My new Abortion Position

I see.

Well, to make it fair.

We will need to pump the man full of a variety of body and mind altering hormones.
We will need to ensure he gains as much as half his body weight over an eight month period and that his ankles swell such that it looks like he has cantaloupes sticking out of his shoes.
He well be given drugs that may cause incontinence.
We will need to ensure he is subject to some or all of several life threatening conditions.
He will be required to take at least 2 and as many as 6 months away from work, without pay, with no guarantee he will ever get the job, income, or seniority back.
Post -Partum 25% of his income will be taken for child care and to reimburse the mother for expenses and income loss.

Now, if he's willing to agree to all of those conditions then you've got an argument. If not...

 

No one has to justify something being legal. To the contrary, those wishing to enforce the performance of an act or forbid the performance of an act using the power of government must justify interference with individual liberty.

 

At week 24 and beyond there is no reason to kill the baby due to the "health of the mother", at that point the baby is viable and can be birthed as easily as aborted.

Fetal abnormality is an issue but very rare in the 3rd trimester. That is a very difficult situation, but the arguement is that in order to spare the parents mental pain and to spare the baby pain and suffering, it should be killed (although the act of killing the baby is also painful). An analogous situation is killing a person with a severe disease, severe handicap or paralysis, or someone who has suffered severe trauma (such as a traumatic stress disorder patient). We should not grant human status based upon our judgement of anothers quality of life, and certainly not out of convenience.

Third trimester keeps coming up because the medical and ethical issues are much clearer than the 1st or 2nd trimester, and there is a clear majority that opposes late term abortion.

That highlights the difference in attitude between the 2 sides. The issue is not the word "abortion" or even the process of abortion, but the killing of a baby. If the baby is dead, then it clearly has to be removed from the mother. Whether its removal is called abortion or D&C or any other term, there is no issue since the baby is dead.

There are 2 major problems with abortion: it involves killing a human being; and it involves 2 human beings in a very unique situation with one totally dependent upon the other.

Its clearly a human at 21 weeks, how much earlier it is a human is open for debate but the prudent course is to assume the fetus is a human being unless proven otherwise. That means its a human at conception (or for practical purposes something like 2 weeks, for philosophical purposes its at conception) .

But then the unique situation of a baby inside its mother comes into play. The baby and the mother have rights and status in a secular sense and both are Gods creation from a religious perspective. In the 3rd trimester, the baby can be delivered and this "location" problem can be resolved.

But in the 1st, there is no easy answer. When life-of-the-mother issues come up, only the mother can make the decision. But if its a matter of convenience (we don't want children right now, it would hurt my career, we dont have the money, etc) then I would not allow an abortion. Its no different than killing for money.

What about rape & incest? I don't know. Is it inhuman to force a woman to suffer mentally for 9+ months living with the result of rape/incest, will she be permanently mentally/physically scarred for life beyond the rape? Its also wrong to punish a faultless baby for anothers crime. This one is very hard to resolve and so I tend to lean to letting the woman make the decision as a life-of-the-mother issue. But tomorrow I might change my mind, and then change it again the next day.

 

Removing the CHOICE for anything is a limitation on individual liberty.

For the sake of this discussion, let's just stick to the facts, i.e. the fetus is not a person. No one has to "JUSTIFY" abortion for any reason. The opposers have to justify using the force of government.to interfere with individual rights.

 

Whether the "fetus" is a person or not is the entire issue. It is the only issue. If it is not a human, then there is no opposition to abortion. None, end of story.

Amazing how you can so easily gloss over the one critical aspect - maybe even the only aspect - that the entire issue turns upon.

The facts are not so clear, either. Its clearly a human at 21 weeks as that is the earliest a baby has been born and survived. Accepted viability is 24 weeks. How much earlier is it a human? Thats wide open for debate, there is no factual answer.

 

That is not the only issue. We know the fetus is human (adjective), but we only have opinions as to when the fetus becomes A human (noun) or a person. Whenever that is, whatever it is, the question still remains as to whether a woman is forced to gestate that fetus.

 

And that is the usual course of action

Where abortions overwhelmingly occur after 24 weeks is when there is foetal abnormality incompatible with life

Are you opposed to palliative care? Are you opposed to ensuring that someone is given enough pain medication to die pain free even if that means their life is shortened

This is no different. It is merely palliation before birth

The parents who are involved with this may or may not judge "quality of life" but who is in a better position to determine this? Remembering that often there are multiple organs involved and failing

let us look at some of the conditions that are aborted with late term

Graphic images edited out

Oh! And BTW the term "abortion" the correct medical term for miscarriage. The most common term for abortion over 24 weeks is "termination of pregnancy"

 

Explain scientifically why the fetus isn't a person.

 

The connections, organs, including the brain, the ability to form thought that generally defines the ephemeral concept of personhood are not present in the fetus until somewhere around six months....until this point it is incapable of functioning in such a way that can be biologically considered a person.
We can all agree that the fetus is human, and even see it as a being when pressed....but it is scientifically, medically, biologically, and logically not a person.

 

Now this post right here is proof enough for me abortion needs to remain legal. Some people capable of reproducing are incapable of being parents. I suggest gardening.

 

If it's a human, then why isn't it a person?

 

hu·man (hymn)
n.
1. A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.

2. A person: the extraordinary humans who explored Antarctica.

adj.
1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of humans: the course of human events; the human race.

2. Having or showing those positive aspects of nature and character regarded as distinguishing humans from other animals: an act of human kindness.

3. Subject to or indicative of the weaknesses, imperfections, and fragility associated with humans: a mistake that shows he's only human; human frailty.

4. Having the form of a human.

5. Made up of humans: formed a human bridge across the ice.

per·son (pûrsn)
n.
1. A living human. Often used in combination: chairperson; spokesperson; salesperson.

2. An individual of specified character: a person of importance.

3. The composite of characteristics that make up an individual personality; the self.

4. The living body of a human: searched the prisoner's person.

5. Physique and general appearance.

6. Law A human or organization with legal rights and duties.

7. Christianity Any of the three separate individualities of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as distinguished from the essence of the Godhead that unites them.

8. Grammar
a. Any of three groups of pronoun forms with corresponding verb inflections that distinguish the speaker (first person), the individual addressed (second person), and the individual or thing spoken of (third person).

b. Any of the different forms or inflections expressing these distinctions.

9. A character or role, as in a play; a guise: "Well, in her person, I say I will not have you" (Shakespeare).


As stated...a person is generally based on the ability to form thought and express it, though the expression is not absolutely required once the ability is understood to exist. Much of the concept of a person is based upon the interaction it has with those things outside of itself.

 

And with couples, you can be assured that men in the household are working their jobs and stabilizing economics. That's why Marriage had been such a significant factor of our lives up until this "Revolution"(of course Fugazi rejected it out of hand, but I expected as much).

I also think that the women position on pregnancy is grossly over-stated and frankly not true. Because if pregnancy were as deadly as you shout, many women simply wouldn't have made it through the process. So allow me to give a more accurate medical assessment:

-It may be that all of these varying conditions could occur, but in reality only some of them occur and to varying degrees of extremities.

-I've posted numerous times also about the health benefits from pregnancy. Including protection from breast cancer for example. On the contrary for men, the older they get and the more sperm they use, the more at risk they are.

This isn't an argument for Abortion's moral ground, it's such a weak argument I'm no longer considering it no matter how much space people waste writing it in long-form.

 

Explain Scientifically why a corporation is considered a 'person'. You can't because personhood has nothing to do with Science and everything to do with politics.

 

You cannot be assured of any such thing. While most men, husbands that is, have done the honorable thing by supporting their families to the best of their abilities, there have always been slackers who could not be counted upon, slackers who, if they had jobs, gambled or drank away their pay.

That's because it suits you to believe that pregnancy/childbirth just isn't any big deal. Many women haven't made it through the process in the past, and medical intervention is the only thing that has saved many women and babies. As wonderful as medical intervention is, it still doesn't prevent women's bodies from being damaged during pregnancy/childbirth, and every single woman who gives birth suffers from bodily damage to some degree.

It is true that every woman is different and some suffer less, some suffer more.

The health benefits from pregnancy/childbirth are minimal compared to the risks. We can't do anything to prevent men's aging, but I'm sure medical research is actively trying to find a cure, and when they do, no one will object on the basis that it's natural to age and suffer the consequences.

No one is trying to convince you that abortion is moral. Posters are trying to convince you that women have the right to decide that for themselves, just as you decided for yourself. Posters are trying to convince you that morals alone are not a basis for legislation, that we are supposed to have freedom of conscience in this country. You have the right to try to convince others that abortion is immoral and that women shouldn't choose it, but you don't have the right to legislate it and thereby tell women that they can't choose it.

 

This is a rather stunning admission, and I'd like to thank and applaud you for admitting as such. So when I say Abortion lacks a Moral Principle, I'm not talking out of my ass. If it didn't lack a moral principle, the "pro-life" crowd wouldn't exist.

They're not trying to *control* your body, they're saying you have no right to control the developing body inside of you. Within a few months(like literally in the 2nd trimester), the baby's already developed its own lungs and heart, and its own system.

And despite that, I've proposed giving Abortion the Moral Standard it needs, by proposing that the mechanics in Abortion is geared more towards actual Family Planning, rather than female supremacy(as it would) over both the Fetus and the Male partner.

It's absurd to say he's not an equal, just because he only partakes in one part of the recreation process. That part happens to be the part that starts it all to begin with.

Participating in politics means becoming one with society, not trying to one-up "men" and create the Matichary. Because IMO the Patriarchy never existed.

Yes, men did lead politically, socially and economically. But Women, as a politically-protected class enjoyed privilege that you in fact still want to protect today.
You want to enhance that with political-superiority. But that doesn't coincide with equality, which men themselves strived for as well.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Wmen.htm (Here's one such Briton Example)

http://www.nwhm.org/online-exhibits/rightsforwomen/menforsuffrage.html
(And I found some good ole American examples)

Politics isn't black and white, it was neither then nor now. The Sexual War is completely unnecessary, and I'm all but prepared to call a truce at any time.

 

Are you a physician? Specifically one that specializes in obstetrics and gynecology? Because quite frankly if I was in the position of, "Your health is in serious danger and we need to discuss your options including the possibility of abortion because C-section/V-BAC is not safe" then I would want to hear it from my physician, and as a woman I very well may be faced with this someday. I hardly think that any person who's not involved at all should be weighing my options for me or any other woman's for that matter. And I certainly don't think politicians should be involved with mine or other women's very personal and very private (hello HIPPA anyone?) medical decisions.

Why? And we're not talking about other born people here, we're talking about a fetus that will more than likely die at birth or shortly after. So, why? Why shouldn't the parents be able to decide to end it's life in the womb before it suffers and before they suffer? Why do you want to make a woman face another few weeks of carrying a dead or dying baby to term when she doesn't want to suffer emotionally anymore?

For example;

http://babyandbump.momtastic.com/miscarriage-support/624378-carrying-dead-baby-inside-me.html

That was at 13 weeks but it can and does happen during all trimesters.

And here is a father confronting some abortion protesters outside a clinic that his wife was going into to get an abortion due to fetal incompatibility with life.

[video=youtube;hYS9HUIRUVo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYS9HUIRUVo[/video]

Clearly, but you know what, if you keep wanting to argue that fetal abnormality is irrelevant to the discussion because it happens so rarely then I will say the exact same for third trimester abortions. They happen so rarely that they are totally irrelevant to this debate and the reasons most of them are done for are medically valid and as far as I know most pro-lifers do not even object to the reasons they are done.

It certainly does highlight the pro-life view. Some pro-lifers are so against abortion that they would deny a dying woman the right to have one even though the fetus was dead. For example;

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/apr/08/abortion-refusal-death-ireland-hindu-woman

Insane, don't you think? Who in their right minds would deny a woman a life-saving abortion on an already dead fetus? Pro-lifers would. By the way the woman in that article, she died horribly and painfully.

It is my opinion that no human being, born or not, has the right to use another human being's body, or parts of their body, for their own survival without the ongoing consent of the person who's body is being used. Therefore I believe a woman has a right to an abortion at all times in order to defend her body from unwanted use by another.

Again you're in the 1 percentile. They are going to happen for medical reasons as recommended by a physician and really nobody, not even most pro-lifers, have a problem with abortions done for medical reasons.

It's a good thing it's not up to you then. If you don't want to have an abortion for those reasons that's fine, that's your choice, but you don't get to make that decision for everyone.

Yes, it absolutely is, especially if you understand the mental state rape victims go through after sexual assault.

Punishment is normally intended to make someone hurt or suffer, you can't make an embryo, something that cannot think or feel, hurt or suffer.

This is not hard to resolve at all. Just leave women's bodily integrity and rights alone and allow them to make their own medical choices and the so-called 'problem' will resolve itself because each woman will be free to make her own decision. Some women do carry their rape babies to term, again that is their choice. They should not be forced or coerced into doing anything they don't want to.

 

Just stating the facts man.

Good for them, and I am telling them to bugger off and leave me and every other woman alone to make our own private and personal medical decisions about our own bodies. (Thank you HIPPA!)

Abortion, in my opinion, is neither moral or amoral, it simply is. It's just another choice some women have to make during their pregnancies either at the recommendation of their physician or by their own personal conclusion. Abortion is one of the few medical procedures that people want to turn into a political position and it's just not and shouldn't be one. It should be left alone as an option for women to make if they want to. Politics has a tendency to only see the macro on certain subjects, abortion being one of them, and they tend to completely ignore the micro individual to individual affect it has. You can read about the individual affects abortion has on women here and elsewhere on the net. http://www.imnotsorry.net/

Well pregnancy, by pure Biology, is not equal. That's just a fact of life. You can be upset about it all you want or accept it for what it is.

Yes this is all pure opinion. You have no facts to back up this opinion either I see.

Please do not assume to know what I want. I am not looking for political superiority, I am actually looking to take abortion completely off the political table (like other pro-choicers are) and to tell people to mind their own business and quit sticking their noses in women's private and personal medical choices.

???

Not sure who you're talking to, but it certainly isn't me. Whatever "sexual war" is going on, if it involves stripping me of my right to choose an abortion if I get pregnant then I will step up and defend my rights and my fellow women's rights but other than that I could care less. People are free to make their own relationships and develop those relationships however they like, I sincerely do not care to pry into other people's personal lives like that.

 

and as pointed out to you in an earlier response marriage as it is now is a relatively new thing, prior to the churches involvement marriage was purely a political union, it enabled the offspring of the union to be officially recognized and for the building of power systems.
Also in marriages, right up until the late 1970's, it was legal for a man to rape his wife, a woman had little recourse to divorce . .do you think this was the equality you keep on about?

You would.

you really don't seem to have the slightest idea of what occurs to the woman during pregnancy.

and those "benefits" pale compared to the damages.

morality is only a small part of the whole debate.

 

You remind me of that disgusting PBS documentary I watched on Feminism, which made it out as if you guys lived in Afghanistan or something.

http://www.stopvaw.org/prevalence_of_domestic_violence

Domestic Violence's decreased a lot over the past few decades.

http://www.foryourmarriage.org/married-parents-are-important-for-children/

Just because it wasn't acknowledged as a social norm(by 'experts' anyway) doesn't mean it wasn't a social norm. It was and the Middle Class particularly benefited for it.

It's not without coincidence that as Feminism changed our 'social norms' that the Middle Class took a dive with it.

And I did .

Oh no, I saw the list you linked to in another thread. A whole LIST of complications, several of which could potentially be fatal.

Here's the thing though: If it were *THAT* bad, we wouldn't be 7 billion huge right now. Okgrannie correctly alludes to medical advances, but we shouldn't attribute it all to medical advances.

We can also attribute it to our food system and how women in general are eating healthier, government programs that assist familys with feeding for newborns has also been very productive. A lot of reasons, but we can also boil it down that despite that OMEGA big list, the reality is that during the moment, few if any of those implications actually arise.

It's no different from a news report about sugar and stuff linked to diabetes, heart disease(and a bunch of other things). Does that mean we fret eating everything made out of or added with sugar? Hell no. We focus on our intake.

Same here, pregnancy preparation has made it a hell of a lot more possible in the 21st century than otherwise. That's why in the Developed World, malnutrition and complicated pregnancies(even in the U.S) are minuscule.

I'd have to disagree, any protection provided against terminal diseases and stuff is a very positive thing. But the way you speak of the "damages", would you say the vast if not the entire population of women are "damaged"?

Truth be told, our body suffers damages the moment we step out of the womb. The body we die with is very far from the body we first came out of. Damages are inevitable(but science is improving rapidly).

There may come a time where we can mitigate damage via pregnancy. When/if that time comes, we can revisit whether or not damage is a moral argument for abortion.

For you, maybe. But for me and every person who thinks critically of the issue, it's very important. A law without moral is a law that's not sanctified. It's a law that leads to abuses in one way or another or some kind of superiority.

And I think the superiority complex of women granted by abortion is very clear and self-evident.

 

It's really not possible to say whether domestic violence as increased or decreased. Feminism, by guaranteeing access to more jobs with more pay, has given women an "out" so they can escape conditions of domestic violence.

One of the main things that has lowered the risk of death from pregnancy/childbirth, is the increased use of birth control and abortion to space pregnancies. Pregnancies spaced too close together greatly increase risk for the woman and the fetus.

You may think the rate is minuscule until someone close to you is affected by the rates.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/...th-is-a-human-right/maternal-health-in-the-us

Maternal mortality ratios have increased from 6.6 deaths per 100,000 live births in 1987 to 13.3 deaths per 100,000 live births in 2006. While some of the recorded increase is due to improved data collection, the fact remains that maternal mortality ratios have risen significantly.
The USA spends more than any other country on health care, and more on maternal health than any other type of hospital care. Despite this, women in the USA have a higher risk of dying of pregnancy-related complications than those in 49 other countries, including Kuwait, Bulgaria, and South Korea.
African-American women are nearly four times more likely to die of pregnancy-related complications than white women. These rates and disparities have not improved in more than 20 years.
Maternal deaths are only the tip of the iceberg. During 2004 and 2005, more than 68,000 women nearly died in childbirth in the USA. Each year, 1.7 million women suffer a complication that has an adverse effect on their health.

Any woman who has given birth has suffered damage to her body as a result. Some is minimal, some is life-changing, See above for stats.

It is not your decision. It is the person whose body will be damaged who gets to decide if the risk is worth it.

Laws exist to maintain order in society, not to enforce a particular moral code. Any person is entitled to determine his own moral code until or unless that moral code disrupts order in society.

 

Most women who have abortions, don't have abortions to avoid the damaging physical effects of pregnancy.

 

They will refuse to acknowledge any possibility of the macro-effects of the millions of these worldwide.