptable, albeit undesirable, solution. But I don't think that a baby's life is worth an end to nine months of painful symptoms. Also, in Australia the health insurance issue is not applicable.
I may have presented a confused argument, and if I did I'm sorry, but the crux of my argument is that a baby's life should not be sacrificed for the comfort of the mother, who should accept the risk of pregnancy when deciding to have sex. I repeat, if the mother's life is at riskat any stage, then abortion is acceptable. I respect your opinion, and I thank you for pointing out flaws in mine.

[Thu Thu Train]

I don't think that everyone should have an invariable right to their own body. For example, if you went to a psychiatrist and told them that you had the intention of committing suicide, they would report it to the police who would trap you in an institution to prevent you from harming yourself. Another example is if you were a marine with the responsibility of defending your country and then you chose to abandon your post, you would be liable for charges on desertion. To me, these laws sound quite reasonable.

Neither of those "examples" are people doing what they want with their bodies though. A person who plans to harm themselves isn't thinking rationally and they need help. No perfectly mentally balanced person thinks to themselves "WELL I BETTER JUST JUMP IN FRONT OF THIS TRAIN NOW". If they go to a psychiatrist with the expressed intention of informing the psychiatrist they plan on killing themselves then the psychiatrist then they probably went there to get help to stop themselves from doing this terrible thing.

As for the marine example when you sign up for the marines you pretty much give up any freedoms you had before you joined and until you become a civilian again you have no right to do as you please. You sign up and agree to follow orders and not abandon your post. If you abandon your post you potentially put other peoples lives at risk.

Also:

In the same way, I think that a woman who chooses to have sex whilst being aware of the effects of her actions should have to live with the consequences. I make exceptions for disasters such as rape or poverty, and I would also make exceptions if the fetus is less than a certain percent developed, but that's about it.

Lol. This is a funny stance you take considering last night you were all for the baby being forcefully aborted at 7 months which as far as I know is pretty close to being a fully developed fetus.