Lets Discuss Abortion

[Xander_]

Roe vs. Wade established the right to abortion on the basis that they could not establish person-hood for the fetus. If person-hood was established, the fetus' life would take precedence over the mother's right to privacy.

There are already instances where a fetus' is protected under the law. In 38 states an individual can be tried for homicide if they cause the death of an unborn child, at any stage of pregnancy, without the mother's consent. It seems like a bit of a logical fallacy that a fetus is defined as alive only when the mother wants it alive. If it is not a person in this instance, the individual can not be tried for homicide. Therefore it is a person in this instance. If it is a person in this instance, it is a person in any instance. Humanity is not defined by it's worth to other humans.

[Karkat]

Thing is, you have to look at what the woman has to go through in this scenario as well

[NewZealand]

Roe vs. Wade established the right to abortion on the basis that they could not establish person-hood for the fetus. If person-hood was established, the fetus' life would take precedence over the mother's right to privacy.

There are already instances where a fetus' is protected under the law. In 38 states an individual can be tried for homicide if they cause the death of an unborn child, at any stage of pregnancy, without the mother's consent. It seems like a bit of a logical fallacy that a fetus is defined as alive only when the mother wants it alive. If it is not a person in this instance, the individual can not be tried for homicide. Therefore it is a person in this instance. If it is a person in this instance, it is a person in any instance. Humanity is not defined by it's worth to other humans.

Where I live it is completely different, if the mother can prove to three doctors that the child will effect her physiologically or the child could be effected, then she is able to Abort. If the child will effect her medically, then she can abort. Though this sounds difficult, it really isn't. They can use finances, saying that she can no afford the child and that will cause her stress, which will be acceptable to abort. I've corse if she is young or raped, it will effect her physiologically, or even old for that matter.

[Xander_]

Thing is, you have to look at what the woman has to go through in this scenario as well

Ultimately, yes, this is very important. We shouldn't argue just to be right, we should argue so that the most people get the biggest benefit from the situation.

Perhaps you could elaborate though? It seems that if two individuals are capable of having sex, they should be ready to deal with the consequences. They should be aware that this could spawn a baby, no matter how many precautions they take. Certainly an individual's life shouldn't be taken based on other people's ignorance or stupidity.

Maybe you're talking about the cases of rape and incest that make up less than 1% of abortions. This is an exceedingly low minority for which to legalize every abortion, even those not resulting in those cases. I understand the premise for allowing abortion in the case of rape. In that instance you have to consider the woman's emotional and mental well being in addition to the child's life. It seems the best solution would be to have the woman talk to a psychiatrist before getting an abortion, just to make sure she is capable of dealing with the psychological effects that come with the abortion. In some cases I'm sure the consequences would only exacerbate the toll rape takes on someone. It is an exceedingly slippery slope though. You still need to consider that you are taking away someone's right to life.

Where I live it is completely different, if the mother can prove to three doctors that the child will effect her physiologically or the child could be effected, then she is able to Abort. If the child will effect her medically, then she can abort. Though this sounds difficult, it really isn't. They can use finances, saying that she can no afford the child and that will cause her stress, which will be acceptable to abort. I've corse if she is young or raped, it will effect her physiologically, or even old for that matter.

I will assume you mean psychologically (english is a bitch).

You're stating that abortion should be legal in the case of psychological, medical, financial, or stress related difficulties.

We've established that the fetus is a living person. Therefore it has the basic rights associated with being alive, including the right to stay alive. Realistically, the only thing that should override that right to life is a threat to another person's life or the threat of extreme emotional trauma (parallel it to self-defense laws).

Abortion on a medical and psychological basis MAY be allowable. If the pregnancy runs the risk of killing the woman, and I mean there is concrete evidence that she will die, she should not be obligated to give her life for the child.

The psychological aspect is a little fuzzy. There are people trained to help you cope with literally any situation. The mind is repairable, but if you take the child's life you can't ever give it back.

The same idea applies to "stress". You should be able to learn to cope without violating another human being's right to live. Stabbing my teachers to death would be a huge relief, but that's still not allowed.

Financially, there should be organizations or even governments that step in to help with that burden. If a government is giving any subsidies to abortion clinics or organizations perhaps that money could be better redirected toward assisting these situations.

[Vlerchan]

Roe vs. Wade established the right to abortion on the basis that they could not establish person-hood for the fetus. If person-hood was established, the fetus' life would take precedence over the mother's right to privacy.
Roe v Wade ruled that the mother's health took ultimate precedence:

I would consider that to include mental health too: so there's a large scope for abortion even if the foetus is being considered a human person under the law.

There are already instances where a fetus' is protected under the law.
Please note these are state law that are a product of the pro-life movement.

It's quite possible that these laws would be considered unconstitutional if challenged at a federal level.

In 38 states an individual can be tried for homicide if they cause the death of an unborn child, at any stage of pregnancy, without the mother's consent. It seems like a bit of a logical fallacy that a fetus is defined as alive only when the mother wants it alive. If it is not a person in this instance, the individual can not be tried for homicide. Therefore it is a person in this instance.
A number of states tag the unborn under person with the added specification that the mother can still terminate the foetus because the definition is just a piece of legal fiction:

Big deal.

If it is a person in this instance, it is a person in any instance.
Except it's just a running definition with specific and stated regard to one piece of legislation.

---

Perhaps you could elaborate though? It seems that if two individuals are capable of having sex, they should be ready to deal with the consequences. They should be aware that this could spawn a baby, no matter how many precautions they take. Certainly an individual's life shouldn't be taken based on other people's ignorance or stupidity.
Except it's not an individual in any meaningful sense of the word.

Not to mention I support abortion on the basis that I believe woman should have a right to control over their own bodies.

You still need to consider that you are taking away someone's right.
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. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion

Does the Violinist right to life trump the rights I have to control over my own person?

---

We've established that the fetus is a living person.
Not at all.

If the pregnancy runs the risk of killing the woman, and I mean there is concrete evidence that she will die, she should not be obligated to give her life for the child.
This is the case in Ireland:

The problem we encountered is that when this concrete evidence becomes available it's too late.

[Xander_]

Roe v Wade ruled that the mother's health took ultimate precedence:

I would consider that to include mental health too: so there's a large scope for abortion even if the foetus is being considered a human person under the law.


So even if the fetus was determined to be a person, protected under the law, the mother's mental health takes precedence over the fetus' life? Again, minds can be repaired, lives can't be re-instituted.

Furthermore, I think we need a rigorous definition of a person.

The violinist analogy is lacking the parallel for when the mother brought the fetus into existence. Perhaps it could apply well in the case of rape, but again, that makes up a very small minority of all cases of abortion.

[NewZealand]

I will assume you mean psychologically (english is a bitch).

You're stating that abortion should be legal

I think that that was auto correct :confused:
But on the real point, no I am not staiting that abortion should be legal, I never said that I agree with the laws in my country, I was just giving an example of other laws.

[Vlerchan]

So even if the fetus was determined to be a person, protected under the law, the mother's mental health takes precedence over the fetus' life?
That's the understanding I have.

Furthermore, I think we need a rigorous definition of a person.
A human being who is born.

The violinist analogy is lacking the parallel for when the mother brought the fetus into existence.
I would appreciate if the question I posed was answered:

I'm just attempting to demonstrate that there's cases where even pro-life individuals believe the right to life should be wavered with regard to people's self-centered concerns.

Perhaps it could apply well in the case of rape, but again, that makes up a very small minority of all cases of abortion.
It seems to be that it works with regard to unplanned pregnancies:

In both cases the people hadn't prepared to be there.

I agree it works best with rape or non-consensual pregnancies but it still ties in a looser sense to other scenarios.

[DylanDanger]

Maybe you're talking about the cases of rape and incest that make up less than 1% of abortions. This is an exceedingly low minority for which to legalize every abortion, even those not resulting in those cases.

I think this statistic is higher than you think. it also depends on how you define rape. Ive never told anyone this. My mom became pregnant with me when she was 16 after going to a party and getting drunk. She told me she has no memory of it and woke up next day alone in a room. She didn't know what had happened but then found out she was pregnant she and my grandparents went to police and they said since she couldn't prove there was force or that she said no and because she couldn't tell them who had sex with her that it wasn't rape and she shouldn't have gotten so drunk and needs to live with the consequences of her "party girl attitude". She obviously didn't get an abortion but had thought about it. she told me that at the time the stigma of having an abortion was worse than being a pregnant teen and that she is so happy she didn't get an abortion and was lucky my grandparents were so supportive to her.

but it could have been so much worse for someone else in that situation and to tell them that doesn't count as rape or if their parents weren't supportive or couldn't afford to go through it all? I think it has to be an option for people.

I do have mixed feelings about abortion, but i do think it has to be an option or else it can indanger lots of people trying to get one illegally or doing something unsafe to try to get rid of pregnancy.

i know i kinda took this off topic but i do think the statistic that only 1% of people get pregnant from rape is flawed and wrong.

[JamesSuperBoy]

I would think it is better to have a proper medical service - licensed and controlled with proper care before and after for women who choose abortion. Or do we drive it all underground and have thousands of people like Dr Kermit Gosnell.

It is easy to debate on the law and on a few cases where facts are made public.

[Xander_]

That's the understanding I have.

A human being who is born.

So simply being a living human being doesn't afford you the rights of other living humans? You have to have popped out of a vagina?

I would appreciate if the question I posed was answered:

I'm just attempting to demonstrate that there's cases where even pro-life individuals believe the right to life should be wavered with regard to people's self-centered concerns.

If someone is holding a gun to your head or if they are causing you significant emotional trauma, you have every right to end their life. If the child is posing a risk to your life, you should not be legally obligated to carry it. I admit that there are cases where abortion is reasonable, but those instances are few and far between.

It seems to be that it works with regard to unplanned pregnancies:

In both cases the people hadn't prepared to be there.

I agree it works best with rape or non-consensual pregnancies but it still ties in a looser sense to other scenarios.

If you are having sex, you should understand the risks that come along with it. As far as I'm concerned, an unplanned pregnancy does not exist outside of rape.

I would think it is better to have a proper medical service - licensed and controlled with proper care before and after for women who choose abortion. Or do we drive it all underground and have thousands of people like Dr Kermit Gosnell.

It is easy to debate on the law and on a few cases where facts are made public.

You're right. You can't simply change the letter of the law and expect things to change. Have you seen The Interview? Rather than simply dethroning Kim Jong Un, they humiliated him and showed that his ideology was invalid. If you want things to change you have to change the stigma around them before you change the law.

[Vlerchan]

So simply being a living human being doesn't afford you the rights of other living humans? You have to have popped out of a vagina?
It's the point of least argument.

That's the reason it's used in (at least European) law. There's no scientific consensus otherwise.

237. Of central importance is the finding in the above-cited Vo case that the question of when the right to life begins came within the States’ margin of appreciation because there was no European consensus on the scientific and legal definition of the beginning of life, so that it was impossible to answer the question whether the unborn was a person to be protected for the purposes of Article 2.

A, B, C v. Ireland [2010] ECHR 2032 (http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/2032.html)

---

It's also the case that in forcing woman to carry foetus to birth you are depriving them of there right to control over their own person:

What about their human rights?

If someone is holding a gun to your head or if they are causing you significant emotional trauma, you have every right to end their life.
He's not holding a gun to your head. He's unconscious.

So that's not an answer to my question.

---

What does 'significant emotional trauma' also mean?

If you are having sex, you should understand the risks that come along with it. As far as I'm concerned, an unplanned pregnancy does not exist outside of rape.
You definition of unplanned is entirely incoherent then.

Definition of UNPLANNED

1. happening by chance <an unplanned change in our itinerary—we got lost!>

2. made or done without previous thought or preparation <stumbled through a completely unplanned acceptance speech>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/unplanned

[DylanDanger]

As far as I'm concerned, an unplanned pregnancy does not exist outside of rape.


You definition of unplanned is entirely incoherent then.

I agree with Vlerchan. if you read my post above, i wasn't planned (mom was 16, she didn't sleep around, and what happened to her didn't fit the definition of rape). all kinds of things can happen. You can take all the precautions you want, condoms, birth control, etc. and there is still a chance someone can get pregnant. Condoms can break, birth control isn't 100%.

[JamesSuperBoy]

I really do not think with this and many other cases, changing or trying to change stigma or discrimination first then the law works.

[Xander_]

It's the point of least argument.

That's the reason it's used in (at least European) law. There's no scientific consensus otherwise.

237. Of central importance is the finding in the above-cited Vo case that the question of when the right to life begins came within the States’ margin of appreciation because there was no European consensus on the scientific and legal definition of the beginning of life, so that it was impossible to answer the question whether the unborn was a person to be protected for the purposes of Article 2.

A, B, C v. Ireland [2010] ECHR 2032 (http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/2032.html)

---

Legally and scientifically a consensus has not been met because it is convenient for none to exist. At the moment of conception a unique set of DNA is formed. After 6 weeks the heart starts to beat. The list of human characteristics goes on and on as time goes on. To simply say "it's not human" is just easier.

It's also the case that in forcing woman to carry foetus to birth you are depriving them of there right to control over their own person:

What about their human rights?

They exercised their human rights when they had sex. Now they have to follow that up with the responsibility of dealing with the consequences. I could argue that a right to life is more important than a right to privacy, but ultimately it goes further than that. If you make the decision to have sex, you are accepting the risk that a human being may come as a result.

He's not holding a gun to your head. He's unconscious.

So that's not an answer to my question.

---

What does 'significant emotional trauma' also mean?

In the situation where the fetus poses a risk to your life, he is holding a gun to your head in the sense that he exists. In the case of rape, bearing a child may reopen wounds if the woman would rather make the choice to not have the child. Thus significant emotional trauma. That's not really something you or I can define so I think leaving it up to a mental health professional would be best.

You definition of unplanned is entirely incoherent then.

Definition of UNPLANNED

1. happening by chance <an unplanned change in our itinerary—we got lost!>

2. made or done without previous thought or preparation <stumbled through a completely unplanned acceptance speech>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/unplanned

I am fully aware of what unplanned means. I was being satirical, sarcastic to make a point. Perhaps what I meant is that they are acknowledging the possibility of a child when they commit the act of sex.

I agree with Vlerchan. if you read my post above, i wasn't planned (mom was 16, she didn't sleep around, and what happened to her didn't fit the definition of rape). all kinds of things can happen. You can take all the precautions you want, condoms, birth control, etc. and there is still a chance someone can get pregnant. Condoms can break, birth control isn't 100%.

What happened to your mother was in fact rape. Consent must be given, not assumed. No means no, but a lack of yes also means no.

Actually, if you don't have sex, you won't get pregnant. People using condoms and birth control should be fully aware of the fact that they do not work 100% of the time and should be prepared to have a child if they do fail.

[Vlerchan]

Legally and scientifically a consensus has not been met because it is convenient for none to exist.
Your belief that it is all one big conspiracy or similar is not an argument.

At the moment of conception a unique set of DNA is formed. After 6 weeks the heart starts to beat. The list of human characteristics goes on and on as time goes on.
It seems like the foetus gradually develops human-like characteristics as it develops.

Which ones do we consider it a human being at?

---

It's also notable that the two you mentioned exist within all animals I'm aware of.

They exercised their human rights when they had sex.
I agree.

But I have no idea why you think it just ceases to exist now.

Now they have to follow that up with the responsibility of dealing with the consequences.
But having an abortion doesn't count as 'dealing with the consequences' right?

I could argue that a right to life is more important than a right to privacy, but ultimately it goes further than that.
I'm speaking about people's right to control over their own persons and not people's right to privacy.

---

It might be notable that this is also where I believe that right to life flows from.

If you make the decision to have sex, you are accepting the risk that a human being may come as a result.
That's arguable.

Regardless accepting that becoming pregnant might result is not the same as accepting the obligation that is reaching term.

In the situation where the fetus poses a risk to your life, he is holding a gun to your head in the sense that he exists.
Ok. I'm talking about the Violinist analogy. I'll repost:

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. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.

What should the person do?

That's not really something you or I can define so I think leaving it up to a mental health professional would be best.
Ok. So it is possible that someone might have an abortion after an unplanned but non-rape pregnancy?

I am fully aware of what unplanned means. I was being satirical, sarcastic to make a point.
Ok. Does that mean the analogy I posted is going to get an actual response at some stage?

---

People using condoms and birth control should be fully aware of the fact that they do not work 100% of the time and should be prepared to have a child if they do fail.
Ok. But some people don't prepare. Do you agree?

[Miserabilia]

Actually, if you don't have sex, you won't get pregnant. People using condoms and birth control should be fully aware of the fact that they do not work 100% of the time and should be prepared to have a child if they do fail.

Are you anti-abortion or just anti-sex?
It sounds like you're saying childbirth is just the punishment for people being stupid enough to have sex, and you don't want them to get rid of the baby but face the consequences, rather than opposing abortion itself.

[Aajj333]

I see an awful lot of guys sticking their noses into something they have no say in.

[Screw Attack]

Well personally, I think abortions should be legal. This pro-life thing makes so sense to me. There are starving kids dying everyday, we don't seem to care about them so much. We kill animals and plants for food, furniture, fucking shoes and so much more. I asked this to someone and they told me my point isn't valid because human lives are far more important.

Morally speaking as the whole pro-life movement seems to based on morals to me, how is that right? Logically, you could argue with me that human lives are more important but morally you can't say that.

I think it should be the woman's choice and that no one should be forced to have a baby that they do not want. Because pregnancy is neither simple or easy and neither is raising a child.

Besides, if you make abortions illegal, women are going to try illegitimate services which would be dangerous. It might end up killing more fetuses and mothers than if abortions were legal and that's pretty ironic.

Just my two cents, don't want to thread on anyone else's beliefs.

[phuckphace]

I see an awful lot of guys sticking their noses into something they have no say in.

:lol3: according to you.

[Cpt_Cutter]

I see an awful lot of guys sticking their noses into something they have no say in.

Yeah, because the men don't have to support the baby in it's life, from birth to 18, with child support or actually living with and taking care of the child at all. Nope, we need absloutely have no say in this, it's none of our buisness.

/S

[Vlerchan]

Yeah, because the men don't have to support the baby in it's life, from birth to 18, with child support or actually living with and taking care of the child at all. Nope, we need absloutely have no say in this, it's none of our buisness.
What "say" should men be allowed to have over woman's bodies?

It seems allowing woman to have abortions will result in better outcomes for unwilling fathers in general than otherwise.

---

I also just realised it's implied in AAjj33's argument that woman controlling woman's bodies would be a legitimate moral outcome:

That's ridiculous if it's the case.

[phuckphace]

let me know when women gain the ability to reproduce asexually without a male partner. men who are willing to acknowledge their biological children should in theory have a minimum of 50% of the say in the matter. the "muh body" argument doesn't account for this angle because feminist tunnel vision on the individual (woman) leaves out a good part of the picture.

so yes, it is very much our business to comment on and hold opinions about. kinda embarrassing that such an assertion comes from a guy, who should know better.

[Vlerchan]

let me know when women gain the ability to reproduce asexually without a male partner. men who are willing to acknowledge their biological children should in theory have a minimum of 50% of the say in the matter.
It would make sense to claim that men should have an equal say over what happens to the child up until the child can be judged to be capable of acting for itself.

But I consider that a separate issue to the woman's body which carries the child.

the "muh body" argument doesn't account for this angle because feminist tunnel vision on the individual (woman) leaves out a good part of the picture.
I think societies benefit from woman engaging as meaningful actors within them because woman are socialised to act in a different (co-operation-orientated) manner to men.

Looking at the statistics it's clear that pregnancies tend to inhibit their operation.

kinda embarrassing that such an assertion comes from a guy, who should know better.
I don't think men who would threaten woman with violent force to carry their child to term deserves respect.

[Cpt_Cutter]

It seems allowing woman to have abortions will result in better outcomes for unwilling fathers in general than otherwise.


You misunderstand, I was saying that men should have a say in weather or not an abortion takes place, not whether or not an abortion can take place. However, due to the male oriented political system the world uses, it seems men will have to have a say to actually get any laws passed.

That sounded dangerously close to Tumblr's view of world politics :P

[Miserabilia]

You misunderstand, I was saying that men should have a say in weather or not an abortion takes place,
[/I]

Let me ask you something;
should a woman ask the man if she could take a morning after pill?
Should mean have a say in morning after pill? What about an IUD?
At what point does it stop being the woman's decision alone?

[Cpt_Cutter]

At what point does it stop being the woman's decision alone?

When there is a guaranteed result of a baby without any outside action (I.e. Abortion). Before that, when there is only a chance, things like a morning after pill are 100% the woman's decision IMO.