Thoughts on Abortion

[Kadarin]

Abortion causes more emotional trauma to a woman than birth does. Abortions not only ends one life it scars another.

It's pretty clear here that you are making an assertion based on your belief rather than on any real research, as obviously you haven't talked with a representative sample of women who have actually had an abortion.

Reality is that if affects some women and not others. I know a woman who has had 3; the most recent has affected her greatly, but the first two she's perfectly ok with as they had happened when she was much younger.

 

[soulcougher73]

How would you enforce this? Can't the couple just lie and say they were using BC and that he had a vasectomy?



Why not just simplify and just say that the man can absolve himself of responsability? That is separate and apart from the woman's decision to have an abortion. If he absolves himself, she may then decide to have an abortion, but his position is clear either way.



Why? So only the wealthy can have abortions? This provision makes no sense to me.



Disagree, but I don't think it would be a big issue.




Ok, it's your opinion, but how do you support it? Is the transition from inside to outside the womb just a symbolic thing, or is there a critical change that happens that changes killing from okay to not okay?

There are ways to check if a vasectomy was done. Same with if she was on bc pills.

I guess to me its a symbolic thing. I also editted my time line to the 3rd trimester which i believe is what it currently is. Waiting any longer just seems cruel to both parties, plus seems more irresponsible dragging it out like that.

These types of discussions are eye opening i think. Its good to hear others view points and maybe even adopt some of them into your line of thinking. But overall im pro-choise and that will never change. Just the details of when/how/where etc. And with saying that i think im done with this discussion. Nothing more can really be said that hasnt already been said.

 

[Mursilis]

Why not just simplify and just say that the man can absolve himself of responsability? That is separate and apart from the woman's decision to have an abortion. If he absolves himself, she may then decide to have an abortion, but his position is clear either way.

What a legal quagmire. Does he have to state his intent before sex, or can he leave her guessing? What if he promises before sex to financially support her decision to have the baby - can he change his mind after she tells him she's knocked up? What if he says the same after sex, the woman decides to keep the baby, and then right before birth, the man says, no, I want to denounce responsibility? How many times does he get to flip-flop?

And do you ever think such a law would pass in a society that gives women the right to vote!?!?

 

[Blackjack200]

What a legal quagmire. Does he have to state his intent before sex, or can he leave her guessing? What if he promises before sex to financially support her decision to have the baby - can he change his mind after she tells him she's knocked up? What if he says the same after sex, the woman decides to keep the baby, and then right before birth, the man says, no, I want to denounce responsibility? How many times does he get to flip-flop?

And do you ever think such a law would pass in a society that gives women the right to vote!?!?

Hey, letting them drive is even worse

And I don't think it's that much of a legal quagmire. He just has to declare his intentions to her a reasonable amount of time before she needs to make her decision. Let's use a week as an arbitrary example, and say that abortion is only legal in the second trimester. One week before the start of the third trimester he has to declare if he does not want to support it. If she hides the pregnancy from him, he can make his decision when he learns of it.

 

[CLite]

I disagree. You are wrong on this. A child's brain is just as developed before birth as it is after it. This is exemplified by the fact that early births are able to lead full and productive lives.

Actually a baby's brain takes about 1 year to become self-aware, of course they have brain activity just like non-sentient animals have. Although it would be barbaric to kill a baby that is already born, so birth seems like as good a line as any to defining a conscious human being, even if they aren't sentient as of yet.

The fact is we are an impossibly lucky group, out of the uncountable trillions of potential DNA combinations we have been blessed with life. It seems strange to claim killing a zygote is any more cruel than eliminating the chance for that zygote to ever be born. It is true we are killing something that has the possibility to become a sentient human, but again possibilities should not dictate our action as that would lead us back to sperm.

An argument could be made that the brain of a fetus experiences pain during a late-term abortion, although rudimentary nerve cells in an extremely premature fetus probably also experience some level of pain reception. In both cases the fetus is not self-aware, which is how we justify our cruelty unto animals that experience pain.

However, that all said, I would be disappointed if someone I knew wanted to undergo an abortion. It would be truly sad to lose the possibility for sentient life, but I don’t think we can legislate a woman’s uterus which harbors a parasitical mammal that is not yet self-aware, despite the impossibly beautiful thing it might be capable of.

 

[Mursilis]

And I don't think it's that much of a legal quagmire. He just has to declare his intentions to her a reasonable amount of time before she needs to make her decision. Let's use a week as an arbitrary example, and say that abortion is only legal in the second trimester. One week before the start of the third trimester he has to declare if he does not want to support it. If she hides the pregnancy from him, he can make his decision when he learns of it.

I've practiced law for 15 years, and trust me, there's a ton of problems here. For example, you said "if she hides the pregnancy" - well, what constitutes "hide?". What if he's a sailor about to ship out - how hard does she have to look to find him before the window to have an abortion closes? Why is the burden even on her? Does he have any responsibility to keep in touch with her in case he has to declare his intention to absolve or accept responsibility? If it takes a year to find the father, does the law presume he accepted financial responsibility for the child by default? What if she had more than one sex partner and isn't sure who the father is? Does she have to hunt them all down? Spend a day in family court sometime - there are RARELY easy cases.

 

[Cogman]

Actually a baby's brain takes about 1 year to become self-aware, of course they have brain activity just like non-sentient animals have. Although it would be barbaric to kill a baby that is already born, so birth seems like as good a line as any to defining a conscious human being, even if they aren't sentient as of yet.

The fact is we are an impossibly lucky group, out of the uncountable trillions of potential DNA combinations we have been blessed with life. It seems strange to claim killing a zygote is any more cruel than eliminating the chance for that zygote to ever be born. It is true we are killing something that has the possibility to become a sentient human, but again possibilities should not dictate our action as that would lead us back to sperm.

An argument could be made that the brain of a fetus experiences pain during a late-term abortion, although rudimentary nerve cells in an extremely premature fetus probably also experience some level of pain reception. In both cases the fetus is not self-aware, which is how we justify our cruelty unto animals that experience pain.

However, that all said, I would be disappointed if someone I knew wanted to undergo an abortion. It would be truly sad to lose the possibility for sentient life, but I don’t think we can legislate a woman’s uterus which harbors a parasitical mammal that is not yet self-aware, despite the impossibly beautiful thing it might be capable of.

Somewhat my point earlier. If we use sentience as the measure of what makes killing ok, then there should be no problem with killiing a newborn. Nothing changes from the moments before birth to the moments after birth (other than the baby exiting the womb), yet we are supposed to believe that it somehow changes the ethics.

 

[Atreus21]

Well, let's try it this way, at what point do you think it's okay to end/prevent life?

Is it the moment of conception? Is it a certain trimester? Why do you feel that way?

My argument is that a human being at conception is a human being at the earliest stage of development. Sentience is too relative to bear the burden of the definition of human life.

The only permissible use of abortion is to save the mother's life, although I don't think I'd condemn a pregnant rape victim for aborting.

 

[CLite]

Somewhat my point earlier. If we use sentience as the measure of what makes killing ok, then there should be no problem with killiing a newborn. Nothing changes from the moments before birth to the moments after birth (other than the baby exiting the womb), yet we are supposed to believe that it somehow changes the ethics.

Well it is societal norm to document a baby and make it a citizen of our country at birth. It is hard to tell exactly when a baby becomes self-aware so we do not make that a criteria for becoming a "person".

Abortion uses birth as that is the traditional point for designating a baby as a person.

 

[Blackjack200]

I've practiced law for 15 years, and trust me, there's a ton of problems here. For example, you said "if she hides the pregnancy" - well, what constitutes "hide?". What if he's a sailor about to ship out - how hard does she have to look to find him before the window to have an abortion closes? Why is the burden even on her? Does he have any responsibility to keep in touch with her in case he has to declare his intention to absolve or accept responsibility? If it takes a year to find the father, does the law presume he accepted financial responsibility for the child by default? What if she had more than one sex partner and isn't sure who the father is? Does she have to hunt them all down? Spend a day in family court sometime - there are RARELY easy cases.

I see your point, and knowing foster parents I have definitly heard some horror stories about what happens in those courts.

Still, I think there some opportunity for the man to exercise his own "choice". In the case where the woman truely could not inform the man, I think the court would look at what his behavior implied. For example, if he wore a condom you can make a pretty safe assumption that he was not interested in becoming a father. If the man and woman disagree on those kinds of details, the judge will have to sort through that. And again, I think that if a woman has enough sex partners that she can't determine who the father is, it's reasonable to assume that none of them were looking to raise children.

 

[Blackjack200]

My argument is that a human being at conception is a human being at the earliest stage of development. Sentience is too relative to bear the burden of the definition of human life.

The only permissible use of abortion is to save the mother's life, although I don't think I'd condemn a pregnant rape victim for aborting.

If we are not distinguising between a zygote and a sentient human, and we are saying that its okay for a rape victim to have an abortion, aren't we saying, by extention, that it's okay for a rape victim to murder her child after it's born?

 

[Mursilis]

I see your point, and knowing foster parents I have definitly heard some horror stories about what happens in those courts.

Still, I think there some opportunity for the man to exercise his own "choice". In the case where the woman truely could not inform the man, I think the court would look at what his behavior implied. For example, if he wore a condom you can make a pretty safe assumption that he was not interested in becoming a father. If the man and woman disagree on those kinds of details, the judge will have to sort through that. And again, I think that if a woman has enough sex partners that she can't determine who the father is, it's reasonable to assume that none of them were looking to raise children.

A few quick responses:
First, I'm fine with a man's "choice" beginning and ending with the sex act. Regardless of the woman's actions (lying about the pill or whatever), the man still retains the means to protect himself - wear a condom, get snipped, stick to non-vaginal sex acts. If that doesn't work out for the man, tough luck.

Second, the law hates assumptions, and judges don't want to make them. This is why contracts can run to 100+ pages - so courts won't have to make assumptions about intent should some unforeseen problem come up. Courts just want to look at the clear terms of the contract and enforce them.

Third, you're assuming too much with your assumptions. I personally know many men who have both used condoms, and opposed abortions. You're right that use of a condom implies intent NOT to become a father at that time (that's just obvious), but how do you also know the man isn't willing to accept the child once it's created? The world is full of unplanned children who are loved just as much as planned ones.

 

[Atreus21]

If we are not distinguising between a zygote and a sentient human, and we are saying that its okay for a rape victim to have an abortion, aren't we saying, by extention, that it's okay for a rape victim to murder her child after it's born?

Well okay, if we're going to be absolutely true to our principles, I'd say that even for a rape victim, the child is still an innocent human being from conception.

 

[CLite]

It is a logical fallacy to believe that rape, a person's marital status, the use of contraception, or propensity for abortion have any bearing on the balance of rights within a woman's uterus.

It boils down to how do you define a fetus/child's rights and how do you define a woman's rights over her body. If a woman gets raped it does not change the balance of rights between her body and the cells that are growing into a life form within her body. Likewise her choice to use abortion as a common method has absolutely no bearing on the balance of rights.

Currently a child's rights start at person-hood (birth) and therefore a woman is allowed to control her body. The only other absolute dividing line that could be used would be the beginning of the assemblage of cells that will become a child. Nerves form very early, so pain is felt very early and it would be hard to quantify this as a measuring stick; true self-awareness does not occur until a year after birth so that could not be used either. Likewise using the fact that the baby can survive outside the uterus would still require forced surgical removal (c-section being potentially more dangerous than abortion) and is yet again a fuzzy line.

If our judicial branch ever changes it minds and determines that the formation of cells is a person then that would be the unequivocal line. If they add rape and other factors as extenuating factors then they are justifying the murder of a legal person which makes the change lose any moral justification it might have had. Of course if we walk down this path then child abuse starts at the formation of cells. Woman who drink would be poisoning a collection of cells that the judicial branch has determined have rights. As soon as we give a collection of cells rights as a person to avoid death then this collection gains a whole lot of other rights.

 

[Blackjack200]

Likewise using the fact that the baby can survive outside the uterus would still require forced surgical removal (c-section being potentially more dangerous than abortion) and is yet again a fuzzy line.

Fine point perhaps, but you don't need surgery to induce labor.

 

[CLite]

Fine point perhaps, but you don't need surgery to induce labor.

Well inducing labor requires forced injection of chemicals, basically it boils down to intruding on a woman's rights to her body.

There is no happy middle ground that people will ever agree on, the only way to tackle abortion is to have an absolute dividing line about who's rights trump. If we draw that line before the fetus leaves the womb then a lot of shit can get imposed on woman.

 

[xj0hnx]

Well inducing labor requires forced injection of chemicals, basically it boils down to intruding on a woman's rights to her body.

There is no happy middle ground that people will ever agree on, the only way to tackle abortion is to have an absolute dividing line about who's rights trump. If we draw that line before the fetus leaves the womb then a lot of shit can get imposed on woman.

Like what?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

More of an agnostic actually. You are alive, your life started when those cells came together, if your mother had an abortion you would not be here, the simple fact that you are here typing on a computer proves life begins at conception.

So sperm and egg cells are not alive?

Better notify the biologists, because they all disagree with you.

Or maybe, just maybe, you're talking out of your ass and nobody should take what you say seriously.

I'm gonna go with the latter.

 

[CLite]

Like what?

Can a woman consume medicine/drugs that would kill the baby? If they are required for a life-threatening condition is it allowed? If they are required for a non life threatening condition is it allowed? If they are consumed for recreational purposes is it allowed?

We would be legislating what a woman may do with her body and therefore it would open up a world of gray areas, I have listed but a few.

 

[xj0hnx]

So sperm and egg cells are not alive?

Better notify the biologists, because they all disagree with you.

Or maybe, just maybe, you're talking out of your ass and nobody should take what you say seriously.

I'm gonna go with the latter.

If you could please Mr. Douchebagamous, quote where I said they are not alive. Neither one by themselves creates a human life, hence the "when those cells came together" part of the sentence. Now go playing in traffic child.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

A sperm is a gamete, not a human life.

Which of the following statements do you believe to be false?:

1.) A human sperm is human.

2.) A human sperm is alive.

?

 

[xj0hnx]

Can a woman consume medicine/drugs that would kill the baby? If they are required for a life-threatening condition is it allowed? If they are required for a non life threatening condition is it allowed? If they are consumed for recreational purposes is it allowed?

We would be legislating what a woman may do with her body and therefore it would open up a world of gray areas, I have listed but a few.

Not, "what she can do with her body", but what she can do with her body that effects the child she has. If her life is in danger than of course she would be able to take whatever medicine was needed, she couldn't exactly have the baby if she was dead now could she? Mothers life > unborn baby, mothers convenience < unborn baby.

 

[xj0hnx]

Which of the following statements do you believe to be false?:

1.) A human sperm is human.

2.) A human sperm is alive.

?

Where's that quote?

 

[CLite]

Not, "what she can do with her body", but what she can do with her body that effects the child she has. If her life is in danger than of course she would be able to take whatever medicine was needed, she couldn't exactly have the baby if she was dead now could she? Mothers life > unborn baby, mothers convenience < unborn baby.

Ok then you have opened the world up to untold numbers of gray areas.

Mothers convenience
-Working at a dangerous job
-Consuming Alcohol
-Taking *non-critical* eye medicine (or something) that interferes with gestation

-Whatever else a father might take his wife to court over once the supreme court rules that the government has absolute right over a woman's body when the fetuses life is endangered by a mothers choices for convenience.

Do you not understand what a complete clusterfuck such a ruling would bring about?

*edit* once all these battles in court started filtering out you would have "convenience" defined by a series of judicial rulings that set precedence. I couldn't dream up a more convoluted infringement on an individual's rights if I tried.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

If you could please Mr. Douchebagamous, quote where I said they are not alive.

It is implicit in your assertion that life begins at conception. For life to begin, it must come to exist where it did not exist before. If gametes are alive, then there can be no beginning of life, because it already exists.

Neither one by themselves creates a human life

They are already human life in themselves, Mr. Idontknowshitaboutanythingamous. Your problem is that you aren't intelligent enough to be rigorous in your language -- as I aptly pointed out is characteristic of the vast majority of dumb, anti-freedom knuckle-draggers such as yourself.

...hence the "when those cells came together" part of the sentence. Now go playing in traffic child.

The rest of your sentence didn't save it from being false to begin with.