I need a reason for abortion being legal

[CLite]

When the mother's life is at risk person abortion becomes much less repugnant. No one reasonably argues otherwise.

I am suggesting a comparison between two treatments where the treatment that saves the fetus also provides the woman a better chance of survival. Normally people can choose whatever procedure they want, they may choose one that medically doesn't seem better but for their own personal reasons they wish to go that route.

Doctor says treatment 2 = you are more likely to live, baby is OK
Doctor says treatment 1 = worse for you and baby dies.

A woman should still be able to choose treatment 1 just like some people may choose homeopathic treatments over the traditional methods which show better survival rates.

 

[momeNt]

And clearly it isn't. A fetus requires the consensual donation of the bodily faculties of precisely one person, while an infant can receive care and feeding from anyone.

Good points, thanks for your input.

So the state cannot force the mother to care for the fetus nor an infant for that matter. It is an issue of liberty for the woman, not an issue of options for the infant or fetus respectively, the fetus has no options but that should not require the state to force her to care for it, because that would harm her liberty.

I like where that is heading, I had a different angle I was taking previous to your post in considering that abortion was terminating the life and life over liberty would require the mother to protect the life of the fetus, this line of thinking devolves into deciding when a fetus is "alive". I've read on this thread it should be considered alive once the cerebral cortex is active and also as early as when the two gametes form the zygote. So the argument is much muddier when compared to yours.

 

[Carmen813]

For most mothers, it's a life changing experience that prepares them for motherhood and bonds them with their child.

That is the psychological aspect.

I can understand being afraid but it's also a natural process, you were MADE for this.

I think that is kinda awesome all in itself...

I'm a parent and a grandparent and i can tell you one thing, if i so had to give birth to them via my penis, i'd do it knowing the reward of having them in my life.

Despite my name, I'm not a woman John 🙂

There in fact can be substantial adverse psychological effects due to pregnancy if for no other reason than the hormonal changes that occur. I don't believe this is a guaranteed outcome by any means, but the risk of things like post-partum depression should not be ignored.

I stand by my opinion. Ultimately, I believe it should be left to the individuals involved. The role of society/government should not be criminalizing a medical procedure, but working towards making raising a family easier and more accessible for all. Since the OP asked for legal justification, here it is:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

[Atreus21]

I am suggesting a comparison between two treatments where the treatment that saves the fetus also provides the woman a better chance of survival. Normally people can choose whatever procedure they want, they may choose one that medically doesn't seem better but for their own personal reasons they wish to go that route.

Doctor says treatment 2 = you are more likely to live, baby is OK
Doctor says treatment 1 = worse for you and baby dies.

A woman should still be able to choose treatment 1 just like some people may choose homeopathic treatments over the traditional methods which show better survival rates.

No one, including women, should be able to choose a medical procedure that necessarily comes at the expense of bodily harm to another.

 

[CLite]

For a fully functioning adult with a capable mind the only laws that govern their body are nanny-state laws regarding illegal substances.

There is not a single law which FORCES a law-abiding person to consume a substance which physically alters them. A person is free to decline any surgery, any beneficial medicine (vaccines/etc.). Absolutely any medical procedure whatsoever may be declined by a person.

Illegal abortion means we have added two caveats to a woman who would otherwise have an abortion
1) This female must be subjected to 9 months of a physically parasitical life-form which will dramatically effect her biochemistry.
2) This female must be subjected to surgery (either natural birth, involving tearing of skin/stitches/injections, and/or a C-section involving surgical cutting of her skin and organs).

The realm for expansion of such a ruling on forcing control over a female's physical being for 9 months is extremely frightening.

 

[Carmen813]

Sorry bro, but that's her own fault. Rape is not a choice, but birth control is. Choosing not to be on birth control implicitly means choosing pregnancy.

Lots of other things are like that. Welding without a mask even when they are readily available implies that you don't care if you go blind. Driving without a seatbelt means you don't care if you live or die. Not being on birth control tells the world you're willing to accept the consequences of being raped. It's not like rape is a rare thing. Women know how incredibly common it is. It's very likely that you know several people who have been raped. I'm not even 30 and I know at least 3 women who have admitted it. It's as common as crashing a car, and we wear seatbelts because we know how common that is.

Gotta love it when the Victim Blamers come out of the closet.

Here is a statement for you:
The problem with rape in our society is not a women's issue. Beliefs such as this are the equivalent of winking/nodding that what perpetrators are doing is a-okay. Violence against women (by men) is solely a men's issue.

I am, for the moment, leaving out the complications added by LGBT rapes.

 

[CLite]

No one, including women, should be able to choose a medical procedure that necessarily comes at the expense of bodily harm to another.

So a woman may not choose Treatment 1 because it comes at the expense of her fetus? What if she didn't believe the science of treatment 2 and thought the doctors were wrong?

 

[MotF Bane]

No one, including women, should be able to choose a medical procedure that necessarily comes at the expense of bodily harm to another.

No worries then, abortion doesn't physically harm another person.

 

[Atreus21]

For a fully functioning adult with a capable mind the only laws that govern their body are nanny-state laws regarding illegal substances.

There is not a single law which FORCES a law-abiding person to consume a substance which physically alters them. A person is free to decline any surgery, any beneficial medicine (vaccines/etc.). Absolutely any medical procedure whatsoever may be declined by a person.

There is also no law which requires one to get pregnant.

Illegal abortion means we have added two caveats to a woman who would otherwise have an abortion
1) This female must be subjected to 9 months of a physically parasitical life-form which will dramatically effect her biochemistry.

2) This female must be subjected to surgery (either natural birth, involving tearing of skin/stitches/injections, and/or a C-section involving surgical cutting of her skin and organs).

The "parasitic life form" is (1)another human being, and (2)was placed there by the consensual activity of the mother, assuming she wasn't raped. You can't claim self defense against a condition you've invited on yourself.

The realm for expansion of such a ruling on forcing control over a female's physical being for 9 months is extremely frightening.

Abortion is contentious because it comes at the price of a child's life, not because people are chomping at the bit to control women's bodies.

 

[Atreus21]

No worries then, abortion doesn't physically harm another person.

You don't think a child killed in late term abortion with a fully functioning brain, heart, and lungs is killing another person?

 

[Kadarin]

Just going to leave this here:

This is pretty accurate. The typical "conservative" and religious positions tend to be consistent with the right side column.

 

[Atreus21]

So a woman may not choose Treatment 1 because it comes at the expense of her fetus? What if she didn't believe the science of treatment 2 and thought the doctors were wrong?

To that extent it would be no different than if I decided to let my own child die because I happened not to believe in vaccinations. Similar to the couple in France (I think) whose child died because of degraded breastmilk as a result of the mother being a vegan.

 

[CLite]

Abortion is contentious because it comes at the price of a child's life, not because people are chomping at the bit to control women's bodies.

Atreus you have to understand the ramifications of legislating control over a woman's body. You previously said you can't choose a medical procedure that comes at the expense of another's life. This will be a law enacted by retarded politicians so we need some definition. Let's get a list started for them.


Illegal abortion means we have added two caveats to a woman who would otherwise have an abortion
1) This female must be subjected to 9 months of a physically parasitical life-form which will dramatically effect her biochemistry.
2) This female must be subjected to surgery (either natural birth, involving tearing of skin/stitches/injections, and/or a C-section involving surgical cutting of her skin and organs).

Add (3) things a woman is not allowed to do:
1) morning after pill
2) surgical "damaging" removal of fetus (obviously C-section allowed)
3) procedures/treatments which dramatically harm the fetus at no benefit to the mother.

I guess we should appoint a government body to get a fleshed out list for 3. I'm not a doctor but I think there will be thousands of treatments for various conditions a pregnant lady may become affected by. Obama will need to appoint a Pregnancy czar to confirm which a pregnant lady is allowed to undergo. We have to make sure she doesn't do anything that adversely effects the fetus with no medically confirmed advantage for her. That reminds me we will need to do extensive peer-reviewed studies on whether or not something is medically advantageous for the mother versus the fetus.

 

[CLite]

To that extent it would be no different than if I decided to let my own child die because I happened not to believe in vaccinations. Similar to the couple in France (I think) whose child died because of degraded breastmilk as a result of the mother being a vegan.

A child being breastfed may be taken care of by someone else without surgically removing that child from it's parent.

 

[shadow9d9]

You don't think a child killed in late term abortion with a fully functioning brain, heart, and lungs is killing another person?

Funny how you all of a sudden change your definition to the very tiny percentage of abortions that are late term. 1% of them actually.

 

[Atreus21]

Atreus you have to understand the ramifications of legislating control over a woman's body. You previously said you can't choose a medical procedure that comes at the expense of another's life. This will be a law enacted by retarded politicians so we need some definition. Let's get a list started for them.


Illegal abortion means we have added two caveats to a woman who would otherwise have an abortion
1) This female must be subjected to 9 months of a physically parasitical life-form which will dramatically effect her biochemistry.
2) This female must be subjected to surgery (either natural birth, involving tearing of skin/stitches/injections, and/or a C-section involving surgical cutting of her skin and organs).

Add (3) things a woman is not allowed to do:
1) morning after pill
2) surgical "damaging" removal of fetus (obviously C-section allowed)
3) procedures/treatments which dramatically harm the fetus at no benefit to the mother.

I guess we should appoint a government body to get a fleshed out list for 3. I'm not a doctor but I think there will be thousands of treatments for various conditions a pregnant lady may become affected by. Obama will need to appoint a Pregnancy czar to confirm which a pregnant lady is allowed to undergo. We have to make sure she doesn't do anything that adversely effects the fetus with no medically confirmed advantage for her. That reminds me we will need to do extensive peer-reviewed studies on whether or not something is medically advantageous for the mother versus the fetus.

Major changes to abortion law might take on a variety of guises. It might come about by the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

Before abortion was legalized in Roe v. Wade, where were all these laws governing a woman's body? Were there bureaucrats scrutinizing the minute details of every pregnancy?

To answer some of your questions: Excluding RU-486, morning after pills cannot dislodge a fertilized egg. They prevent sperm from inseminating the egg. So there's nothing wrong with that.

Why would C-sections be disallowed? They're very safe.

In a larger sense, I don't tend to get lost in the details of what exactly an end to the legality of abortion would entail. If we are in the midst of a wholesale slaughter of our own children for the sake of preserving our own lifestyle, then to me the details are strictly secondary.

 

[Atreus21]

Funny how you all of a sudden change your definition to the very tiny percentage of abortions that are late term. 1% of them actually.

Are those murder or not? What's really funny is how hard it is to get a straight answer to this question.

 

[CLite]

In a larger sense, I don't tend to get lost in the details of what exactly an end to the legality of abortion would entail. If we are in the midst of a wholesale slaughter of our own children for the sake of preserving our own lifestyle, then to me the details are strictly secondary.

It is why this issue will always be contentious and never resolved.

You perceive a wholesale slaughter of viable human beings, I perceive a "potential" wholesale enslavement of woman. As soon as you start commanding to a woman what medical procedures she may or may not undertake you have opened Pandora's box.

Prior to Roe vs. Wade I imagine doctor's evaluated peripheral treatments (not related to pregnancy) on a case by case basis as to whether a woman should do it because it may or may not harm the fetus. As soon as you outlaw abortion you will have woman filing lawsuits about every single fucking procedure they undergo that a doctor may say is damaging to a fetus. You will have thousands of procedures being contentious and it will require an entire wing of government to do an evaluation on what is allowed or not.

If you give freedom and then take it away, there will be far more legal challenges than in the past when it was just an accepted reality.

Why would C-sections be disallowed? They're very safe.

I was saying it would be allowed, surgically "damaging" removal would not be allowed.

 

[Atreus21]

It is why this issue will always be contentious and never resolved.

You perceive a wholesale slaughter of viable human beings, I reprieve a "potential" wholesale enslavement of woman. As soon as you start commanding to a woman what medical procedures she may or may not undertake you have opened Pandora's box.

Prior to Roe vs. Wade I imagine doctor's evaluated peripheral treatments (not related to pregnancy) on a case by case basis as to whether a woman should do it because it may or may not harm the fetus. As soon as you outlaw abortion you will have woman filing lawsuits about every single fucking procedure they undergo that a doctor may say is damaging to a fetus. You will have thousands of procedures being contentious and it will require an entire wing of government to do an evaluation on what is allowed or not.

If you give freedom and then take it away, there will be far more legal challenges than in the past when it was just an accepted reality.

The value of someone's life is not measured by the bureaucratic difficulty involved in protecting it. Imagine how hard it is to enforce the ban on murder. Whole wings of government and departments of law enforcement are bent on protecting this ban, at enormous expense to the taxpayers. Are we to regard the ban on murder as only as good as it is convenient to enforce?

You either regard an unborn human being as a human being or you don't. If you do, then abortion without a damned good reason is murder, just as killing without a damned good reason is murder.

 

[CLite]

The value of someone's life is not measured by the bureaucratic difficulty involved in protecting it. Imagine how hard it is to enforce the ban on murder. Whole wings of government and departments of law enforcement are bent on protecting this ban, at enormous expense to the taxpayers. Are we to regard the ban on murder as only as good as it is convenient to enforce?

You either regard an unborn human being as a human being or you don't. If you do, then abortion without a damned good reason is murder, just as killing without a damned good reason is murder.

I believe you are far more intelligent than this attempt at a comparison. You know damn well that the current form of preventing murder does not impose rigid rules on the potential murderers medical and surgical choices.

You can't unlink the fetus and the mother and compare it to any pre-existing laws. It would be an entirely new field of law with heavy government influence, incredible limitation of woman's rights and at the heart of it a fetus's welfare hanging in the balance.

 

[Atreus21]

I believe you are far more intelligent than this attempt at a comparison. You know damn well that the current form of preventing murder does not impose rigid rules on the potential murderers medical and surgical choices.

You can't unlink the fetus and the mother and compare it to any pre-existing laws. It would be an entirely new field of law with heavy government influence, incredible limitation of woman's rights and at the heart of it a fetus's welfare hanging in the balance.

A person may not be killed for the sake of preserving someone's medical and surgical choices.

The law necessary to establish this is simple. No one may intentionally move to destroy their unborn child.

If a medical procedure necessarily comes at risk to the fetus, I'm fine with that. What should be disallowed is the entire practice of explicit abortion, not any medical or surgical procedure which might incur harm to the fetus as an unintended side effect.

 

[jhbball]

Sorry bro, but that's her own fault. Rape is not a choice, but birth control is. Choosing not to be on birth control implicitly means choosing pregnancy.

Lots of other things are like that. Welding without a mask even when they are readily available implies that you don't care if you go blind. Driving without a seatbelt means you don't care if you live or die. Not being on birth control tells the world you're willing to accept the consequences of being raped. It's not like rape is a rare thing. Women know how incredibly common it is. It's very likely that you know several people who have been raped. I'm not even 30 and I know at least 3 women who have admitted it. It's as common as crashing a car, and we wear seatbelts because we know how common that is.

you are wicked retarded.

 

[CLite]

A person may not be killed for the sake of preserving someone's medical and surgical choices.

The law necessary to establish this is simple. No one may intentionally move to destroy their unborn child.

If a medical procedure necessarily comes at risk to the fetus, I'm fine with that. What should be disallowed is the entire practice of explicit abortion, not any medical or surgical procedure which might incur harm to the fetus as an unintended side effect.

In no situation does that statement come into play because it's not currently a real-world scenario. Now, if you legislate that a fetus is a person and then additionally legislate that such a person (fetus) has more control over it's host's body in the case of procedures which harm the person (fetus) for no benefit of it's hosts body, then it becomes important.

However, there are procedures in this world I'm sure that carry significant risk/harm to a fetus and are typically not done to pregnant woman. I'm quite sure there are disease/infections/etc. where treatment a = normal people, treatment b = pregnant people. Now I think traditionally this has been something carried out in the medical community as almost a unwritten tradition. However, if you outlaw abortion there might be cases of doctor's getting cute and recommending a treatment to in-directly induce an abortion. Such cases will create a litany of lawsuits which will require significant definition passed down in the way of legislature.

 

[momeNt]

A person may not be killed for the sake of preserving someone's medical and surgical choices.

The law necessary to establish this is simple. No one may intentionally move to destroy their unborn child.

If a medical procedure necessarily comes at risk to the fetus, I'm fine with that. What should be disallowed is the entire practice of explicit abortion, not any medical or surgical procedure which might incur harm to the fetus as an unintended side effect.

By trying to use a moral absolute - protecting life - we leave ourselves open to the backlash. In the case of abortions it would be incredibly unsafe black market abortions. Back when we felt that alcohol consumption went against some moral absolute, the backlash was incredible. When we outlawed dueling people resorted to common murder. Alcohol consumption can be dismissed because it doesn't necessarily lead to the loss of life like abortion and dueling, but the backlash may be similar.

If we as a society do not generally feel that this is some moral absolute that we need to uphold, then the black market will be flooded with unsafe abortions, and the cost of enforcing this morality does not outweigh the benefit - which is why I brought up alcohol in the first place, since apparently dueling is bad and we'd rather people murder eachother!

 

[CLite]

A final thought, because before Roe vs. Wade abortion was a state's rights issue.

If PA defines a fetus as a person and someone travels to NJ (say in NJ abortion = legal) to get a legal abortion, can they be held liable for murder in PA? If an abortion doctor in NJ travels to PA can be they be arrested for mass murder?

This is dramatically irrelevant compared to legislating surgery unto a woman, but it just adds to the dizzying array of partisan lawmaking which will be unleashed from Pandora's box if Roe vs. Wade is overturned.

*edit* more interestingly is what if an abortion doctor did a quick operation in PA and then went back to NJ, should he be extradited for murder?