The Official Abortion Thread

[Embar Angylwrath]

Embar,

I think the clump of cells is a person as soon as conception occurs because that is when it is unique genetic code that is next to impossible to ever occur again. And I consider any direct action to end that pregnancy killing a person. Yet even with all of those points I am still pro-choice because it is still someone's body having to be the incubator.

I would try to convince the person otherwise, but I will not condemn them or the doctors who perform the procedure. And I think that decision should be made early on in the pregnancy for the safety of the person. Waiting to do a late term abortion is just completely irresponsible.

Rsak, now you're being dishonest, or you've forgotten what you've said before, or you've changed your position.

It's pretty clear here that you think a "clump of cells is a person as soon as conception occurs ". Not potentially a person...

[Kulaf]

To answer Kulaf - pregnancy isn't normally a life-threatening condition. Abortion is always 100% fatal. However, if the mother were placed in a life-threatening condition, you have to save the life of the mother, since without the mother, the child will die anyway.

You'd like it to be that easy because then it doesn't comingle with your stance on the death penalty.....but contrary to how simple you want this to be.....it's not and you know it.

For the sake of arguement let's say that there is a 50% chance that the mother might die if the fetus is carried to term.....and another 10% chance that if carried to the point of surviveabilty that the mother might die from a C-section to remove the baby. Then what Embar?

As you so eliquently put in the death penalty thread......what number does it take? And why should the government decide who lives or dies?

Well, Kulaf. It is that easy. Its the matter of changing perception that is difficult.

And I chuckle when people trying to justify abortion use unrealistic hypotheticals to support a flawed argument. Pregnancy isn't 50% fatal my friend. It just doesn't carry all the OMGRISKORZ that people on your side of the fence would like to portray it. Usually, I see this type of argument when people don't have a logical basis upon which to suport their position. They resort to boogey-men, and situations that just aren't relevant in real life.

Again, if the mother's life is in danger, try to save the mother. If saving the mother inadvertantly results in the death of fetus, then the death is a tragic result of trying to save both.

As to your upside down Flint-Rubble-Double Cake of "why should the government decide who lives or dies", I would say that the government shouldn't say who lives or dies, but also shouldn't allow the the murder of its citizens on the whim of another citizen. Are you saying that the government should just get the hell out of the way and allow anyone to kill another, just because they want to? Is that getting in the way of a decision of who lives and who dies?

Dude, you're making nonsensical arguments while standing on your head, which is probably appropriate since your talking out your ass.

Of course not every pregnancy is life threatening......but some are. And some abortions are for that reason......to save the mothers life. The problem with your stance Embar.....as well you know......is that in the death penalty threads you argue that the government should not be in the business of killing its citizens......but if you had your way and abortion was murder.....then you would need a court order for an abortion and these are the exact sort of questions the governement would be expected to decide.

You know it.....you just can't fit it into your nice little view of the world.

[Rsak]

The reality is you can't define life or the worthiness of life in a biological sense. You can't draw the line at conception, or birth, or viability, because life is an awfully abstract concept. They call it the "circle of life" for a reason - where does the circle begin and end?

I define worth in the sense of that genetic code and an abortion being the loss of that. In the sense that an abortion is ending that genetic code I would agree that it is killing a potential human life. However in the sense that Embar is trying to frame the conversation though I would not call it human since it is not born yet. Autonomy and Viability are required for that but our current legal system does not require sentience with numerous examples such as Shiavo. It was never a question of whether she was human and had rights, but whether her husband was honest in his treatment of her.

And No Embar I am not being dishonest. You seem to be under the impression that you are the authority on the terms in this thread, but I have not agree to any such terminology.

So in addition to the loss of that potential human life I consider it horribly irresponsible to be repeatably seeking abortions or having a late term abortion.

The "micro" Circle of Life is pretty simple. You are conceived, grown, birthed, exist an invariable amount of time, and then you die. That entire process is what living means for an individual.

The "macro" Circle of Life is where it gets more complex and deals with generation spawning another generation and the intermingling of genetic lines.

[Ddrak]

I don't have any problem with Embar questioning my position. I know it's a damn fine line I'm walking with it and it puts my moral beliefs in a very different position to what I believe should be legal.

People who think like Dd and Rsak are on a more precarious position. They see a fetus as human, but are ok with killing that human, even if that human did nothing wrong. They place the value of that human's life solely in the mother's perception of the value of the fetus. They (well, Dd anyway), call them mothers nothing more than incubators, but that belies the truth. Mothers aren't strapped down and warehoused until they give birth. They enjoy all the freedoms any other citizen enjoys, but they are placed in a caregiver role for a few months. To call them nothing but incubators is a mysoginisitic insult, in my opinion. If and when you get pregnant, Select, I doubt you will feel that you are just a baby-support machine.

You're conflating the legal argument with a touch-feely-moral one now, and that just doesn't work. The fundamental question is do you believe that a woman should be legally bound to serve as an incubator for another human for a time, (and here's the double kicker for your position) even if that woman did nothing voluntary to put herself in that situation?

You are giving the baby more rights than the mother, and more importantly, breaking the fundamentally conservative rule that someone's rights stop where someone else's begin. You are very strongly saying the baby's rights subvert any and all of the mother's rights, and that the government should be involved in suppressing those rights of the mother in the interests of the baby.

Dd

[Select]

The problem I have with the laws is they are used as a tool to muddy the abortion debate when I don't see how they are really related.

Agree, I hate that part but I still like the laws since I do place value on the potential human being.

You see it as.. well, I don't know what you see it as, but you don't see it as human. Once relieved of that belief, you can choose to treat a fetus as nothing more than some snot, or a menstrual flow, or a fingernail.

Ouch, give me more credit than that. I put a lot of value on it. I'll blow my nose without a second thought, but I feel ending the life of a potential human being deserves a hell of a lot of careful consideration and responsibility.

If and when you get pregnant, Select, I doubt you will feel that you are just a baby-support machine

Sure, if I WANT the thing inside of me. If I don't want it and I'm being forced to carry it for nine months and go through the health risks, physical/emotional changes, time consumption, financial hits, and lastly career hits, I'm going to feel like a slave to a thing I wanted to be dead.

The fundamental question is do you believe that a woman should be legally bound to serve as an incubator for another human for a time, (and here's the double kicker for your position) even if that woman did nothing voluntary to put herself in that situation?

Dd and I seem to be on the same page with that although we have different views on what that little clump of cells is.

Just because I consider a fetus equivalent to a human life in terms of potential.. it is simply not equal to a human life yet. It has not passed the simple test of existing on its own. The mother has more rights then the fetus because the mother was there first.

I agree with the first part, the last part -no. Too many logical inconsistencies.

And dammit, I had a lot of problems with Fob's post, but I've typed too much and iming Ckador is more fun
Fob, I may get back to you, but if someone else does and I find myself agreeing with them, I'll just say that.

[Arkaron]

I'm something of a walking testimony to "viability" since I was an early 80s premature baby.

There are things you shouldn't legislate, and abortion is one of them to me. That doesn't mean I think it's right or will go out and get one if I get pregnant, but I'm not going to crusade against someone else's ability to obtain one.

That being said, all of the best/permanent forms of contraception are unavailable to me because of my age. All the good contraceptives won't be given to me until I've had children already--most doctors will not do a tubal ligation on a 26 year old.

I accept that getting pregnant might happen if I have sex. I balance that risk by not having sex with knuckle dragging dorks or hipsters. At least the genes are reasonably good.

[Klast Brell]

At what point does a zygote or blastocyst or embryo or fetus become a human being? At the point where is can survive outside the uterus.

What do you mean "survive"? Shit my 50 year old mother wouldn't be able to survive if it wasn't for the state check that came in every month.

<snark>There are a lot of pro lifers who would think her a welfare bum and that she should be allowed to starve to death if she cant get a job. </snark>

[Garrdor]

Everrrrryyyyyyy sperm is sacreeeedddddd

[Rsak]

Lets be perfectly honest here. This topic is a very complex subject matter. It involves beliefs that are felt more then clearly written out, varying perspectives on the subject as well as terminology. It really isn't something that every person can have one post and everyone else really understands what they believe. So I try my best to honestly answer the questions you pose in the framing that I believe you are using. As we reach some equilibrium on the terminology we can stabilize what the various positions are so that each can understand the other.

So even with all of that I can even respect your motives and your conviction on the topic Embar as you twist the terminology to push your agenda, however that does not excuse the hypocritical accusations of dishonesty.

[Klast Brell]

Autonomy and Viability are required for that but our current legal system does not require sentience with numerous examples such as Shiavo. It was never a question of whether she was human and had rights, but whether her husband was honest in his treatment of her.

That may be what you and millions of Americans believe. But there are millions of others who believed that she was a vegetable. That her brain was cottage cheese (which autopsy proved it was) and that there was absolutely no sentience there. We believe that her husband was honest in his treatment of her and it was just a question of whether the support could be turned off on the remaining organs that comprised an empty shell that had not been a human being for many many years.

[Rsak]

Klast,

I will accept after the autopsy that there was no sentience, but that was never a motivating factor. She was autonomous at one point and thus entitled to human rights which include having her husband, next of kin, or power of attorney make a decision of whether to continue life support in the lack of a living will. I don't believe that the husband was fully honest in his motivations, but in hindsight it was ultimately the best decision for Terry.

[Klast Brell]

Around the time the Shiavo case was big in the news there was a flurry of calls going back and forth amongst my family members. We all were letting each other know that if we were in the same situation that life support should not be provided.

[Rsak]

While that is a good thing.. I would recommend having a signed living will which will trump any expression of feelings.

[Embar Angylwrath]

You're conflating the legal argument with a touch-feely-moral one now, and that just doesn't work. The fundamental question is do you believe that a woman should be legally bound to serve as an incubator for another human for a time, (and here's the double kicker for your position) even if that woman did nothing voluntary to put herself in that situation?

Yes and yes. The fetus didn't do anything voluntarily either, did it.

You are giving the baby more rights than the mother, and more importantly, breaking the fundamentally conservative rule that someone's rights stop where someone else's begin. You are very strongly saying the baby's rights subvert any and all of the mother's rights, and that the government should be involved in suppressing those rights of the mother in the interests of the baby.

Dd

I'm giving the baby the same rights as the mother. The right not be killed on a whim. And I am not saying the baby subverts all rights of the mother, and your attempt to portray a mother as some sort of slave is disingenious. The mother is free to go where she wants, enter into contracts, drive a car, hold property, etc. A pregancy isn't a death sentence, as much as Kulaf would like to paint it that way.

What you are trying to do is say a life, in a certain circumstance, is forfeit if it inconveniences another person. Yet we don't allow the taking of life for that reason in any other way, do we? Here's a good example...

You're driving down the road in winter. You see a small child walking alone, so you pick her up (guess what, you inadvertanly just became a care-giver). You drive a bit and ask her where she lives, and if you could take her home. You can see she's very sick. She tells you where she lives, but that is too far away from where you want to go. The hospital too, is out of your way. So you decide you no longer want to deal with this interruption of your life, so you stop the car, and tell the sick little girl to get out, and you drive away. Sick little girl dies of exposure. You go to jail. Why? You have a duty of care to another human being, and its a legally recognized principle.

The fact is, legally, if the fetus is a human being, it has basic human rights. Those human rights must be weighed against the rights of others. The right to life of a human being is the most basic of human rights, and it just about trounces any other right out there.

Dd.. if the fetus is a human, killing it for whatever reason, is murder.

[Ddrak]

The fetus didn't do anything voluntarily either, did it.

Exactly, and I'm saying that neither the mother or the fetus have the right to unconditionally demand shelter from the other.

I'm giving the baby the same rights as the mother. The right not be killed on a whim.

No - you're saying the baby has the absolute right to demand the mother sustains it and the mother has no right to terminate that access. You are saying the mother is a slave to the baby. If a baby kills a mother, would you hold the baby liable for murder?

And I am not saying the baby subverts all rights of the mother

Yes, you are. You are saying the baby's life subverts any and all rights the mother has. If driving a car endangers the baby then you are claiming the mother has no right to drive a car. You are absolutely denying the mother's liberty.

What you are trying to do is say a life, in a certain circumstance, is forfeit if it inconveniences another person. Yet we don't allow the taking of life for that reason in any other way, do we?

Of course we do. If someone requires a blood transfusion and you are the only available donor, are you required to donate? If someone is starving are you required to give up your food? If someone is homeless are you required to share your house? If someone enters your house illegally in many states you are entitled to take their life for the inconvenience they are causing you.

Your analogy is apples and oranges. For it to be the same you'd have to argue that you *must* take the child to *your house* at *your expense* and care for her until she is well, rather than leave her at some hospital. Last I looked, most women have abortions at medical centers, not in the back of cars (well, until you make the illegal that is) so "dropping the child off at a hospital" is exactly the description of an abortion.

Your assertion that the "right to life" trumps any other right out there is just plain legally wrong. There is no legal absolute right to life where it involves making someone else provide that right for you. There never has been, and I certainly hope there never will be.

Dd

[Embar Angylwrath]

You keep saying that being pregnant subverts a mother's human rights. Yet you haven't really explained how. And a separate question... when the rights of two individuals come in conflict, how do we usually, as a society, navigate that conflict?

Here's another scenario for you that inlvolves the legal precedence of subrogating one individuals rights for another. Its is pretty much settled law (in the US), that the spouse of a person with an illigetimate child is financially responsible for that child. (Lets say you found out your wife had a child, and later you found out it wasn't yours) The husbands (because it really can't happen the other way around) have no choicen the matter, because the courts have determined the interests and well-being of the child outweigh the rights of parent who was duped into thinking the child was actually his.

There IS legal precedent that subordinates one individuals rights to another, to avoid the greater harm.

And killing someone is just about the greatest harm you can inflict on another.

Sorry, Dd.. as long as you maintain a fetus is a human, then you must acknowledge that human has basic human rights, the foremost of those is the right to life.

[Ddrak]

I think liberty is a more fundamental right than life - perhaps that's where the conflict arises. If you start saying that someone is a murderer for their liberty indirectly affecting the life of someone else, then you are implicitly making everyone responsible for everyone else's welfare, which is something that really runs counter to my beliefs.

To be more specific in the abortion case, I believe that a person has the right to choose whether someone has physical access to their body. If they choose to disallow someone else access and it causes harm or death to the other person then it should be the other person's problem (legally). It comes to the blood transfusion argument - it's a much safer procedure than childbirth, but you have the absolute right to refuse to give your brother a transfusion even if you're the only person who could save his life. Would you consider such an act murder? If not, then how is it different to an abortion where it's only continuous blood transfusions (or at least nutrient transfusions) that sustain the baby? If there was a way to terminate the connection without killing the baby then I'd agree with your position, hence my viability argument, but while the baby is dependent on the mother then I have no problem (legally) saying the mother has the absolute right to decide who and what has access to her body.

It comes down to whether you think the law should mandate someone give physical access to their body to another. If that's not clear enough, I can try harder.

I say there is no legal right for a person to demand something of another even if their life is at stake. You obviously believe differently. I say that your legal right to swing your fists stop where my body begins. You obviously believe differently (in the case where not swinging your fists would be life threatening).

Financial responsibility is not physical access.

There is a great body of legal precedent that allows a death to occur to protect other rights - even property rights (ie you can kill trespassers under castle laws in some states). Police can shoot you for trying to escape custody. People die all the time because they can't afford operations yet the government could easily seize funds from random rich people to pay for them. You're stating that the law doesn't subordinate someone's "right to life" to protect other rights when it's blatently obvious that the law does exactly that on numerous occasions for much "lesser" rights.

A baby, like any other human has the right to life, but not the right to demand someone else supply that life.

Dd

[Garrdor]

We are not on a breeding farm. A woman has a right to choose what to do with whatever fleshy discharge she may have from her body. Sucks for the potential life that might be there - but hey, one less car in front of you. One less person you have to squeeze past walking down the street. One less person in line in front of you @ Disneyland. One less mouth to feed. One less gas tank to fill

It's in my belief that there's no reason to bash on abortion when our species is so bent on raping this planet and all of it's other inhabitants/resources. I mean, jesus fucking christ - my mexican catholic stepmother's side of the family hosts households that consists of like 10-20 people each. They disown their own for waking up from their little fucking bible dream and taking a birth control pill or having accidents that lead to abortions.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Interesting that you form your world philosophy based on your Mexican Catholic stepmother's side of the family. When your balls drop, grow them a little, and expand your limited perspective.

[Garrdor]

Ever been to Mexico City?

How about Los Angeles?