Bans 'do not cut abortion rate'

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Eventually science will invalidate our current thinking, always has always will.

If the hoped for breakthroughs in birth control come about much of this debate will indeed become moot so long as there is concensus that access to birth control is also a fundamental right

We can only hope!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The fact is that late term abortions are carried out extremely rarely and in cases where the mother's life is in danger or where there is massive disfigurement that would result in still birth.

I don't agree with it beyond those criteria and the window of opportunity to take care of it at an early stage is pretty generous.

what a stretch but like I said before these technicalities are going to cut it for me, theres something bigger here that needs to be addressed.

Its not a technicality - its a fact.

[HAL 9000 96]

'Regular'' murderers don't gestate, just to clarify. Unless, of course, we want to accept Joe's definition of abortion as murder that isn't legally sound at this point.

This entire argument is based on people's take on morality- and defining things that are not completely accurate in the meantime. People that use ignorant arguments like Joe often cannot grasp the basics behind these concepts, and therefore, cannot make accurate representations of how 'individuality' and biology are interrelated.

If the argument was I'm against abortion (the procedure) on most grounds because an 8-celled zygote has a beating heart, then... even if it were completely incorrect, there'd be room to discuss with rationality on board. Unfortunately, when the misinterpretation of fact impedes a rational discussion- you can see the result with keypounding above.

As I've stated to you before- I, and many people that favor abortion RIGHTS, are not particularly keen on celebrating abortions. Only an idiot would make statements to the contrary.

I stayed out of that part of the debate, beating heart, its alive and all that because I know how the pro choice people love to hear that so they can shoot back about how technically its not considered a life and this is the law, all the while distracting us from the moral aspect of this, which is really at the heart of this for me. This issue will never go away because of this simple fact.

Fair enough, because when it gets boiled down to the moral aspect- I can only rightfully control what I do to myself. I am no woman so I have no right if for example, my wife and I were to be blessed with a baby, to force any decision on her. I would plead to keep it because I wish for fatherhood someday. My morality would plead for me to want the baby, but I would definitely accept my wife's decision to not keep it if she felt that we were not ready.

In the meantime, we'll do what most educated people do- use birth control.

[_Simpson_ 250]

Imagine. Suddenly slipping on the floor of your bathroom becomes negligent homicide.

Having a glass of wine or two becomes a jailable offence!

Now your just being ridiculous, but hey I will play along. Whens the last time you seen a pregnant woman slip into a clinic at the exact same time a doctor slips and accidental gives the woman a abortion?

People need to be held accountable for there actions, from the bedroom the operation room.

And that, right there is your agenda.

You don't give a ####### about the practicalities of having or looking after the child, you just want to win an ideological battle to enforce your concept of morality onto pregnant women. It's a form of slavery is what it is.

Ideological battle, good grief? Thats just what you want to believe and go ahead. I have said many things about this issue and its funny how you want to grab on to this and try and run with it, fail.

[HAL 9000 96]

Again, you are missing the point. It's not that a fetus is dependent in that sense - it's a fundamental life and death dependence. The fetus CANNOT LIVE without the mother. END OF STORY.

Once you get that point, you'll cease with this drivel.

Actually, as I pointed out, the fetus can live outside of the mother after a certain point in the pregnancy. Since a baby can survive after 21 weeks of pregnancy, after that it really is morally equivalent to a vegetative person in a hospital. In a couple years, that point may move further. What happens when if medical technology can save a baby after a month of pregnancy (before the mother is even aware that she is pregnant)?

After conception, a father has a responsibility to his unborn child that is enforceable in court. All he would have to do is supply the sperm and then he'll be paying every month until that baby is 18. Why do you think that it's ridiculous that a mother can also be responsible for a child once she conceives it? If she didn't want to carry the pregnancy to term, could she be held financially accountable for medical care if the baby was to a point that it could be delivered and survive? Why not? What if the father paid to take care of the premature baby and it survived? Is she accountable for child support? In general, parents are responsible for the care of their children.

In very rare cases can it survive prior to 24 weeks gestation. In fact, MOST fetuses prior to the third trimester cannot survive outside the womb.

The rest of your argument has also been rehashed and answered dutifully- the man does not gestate. Period. Simple as that. Let us know when men can do so and we can then talk about parity.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You just said there that "people need to be held accountable for their actions in the bedroom and the operation room".

What else is to be drawn from that - except that in your view a woman who gets pregnant should be forced by law to go thruogh with it, whether she wants to or not.

That is an ideological agenda. Its not a stretch of interpretation either - you said this explicitly.

Edited October 15, 2009 by Gene Hunt

[HAL 9000 96]

The point of fact there surely is that as it's inextricably a part of the woman's body, so she has some right to determine what happens to it, and whether she wants to go through something physically, emotionally and financially draining.

Well sure she has some rights, I truly believe that but the key word is SOME. Its not just her that this affects, it affects the fetus too and that should be considered too when the mothers life isnt in danger.

As far as the emotional aspect of this, its going to be draining no matter how you go about this, I know some people that have had abortions and they really have a hard time dealing with it and has affected them tremendously.

Indeed. An abortion is not and should not be a cosmetic nor a birth control procedure. They tell you this during counseling before proceeding with one.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

What I'm getting at is that once technology can guarantee the survival of the fetus then this debate about where he/she has rights no longer exists. Yes I'm sure there will be regulations in its use but if it can save lives I'm sure it will be implemented in some form once it has been determined as safe.

You can't have that debate while this is not reality. I suspect, and I hope that the ability to regulate whether one would become pregnant during intercourse will have improved leaps and bounds by that time, and that women who are currently prevented from using contraception for whatever reason, will no longer be prevented from doing so. Abortion is not the first resort for anyone - it is the last.

Its the last because the baby is dead no?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Indeed. An abortion is not and should not be a cosmetic nor a birth control procedure. They tell you this during counseling before proceeding with one.

I don't understand why there is this idea that somehow abortion is some sort of recreational procedure - as if the woman gets her hair and nails done while she waits

[Joseph & Ana 0]

The point of fact there surely is that as it's inextricably a part of the woman's body, so she has some right to determine what happens to it, and whether she wants to go through something physically, emotionally and financially draining.

Well sure she has some rights, I truly believe that but the key word is SOME. Its not just her that this affects, it affects the fetus too and that should be considered too when the mothers life isnt in danger.

As far as the emotional aspect of this, its going to be draining no matter how you go about this, I know some people that have had abortions and they really have a hard time dealing with it and has affected them tremendously.

The fetus doesn't have any rights. The fetus cannot survive to birth without the co-operation of the mother. The fetus never has a guarantee of life. The fetus is a necessarily fragile entity. The fetus must come second to the mother when one considers the issue of rights because the fetus is completely dependent on her co operation. That is the simplicity of it.

If you want to impose the rights of the fetus onto the mother, you will find a certain number of women in jail during pregnancy. Is that where you wish to go?

The baby outside the womb is just as dependent and after birth theres no guarantee of life either. I know what your going for though, theres no possibility for life, but we have the means to give them a chance. Why should we not?

Of course the fetus doesn't have any rights but fortunately many are working to change that.

If you want to impose the rights of the fetus onto the mother, you will find a certain number of women in jail during pregnancy. Is that where you wish to go?

Step back and look at the big picture here, lives will be saved.

No, the baby outside the womb can be cared for by anyone. Inside the womb only one person.

Imposing pregnancy on women who do not wish to go through with it will save no lives at all in fact, I would predict a greater number of deaths. Pregnant women who do not wish to be pregnant will attempt to kill the fetus, even if in the process they kill themselves. This is documented fact.

Imposing pregnancy? NO one is imposing pregnancy - She CHOSE to be pregnant when she spread her legs. In case anyone hasn't heard, that is how babies are made.

[HAL 9000 96]

What I'm getting at is that once technology can guarantee the survival of the fetus then this debate about where he/she has rights no longer exists. Yes I'm sure there will be regulations in its use but if it can save lives I'm sure it will be implemented in some form once it has been determined as safe.

Therein lies the questions as to what kind of legality would oversee the well-being of the baby afterwards. What you suggest would work if the babies became wards of the state, and the procedure of removing the fetus from the mother would likely have to be developed to ensure continuation of gestational viability.

The state likely will not want this kind of bypass of classical maternity any time soon unless we also had the technology to populate other planets.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Again, you are missing the point. It's not that a fetus is dependent in that sense - it's a fundamental life and death dependence. The fetus CANNOT LIVE without the mother. END OF STORY.

Once you get that point, you'll cease with this drivel.

Its another slippery slope argument to which you responded to. Boil it down to a reductionist approach with bold, simple words for them to understand along black and white lines of reasoning.

A fetus is not considered as a separate entity from the point of view of human rights prior to birth.

Many people would disagree. That's the point. The abortion argument essentially boils down to whether or not the fetus can be considered as a human with rights of its own. If you take as a premise that the baby doesn't have rights, you're correct in saying that the debate is pretty pointless.

Either way, it's not a debate about female rights. It's a debate about fetus rights.

The way the 'law' considers it- female rights trumps any consideration of fetal rights based on X, Y, and Z factors that are quite clear. I understand the moral argument and some folks should just stick with that.

Pretty much. The right to "choose" is just that: to give women the choice of when they have offspring. In fact it doesn't require any sort of judgement or moralising from other people as to the behaviour or choices of the individual.

They have a right to choose whether they spread their legs.

But we're not talking about the cooperation of just anyone else - so pulling out analogies about vegetative people in hospitals is irrelevant. We're talking about the cooperation of one specifically identifiable person who would be forced to go through biological changes and financial burdens if they were forced to go through with the pregnancy.

Didn't have a problem going through with the sex though!

And they also have a right to their bodies that you have NO say over.

The baby has a right too. Murder is immoral.

[HAL 9000 96]

What I'm getting at is that once technology can guarantee the survival of the fetus then this debate about where he/she has rights no longer exists. Yes I'm sure there will be regulations in its use but if it can save lives I'm sure it will be implemented in some form once it has been determined as safe.

That isn't necessarily true. The ethics would depend entirely on the circumstances. As your entire premise is hypothetical, the ethics can only be hypothetical guesswork.

It makes for a nice Sci Fi tangent to this story that can even bring people together.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Eventually science will invalidate our current thinking, always has always will.

If the hoped for breakthroughs in birth control come about much of this debate will indeed become moot so long as there is concensus that access to birth control is also a fundamental right

Of course it is. But even if babies can be raised from conception outside the womb, the libs will still hold to their holy sacrament of abortion on demand.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Imposing pregnancy? NO one is imposing pregnancy - She CHOSE to be pregnant when she spread her legs. In case anyone hasn't heard, that is how babies are made.

That would only be true if pregnancy was guaranteed each time someone has sex.

Even you must know that that isn't the case.