Abortion and Women's Rights

[Izawwlgood]

I just don't really get it why it is to be morally accepted that the fetus should pay for it when I still wanted to fuck around,

Because 'being born' doesn't mean 'everything works out'. Why do you think it's better to force a woman to birth an unwanted child than simply not have it? Notice, this is different from saying unwanted children never have happy lives. Again, the issue isn't whether or not we should terminate every single surprise pregnancy or murder every single orphan, but whether or not women should have the right to terminate a surprise pregnancy, and not give birth to an unwanted child/orphan.

[FireZs]

Well, under my plan she delivers right away without carrying the baby to term. Baby dies right after birth, same result as an abortion.

It is not actually the same. If she had an abortion, the fetus would not have known pain. As it was, the fetus was born and spent 15 minutes struggling to breath and the parents had to watch it struggle for each breath. In the end the same physical outcome occurred, except with pain. Emotional pain for the parents (more than they already felt from having their hopes for a healthy baby dashed) and physical pain for the child.
I don't see how this is the same at all.

Sure, it's not exactly the same. But the end result is the same. At least the woman wouldn't have had to drag out the pregnancy, and the fetus may have died sooner with less suffering.

And really, it's a separate issue from use of the woman's body under my proposal, since I wouldn't be making the woman carry the baby any longer after the discovery is made. This is a general issue of "is it better kill it than watch it suffer?" And it would just as easily apply to an apparently healthy born baby that is found to be destined for a long painful death very soon. Do we kill that child? Maybe, but it's a separate issue that has much more general effects.

And what if the decision to give up the child is made after birth? It does happen, after all. Would you have them kill their born baby?

Oh wait, you did say you were ok with that. My bad.

Now you're just being obtuse. I'm not even going to bother going back the four pages where you and I had this exchange, and I explicitly stated I wasn't ok with it, but thought legislating it was a difficult thing to do. But,

Difficult how? Like "I want to make it legal, but I'm not sure how to make that sound good" difficult?

because if there's no money for foster homes

The thing you are totally failing to understand is that providing more abortions for women is an ENORMOUS money saver. Like, the cost of letting a woman get an abortion compared to raising a child through the foster care system is akin to comparing the cost of bus fair vs. buying a fleet of buses. The easier we make it for women to have abortions, the MORE money we free up for orphanages, something I realize will always be around, and I hope will always be amply funded.

Always? Then my comparison is no longer a strawman

So, yes, your comparison is indeed, still a strawman, because I didn't state "I think we should take away ALL money from orphanages and give it ALL to Dr. McAbortAllFetuses.

Well well, now you're the one using the strawman, cause I never said you said that (this is fun!). I said that you obviously think orphanages and foster homes should be around, so you can't possibly think money should always go to abortions no matter what. Certainly there must be a scenario under which you would be willing to put money towards foster homes and orphanages. Say...if there's zero money for those? But hey, if you really really really don't want to qualify your "rather" at all, that's ok with me too.

Well, under my plan she delivers right away without carrying the baby to term. Baby dies right after birth, same result as an abortion.

It is not actually the same. If she had an abortion, the fetus would not have known pain. As it was, the fetus was born and spent 15 minutes struggling to breath and the parents had to watch it struggle for each breath. In the end the same physical outcome occurred, except with pain. Emotional pain for the parents (more than they already felt from having their hopes for a healthy baby dashed) and physical pain for the child.
I don't see how this is the same at all.

Also, delivery is a non-zero risk activity. You're basically telling a woman that right now, there's a medical procedure we can do that is reasonably safe, to terminate the fetus, but we can't do it, and instead, a handful of months from now, you'll have to painfully deliver a sickly infant, assuming complications don't arise before the delivery, and then it will die, soonish, or, we can put it in an incredibly expensive incubator and drag on it's suffering. Because you know, abortions are evil.

For the billionth time, late-term abortions are significantly more risky than early abortions, and comparable to the risk of delivery at that point.

As a thing, women still die from childbirth. Even here in the US of A women die from childbirth. it is certainly a problem

For the billionth-and-one time, late-term abortions are significantly more risky than early abortions, and comparable to the risk of delivery at that point.

[LaserGuy]

Well, under my plan she delivers right away without carrying the baby to term. Baby dies right after birth, same result as an abortion.

It is not actually the same. If she had an abortion, the fetus would not have known pain. As it was, the fetus was born and spent 15 minutes struggling to breath and the parents had to watch it struggle for each breath. In the end the same physical outcome occurred, except with pain. Emotional pain for the parents (more than they already felt from having their hopes for a healthy baby dashed) and physical pain for the child.
I don't see how this is the same at all.

Also, delivery is a non-zero risk activity. You're basically telling a woman that right now, there's a medical procedure we can do that is reasonably safe, to terminate the fetus, but we can't do it, and instead, a handful of months from now, you'll have to painfully deliver a sickly infant, assuming complications don't arise before the delivery, and then it will die, soonish, or, we can put it in an incredibly expensive incubator and drag on it's suffering. Because you know, abortions are evil.

I think you've misread something. The argument is whether or not, if a pregnant woman wants a late-term abortion, she should instead have an early delivery (that is, a delivery on the same day as her abortion would have been) given that the associated risks of late-term abortions and early delivery are relatively comparable. FireZs has explicitly stated that s/he has no problem with abortions at earlier points in the pregnancy.

[sophyturtle]

Sure, it's not exactly the same. But the end result is the same.

This is where we disagree.

[Izawwlgood]

given that the associated risks of late-term abortions and early delivery are relatively comparable.

It may have been cited, but I missed it; where was that shown to be true?

Also, I now wonder if you or FireZ are aware of what a late-term abortion is, medically.

[gmalivuk]

As for the pain, there's always c-section.

In which FireZs continues demonstrating just how little he knows about childbirth.

C-sections cannot be considered painless, just because they happen to involve anesthesia at the time of the procedure. In general, basic recovery time is longer and some muscle damage is permanent after a Caesarean. So it's really damn stupid to say, "Oh, you don't want to deal with the pain of childbirth? Okay, then we'll just knock you out with drugs and then cut a hole through your abdomen and it will be a couple days before you can walk much and a couple weeks before you should lift anything as heavy or heavier than, say, a typical infant." Yeah, *fantastic* solution...

[Izawwlgood]

Just to make sure we're on the same page LaserGuy and FireZ;
A late term abortion is effectively an induced birth, or, an induced birth with the added measure of fetal tissue removal. Hell, early term abortion is effectively an induced birth...

[Aic]

Because 'being born' doesn't mean 'everything works out'.

Since I wish I would've never been born* I clearly do know that. But no one could know that it'd turn out that way when my mother was pregnant. I do not think it is right to kill anything that at least might already have an interest to not be harmed just because it has a good chance to a crapped up life when you don't know for sure, and "crappy" is clearly to be decided by the one who lives it.
Sure less orphans and less crappy lives would be better than just creating even more children. But I also think it is of even higher importance to not harm something that's already there (in a woman's uterus, in this case).
And since it seems to be a pretty early stage where you could call it "harm" I have a really hard time making up my mind on this topic.
(Of course, I think this also applies to the mother. I think haven't read anybody here who would expect a woman to die to carry out a child? I clearly do know a few people who think that way.)

Again, the issue isn't whether or not we should terminate every single surprise pregnancy or murder every single orphan

You didn't sound like that anyway, actually.


_{*which does not mean I would've found it right to be aborted at any cost or any moment (see higher importance), I just wish they would've used a darn condom or what you seem to know as "Plan B".}

[FireZs]

As for the pain, there's always c-section.

In which FireZs continues demonstrating just how little he knows about childbirth.

C-sections cannot be considered painless, just because they happen to involve anesthesia at the time of the procedure. In general, basic recovery time is longer and some muscle damage is permanent after a Caesarean. So it's really damn stupid to say, "Oh, you don't want to deal with the pain of childbirth? Okay, then we'll just knock you out with drugs and then cut a hole through your abdomen and it will be a couple days before you can walk much and a couple weeks before you should lift anything as heavy or heavier than, say, a typical infant." Yeah, *fantastic* solution...

Right, so make sure the baby dies before it comes out. Fantastic solution. Like the abortion wouldn't involve anesthesia or have any recovery time.

given that the associated risks of late-term abortions and early delivery are relatively comparable.

It may have been cited, but I missed it; where was that shown to be true?

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html (1 death/11000 for >21-week abortions)
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus200 ... ble039.pdf (10.2 deaths/100000 for childbirth in 2007, so about 1/10000)

[sophyturtle]

I managed to walk home. *shrug*

[Izawwlgood]

FireZ, could you please clarify what exactly you're getting at with this? That instead of 'aborting' a fetus, we should 'induce early labor and let the fetus die exposed on the table', and anesthesia is bad and abortions have a recovery period?
I'm just lost as to what you're proposing here, ethically/hypothetically, or literally.

I do not think it is right to kill anything that at least might already have an interest to not be harmed just because it has a good chance to a crapped up life when you don't know for sure, and "crappy" is clearly to be decided by the one who lives it.

Personally, I question whether or not a fetus has such a interest, but that's not really the point.

[FireZs]

FireZ, could you please clarify what exactly you're getting at with this? That instead of 'aborting' a fetus, we should 'induce early labor and let the fetus die exposed on the table', and anesthesia is bad and abortions have a recovery period?
I'm just lost as to what you're proposing here, ethically/hypothetically, or literally.

No, anesthesia isn't bad (I'm no scientologist). And yes, late term abortions are done under general anesthesia over 2 days, and there's a 2-3 week recovery time.

What I'm getting at here is that I think there's a better way to determine where the "line" for abortions is, and it's to just deliver the baby immediately.The vast vast majority of these will be basically the same as abortions now, since they'd be done early. The few that are in the gray area, instead of selecting an arbitrary time, the fetus' "personhood" will be sorted out by virtue of whether or not it survives.

[Angua]

FireZ, could you please clarify what exactly you're getting at with this? That instead of 'aborting' a fetus, we should 'induce early labor and let the fetus die exposed on the table', and anesthesia is bad and abortions have a recovery period?
I'm just lost as to what you're proposing here, ethically/hypothetically, or literally.

No, anesthesia isn't bad (I'm no scientologist). And yes, late term abortions are done under general anesthesia over 2 days, and there's a 2-3 week recovery time.

What I'm getting at here is that I think there's a better way to determine where the "line" for abortions is, and it's to just deliver the baby immediately.The vast vast majority of these will be basically the same as abortions now, since they'd be done early. The few that are in the gray area, instead of selecting an arbitrary time, the fetus' "personhood" will be sorted out by virtue of whether or not it survives.

How hard are doctors supposed to try to make sure it survives??? Who makes the medical decisions for whether or not it should be resuscitated in the case of a medical emergency where if it may or may not be survived, and then may or may not be horribly disabled?

[LaserGuy]

FireZ, could you please clarify what exactly you're getting at with this? That instead of 'aborting' a fetus, we should 'induce early labor and let the fetus die exposed on the table', and anesthesia is bad and abortions have a recovery period?
I'm just lost as to what you're proposing here, ethically/hypothetically, or literally.

The issue is this:

Late-term abortions and induced live births are essentially the same process, except that something is done (such as an injection of KCl, cutting the umbilical cord, or, less commonly, evacuating the brain) to the fetus prior to delivery. Given that the fetus is exiting the mother's body by the same method, at the same time, alive or dead, the bodily autonomy of the mother is an irrelevant consideration. The contention then, is that under such circumstances, the ethical option is to allow the fetus to live. I would personally add that, in practical terms, this necessitates that a caregiver be immediately ready and able to assume responsibility for extremely premature baby. I'd venture that there are plenty of wealth pro-life or religious groups that might be willing to fill that gap--assuming, of course, that they aren't blatant hypocrites.

[sophyturtle]

Given that the fetus is exiting the mother's body by the same method, at the same time, alive or dead, the bodily autonomy of the mother is an irrelevant consideration.

I disagree. The woman should absolutely still get to decide which procedure she undergoes.

[Aic]

Personally, I question whether or not a fetus has such a interest, but that's not really the point.

That's most important for me to decide whether or not a fetus at any given state has a right to be/stay (actually doesn't apply only on fetuses), thus at what point I find an abortion okay or not (left aside mother in danger and some other mentioned exceptions). Sure a fetus does not explicitly think "oh, yay, I don't like to be harmed, I have a interest in sticking around here, so don't do mean things to me", but when it won't be amused about being physically hurt or even just irritated, i don't find it generally okay anymore to mess around with it.
I just don't find good information or consent (and I probably never will) about from what moment on that would apply, or at least when it clearly does not apply yet. I often find week 18-20 for general awareness of anything, end of second trimester for recognising physical pain, all-loved wikipedia states

Nevertheless, because pain can involve sensory, emotional and cognitive factors, it is "impossible to know" when painful experiences may become possible, even if it is known when thalamocortical connections are established.

,
pro-life...information often seem to think first movements (much earlier) are an indication that the fetus recognises something and thus may have an interest to stay alive (which I don't think is true.)

[Angua]

Personally, I question whether or not a fetus has such a interest, but that's not really the point.

That's most important for me to decide whether or not a fetus at any given state has a right to be/stay (actually doesn't apply only on fetuses), thus at what point I find an abortion okay or not (left aside mother in danger and some other mentioned exceptions). Sure a fetus does not explicitly think "oh, yay, I don't like to be harmed, I have a interest in sticking around here, so don't do mean things to me", but when it won't be amused about being physically hurt or even just irritated, i don't find it generally okay anymore to mess around with it.
I just don't find good information or consent (and I probably never will) about from what moment on that would apply, or at least when it clearly does not apply yet. I often find week 18-20 for general awareness of anything, end of second trimester for recognising physical pain, all-loved wikipedia states

Nevertheless, because pain can involve sensory, emotional and cognitive factors, it is "impossible to know" when painful experiences may become possible, even if it is known when thalamocortical connections are established.

,
pro-life...information often seem to think first movements (much earlier) are an indication that the fetus recognises something and thus may have an interest to stay alive (which I don't think is true.)

Not that you are saying this, but nociception and reflexive movements don't equate to 'feeling pain'. A baby born without a brain will still flinch if you prick it with a pin.

[FireZs]

assuming, of course, that they aren't blatant hypocrites.

A mighty large assumption. <_< But I would pose the question to them just to see what they'd say.

How hard are doctors supposed to try to make sure it survives??? Who makes the medical decisions for whether or not it should be resuscitated in the case of a medical emergency where if it may or may not be survived, and then may or may not be horribly disabled?

Well, how hard are doctors supposed to try to keep any unwanted child in need of urgent care alive? I don't think "But we could've just killed it and spared us all the trouble and unsightlyness!" is justifiable.

Given that the fetus is exiting the mother's body by the same method, at the same time, alive or dead, the bodily autonomy of the mother is an irrelevant consideration.

I disagree. The woman should absolutely still get to decide which procedure she undergoes.

Why? Because a woman has the right to take back the bodily support she has given?

[morriswalters]

@LaserGuy

Why would she require explicit consent for sex and expect not to have given explicit consent for the consequences?

If I walk in front of a car while listening to my Ipod, does the driver of the car assume liability? Is his behavior negligent or is mine. Although this is not strictly comparable, the argument is that you should know the risks if you engage in the behavior. The weakness of the argument lies in the definition and interpretation of explicit. The fact that the wyci didn't ask for consent is meaningless. Minor children can't give consent or ask for it. The burden falls solely on the parents to act in the child's best interest. This is a road we shouldn't travel.

[Angua]

assuming, of course, that they aren't blatant hypocrites.

A mighty large assumption. <_< But I would pose the question to them just to see what they'd say.

How hard are doctors supposed to try to make sure it survives??? Who makes the medical decisions for whether or not it should be resuscitated in the case of a medical emergency where if it may or may not be survived, and then may or may not be horribly disabled?

Well, how hard are doctors supposed to try to keep any unwanted child in need of urgent care alive? I don't think "But we could've just killed it and spared us all the trouble and unsightlyness!" is justifiable.

I don't know, but I'm sure that the conversation must come up with the parents of extremely pre-mature children - well we can try and keep your baby alive, but there is such and such a possibility of them becoming permanently disabled in such and such a way and then dying young anyway, or we can let them go peacefully now. Some parents would choose to do anything to keep the child alive (and then look after it and make sure it has a happy life) and some parents would choose the latter (and take comfort in the fact that the child was spared lots of future suffering).

[FireZs]

I don't know, but I'm sure that the conversation must come up with the parents of extremely pre-mature children - well we can try and keep your baby alive, but there is such and such a possibility of them becoming permanently disabled in such and such a way and then dying young anyway, or we can let them go peacefully now. Some parents would choose to do anything to keep the child alive (and then look after it and make sure it has a happy life) and some parents would choose the latter (and take comfort in the fact that the child was spared lots of future suffering).

Right, and as I said I feel like this is a separate issue, related to people in vegetative states/terminal illnesses etc.

[Izawwlgood]

Well, how hard are doctors supposed to try to keep any unwanted child in need of urgent care alive? I don't think "But we could've just killed it and spared us all the trouble and unsightlyness!" is justifiable.

If you think for a second that doctors don't make calls like this everyday, you've never interacted with anyone with any experience with any sort of medicine. If you also don't believe that hospitals don't have preferences towards things one way or the other, you'd be mistaken. The question is whether or not you'd be willing to accept the authority of a medical practitioner with experience, who is stating "A ninth procedure to try and save this child is simply not worth it in my opinion" and tell them, and the parents that it is.

Why? Because a woman has the right to take back the bodily support she has given?

Because abortion procedures are aimed as minimizing harm to the mother. If that means evacuating the brain of the fetus prior to removing the head through the cervix, then that should be done. If it means killing the baby with an injection first, to prevent it from flailing during removal and potentially tearing the uterus, then that should be done.

What you're basically advocating for is a more complicated procedure to let varying degrees of premature fetuses die. If you think for a second that a fetus has feelings, what you're proposing is vastly more cruel to the fetus and the mother. If you don't think a fetus has feelings/sensations, than what you are proposing is unnecessarily dangerous to the mother.

[FireZs]

Well, how hard are doctors supposed to try to keep any unwanted child in need of urgent care alive? I don't think "But we could've just killed it and spared us all the trouble and unsightlyness!" is justifiable.

If you think for a second that doctors don't make calls like this everyday, you've never interacted with anyone with any experience with any sort of medicine. If you also don't believe that hospitals don't have preferences towards things one way or the other, you'd be mistaken. The question is whether or not you'd be willing to accept the authority of a medical practitioner with experience, who is stating "A ninth procedure to try and save this child is simply not worth it in my opinion" and tell them, and the parents that it is.

Ok, so the doctor can decide if you're ok with that. The mother's severed her link to the fetus anyway.

Why? Because a woman has the right to take back the bodily support she has given?

Because abortion procedures are aimed as minimizing harm to the mother. If that means evacuating the brain of the fetus prior to removing the head through the cervix, then that should be done. If it means killing the baby with an injection first, to prevent it from flailing during removal and potentially tearing the uterus, then that should be done.

What you're basically advocating for is a more complicated procedure to let varying degrees of premature fetuses die. If you think for a second that a fetus has feelings, what you're proposing is vastly more cruel to the fetus and the mother. If you don't think a fetus has feelings/sensations, than what you are proposing is unnecessarily dangerous to the mother.

Didn't I just give statistics showing that it's NOT more dangerous (and, interestingly enough, if you're white it's actually LESS dangerous to deliver late-term than abort). The premature fetus will die anyway if it's aborted rather than delivered; if you think it's cruel, it's cruel either way.

[gmalivuk]

there are plenty of wealth pro-life or religious groups that might be willing to fill that gap--assuming, of course, that they aren't blatant hypocrites.

Given how many pro-lifers haven't adopted multiple children, I don't think that's a safe assumption. In addition, since many late-term abortions are performed because of serious fetal health problems, you'd be cutting down even more on the likelihood that anyone would actually care to step in and take care of the resulting extremely premature baby.

If I walk in front of a car while listening to my Ipod, does the driver of the car assume liability?

In many cases, yes. In my state, pedestrians have legal right-of-way in marked crosswalks. Being hit while crossing one, regardless of how little I was paying attention, would therefore be entirely the fault of the driver.

And of course, I suspect the likelihood that a driver won't be paying attention and accidentally hit me when I'm crossing the road is *far* greater than the 1 in 50,000 pregnancy risk that's assumed when having sex with good contraception.

Didn't I just give statistics showing that it's NOT more dangerous

Not necessarily. Your 10.2 figure (already a bit higher than the abortion death rate) is age-adjusted, while we don't know whether the 1 in 11,000 is as well, or is instead more appropriately compared with 12.7 maternal deaths per 100k live births.

Furthermore, given how many later-term abortions are done for health reasons, I imagine that most women getting abortions at 21 weeks or later have much higher than the average expected risk if they carry those pregnancies to term.

interestingly enough, if you're white it's actually LESS dangerous to deliver late-term than abort

Only if you assume, completely baselessly as far as I can tell, that white women have exactly the average death rate from abortions, despite having a 25% lower death rate from giving birth.

The premature fetus will die anyway if it's aborted rather than delivered, if you think it's cruel, it's cruel either way.

That doesn't follow. If it's going to die either way, then the way that doesn't involve gasping for air and dying slowly and painfully over several days is less cruel.

[FireZs]

The premature fetus will die anyway if it's aborted rather than delivered, if you think it's cruel, it's cruel either way.

That doesn't follow. If it's going to die either way, then the way that doesn't involve gasping for air and dying slowly and painfully over several days is less cruel.

Well, as I said, mercy killing is a whole different argument (I'm not really comfortable with mercy killing without the killee's consent as a general concept anyway). And even if it's mercy killing is justifiable, that doesn't justify the cases for which the baby would come out alive and healthy, does it? That some may suffer is not a reason to grant license to kill all.

Didn't I just give statistics showing that it's NOT more dangerous

Not necessarily. Your 10.2 figure (already a bit higher than the abortion death rate) is age-adjusted, while we don't know whether the 1 in 11,000 is as well, or is instead more appropriately compared with 12.7 maternal deaths per 100k live births.

Furthermore, given how many later-term abortions are done for health reasons, I imagine that most women getting abortions at 21 weeks or later have much higher than the average expected risk if they carry those pregnancies to term.

interestingly enough, if you're white it's actually LESS dangerous to deliver late-term than abort

Only if you assume, completely baselessly as far as I can tell, that white women have exactly the average death rate from abortions, despite having a 25% lower death rate from giving birth.

OK, but the point is that they're comparable. They're within the margin of error enough that you can't really say one is obviously more dangerous than the other.

[Izawwlgood]

I think in your mind, once a fetus reaches ~22 weeks, it is equivalent to a fetus that is minutes away from being born. That's the only way I can parse your logic as it applies to this bizarro 'just induce labor' twist you're talking about, especially in light of your last comment.

[drkslvr]

Given how many pro-lifers haven't adopted multiple children, I don't think that's a safe assumption. In addition, since many late-term abortions are performed because of serious fetal health problems, you'd be cutting down even more on the likelihood that anyone would actually care to step in and take care of the resulting extremely premature baby.

I've known people who have been on adoption waiting lists for long periods of time. I don't think there's any unwillingness to adopt relatively babies. I'm sure you're right, though, about the health consequences and about prematurity.

[FireZs]

I think in your mind, once a fetus reaches ~22 weeks, it is equivalent to a fetus that is minutes away from being born. That's the only way I can parse your logic as it applies to this bizarro 'just induce labor' twist you're talking about, especially in light of your last comment.

Well, no. Once a woman is about eject the fetus, then the fetus is minutes away from being "born," whether it's born alive or dead. I'm saying that a woman should have the right to eject it whenever she wants, but not choose whether it comes out dead, if it can come out alive. If it can't come out alive, I don't care, eject it any way you want.

[gmalivuk]

I've known people who have been on adoption waiting lists for long periods of time.

And I know people who've been in the foster care system for long periods of time.

Children who are not at least one (and preferably two) of white, healthy, and very young have a *far* lower likelihood of being adopted in this country. And the funny thing about significantly premature babies is that all the resultant problems tend to have an adverse effect on health.

Edit:

I imagine that most women getting abortions at 21 weeks or later have much higher than the average expected risk if they carry those pregnancies to term.

OK, but the point is that they're comparable. They're within the margin of error enough that you can't really say one is obviously more dangerous than the other.

That depends heavily on the assumptions you're making about why women get late-term abortions. But if a woman chooses a 21+-week abortion because there's even a 1% chance that she'll die carrying it to term, that means she's a hundred times more likely to die giving birth than having the abortion.

[Izawwlgood]

I think in your mind, once a fetus reaches ~22 weeks, it is equivalent to a fetus that is minutes away from being born. That's the only way I can parse your logic as it applies to this bizarro 'just induce labor' twist you're talking about, especially in light of your last comment.

Well, no. Once a woman is about eject the fetus, then the fetus is minutes away from being "born," whether it's born alive or dead. I'm saying that a woman should have the right to eject it whenever she wants, but not choose whether it comes out dead, if it can come out alive. If it can't come out alive, I don't care, eject it any way you want.

Except what I've already told you, and you could have found out yourself if you had gone to wikipedia and typed in 'abortion', is that the things done to kill the fetus prior to removal are done to make the procedure safer for the mother.
Please awknowledge that fact before continuing to talk about how expelling the fetus from the mother should be done sans killing the fetus (as if, by the way, that is somehow, anyhow [barring perhaps the 3 or so weeks at the end of gestation], different from killing the fetus prior).
I get what you're trying to say as it pertains to a fetus [a short time] before it's birth, sort of, ethically anyway, because certainly not medically, but I don't understand what you mean at all for literally every other real life circumstance.

[FireZs]

That depends heavily on the assumptions you're making about why women get late-term abortions. But if a woman chooses a 21+-week abortion because there's even a 1% chance that she'll die carrying it to term, that means she's a hundred times more likely to die giving birth than having the abortion.

You're assuming that the risk of abortion is unaffected by the change in risk of delivery. So that's supported by...well, nothing.

Except what I've already told you, and you could have found out yourself if you had gone to wikipedia and typed in 'abortion', is that the things done to kill the fetus prior to removal are done to make the procedure safer for the mother.
Please awknowledge that fact before continuing to talk about how expelling the fetus from the mother should be done sans killing the fetus (as if, by the way, that is somehow, anyhow [barring perhaps the 3 or so weeks at the end of gestation], different from killing the fetus prior).
I get what you're trying to say as it pertains to a fetus [a short time] before it's birth, sort of, ethically anyway, because certainly not medically, but I don't understand what you mean at all for literally every other real life circumstance.

Ok, so allow that my very narrow scenario should be illegal. You can't even do that; as it is you're not talking about reality either. Your position is that even if there's no additional risk to the mother, the mother should be able to kill it coming out. That's just not justifiable.

[morriswalters]

We disagree on the value given to the wyci.

No, for the ninetieth time. I am largely agnostic on the value of the fetus and would still permit abortion even if it were the same as the value of a born infant.

Can you explain to me how this is different then placing a value on the wyci? I'm assuming that the relevant comparison is between the mother and the wyci.

In many cases, yes. In my state, pedestrians have legal right-of-way in marked crosswalks. Being hit while crossing one, regardless of how little I was paying attention, would therefore be entirely the fault of the driver.

And of course, I suspect the likelihood that a driver won't be paying attention and accidentally hit me when I'm crossing the road is *far* greater than the 1 in 50,000 pregnancy risk that's assumed when having sex with good contraception.

OK, I'll restate it, if your texting on your phone and drive into me while I'm stopped at a light are you liable? But it's really a quibble. I said that it wasn't completely similar. I haven't suggested that an abortion shouldn't be allowed.

But how much time to we need to give a women to make up her mind. If she can't do it in six months do I have an obligation to approve of it at 26 weeks, 28 weeks, 9 months? I keep hearing this, can someone justify that? It seems as if the statement boils down to we want the right to do this because we want the right to do this. Before someone says that it is none of my business or that of anyone else, explain to me why we are having the conversation in the first place.

Just to make what I think I am am hearing clear.

1. I have the right to an abortion at any time up to full term.
2. I have the right to kill the wyci before the abortion to make sure it is not born alive.
3. I have no obligation to make a timely decision because of the first two statements.
4. I am doing the wyci a favor since it might have a bad outcome in life.

[dedalus]

Yeah, look, I'm using my 1000th post on this one.

FireZ, do you have *any* idea what a woman has to go through during a pregnancy? Have you ever been around a pregnant woman (save inside)? There are a range of physical problems, but more then that, a range of mental problems as well, not least of all, stress (and there's even more of that if you never intended on having the child, didn't know you were having a child for a while, found out that your child isn't viable, or got raped). What I can gather from your conclusions is that you seem to think women go through late-term abortions for reasons other then necessity, and that they don't in any way take it seriously. Have you not seen the wealth of statistics that have been given to you showing that the percentage of late-term abortions that you actually give a damn about is minute? Did you not see the list of reasons given by (I think) Sophy for late-term abortions, of which 'I couldn't be arsed with a condom, but waited 20 weeks.' is a non-statistic?

You've already demonstrated your lack of knowledge of the birth or abortion processes. Your comparison of statistics is terrible - this comparison between the mother-mortality rates of (on average) healthy baby births to that of third-term abortions (which have a higher chance of occuring due to what will be complications with birth) is flawed. Make a comparison between premature births with complications and third-term abortions if you want to do anything. Except that you'll be hard-pressed to find those statistics, because due to safety concerns, we tend to have the abortion rather then risk the mother.

And when it comes down to it, you're not even advocating for late-term abortions to be made illegal (save under medical conditions). The argument against that is different; where do you draw the line between want and need, and how on Earth can you tell when there's almost always massive uncertainties in any situation like this (and everything else that has been said about a woman's body being... her body). Also, again, it's a non-issue because of the small number of late-term abortions. But you're not arguing that. Your position is even more untenable - instead of a woman being offered the safest medical procedure possible, she should be forced to go through a painful and quite possibly dangerous induced birth, and then have to watch her baby attempt to live, regardless of the psychological factor involved? That's like you buying a puppy, and a few months in realising that you can't keep it for whatever reason, and instead of putting it down in it's sleep the vet slits its throat half open and you have to watch it die. And if it lives, then you have to keep it anyway. It's sick, sadistic, and twisted. If you place the existence of human life so far above anything else, then surely you shouldn't be on this forum trying to argue that others should go through trauma for your fucked up morals, because there's thousands of children dying daily, and they're healthy and could possibly survive given assistance. Oh, but that might actually involve you personally rather then having theories on the internet.

I'm not completely sure whether this fits in the rules of SB, and I'm prepared to accept the consequences, but yeah (I think I've removed most of the ad hominem). And I'm probably not going to post here again, because I don't have time and I've said all I want to say.

Wooo, Kiloton post!

Ninja'd: Morriswaters, talk to women who have been through an abortion (there are a fair few on here). It's hardly an unemotional decision, and surprisingly enough, they too don't want their wyci to come to unnecessary harm. So how about rather then making the assumption that abortions (and especially late-term ones) are had for shits and giggles, you stop proposing unrealistic hypotheticals.

[morriswalters]

Ninja'd: Morriswaters, talk to women who have been through an abortion (there are a fair few on here). It's hardly an unemotional decision, and surprisingly enough, they too don't want their wyci to come to unnecessary harm. So how about rather then making the assumption that abortions (and especially late-term ones) are had for shits and giggles, you stop proposing unrealistic hypotheticals.

See Morris's Rule. As to the rest, each one of those positions has been made over the course of this discussion with the exception of 4 which is a mildly provocative paraphrase.

[FireZs]

Yeah, look, I'm using my 1000th post on this one.

FireZ, do you have *any* idea what a woman has to go through during a pregnancy? Have you ever been around a pregnant woman (save inside)? There are a range of physical problems, but more then that, a range of mental problems as well, not least of all, stress (and there's even more of that if you never intended on having the child, didn't know you were having a child for a while, found out that your child isn't viable, or got raped). What I can gather from your conclusions is that you seem to think women go through late-term abortions for reasons other then necessity, and that they don't in any way take it seriously. Have you not seen the wealth of statistics that have been given to you showing that the percentage of late-term abortions that you actually give a damn about is minute? Did you not see the list of reasons given by (I think) Sophy for late-term abortions, of which 'I couldn't be arsed with a condom, but waited 20 weeks.' is a non-statistic?

So if it doesn't happen, then not having it be legal shouldn't matter. And yet here we are with a ton of people saying that even if it did happen, it should happen.

You've already demonstrated your lack of knowledge of the birth or abortion processes. Your comparison of statistics is terrible - this comparison between the mother-mortality rates of (on average) healthy baby births to that of third-term abortions (which have a higher chance of occuring due to what will be complications with birth) is flawed. Make a comparison between premature births with complications and third-term abortions if you want to do anything. Except that you'll be hard-pressed to find those statistics, because due to safety concerns, we tend to have the abortion rather then risk the mother.

And you've demonstrated a willingness to dismiss statistics that don't support your position, while drawing conclusions without any statistics of your own. But you're hardly alone in this thread.

And when it comes down to it, you're not even advocating for late-term abortions to be made illegal (save under medical conditions). The argument against that is different; where do you draw the line between want and need, and how on Earth can you tell when there's almost always massive uncertainties in any situation like this (and everything else that has been said about a woman's body being... her body). Also, again, it's a non-issue because of the small number of late-term abortions. But you're not arguing that. Your position is even more untenable - instead of a woman being offered the safest medical procedure possible, she should be forced to go through a painful and quite possibly dangerous induced birth,

Again, the statistics suggest otherwise. You have nothing to back up your claim that late term abortions are the "safest medical procedure possible;" which, by the way, shows how little YOU actually know about abortions. (Hint: it's not the same thing as a first-trimester abortion).

and then have to watch her baby attempt to live, regardless of the psychological factor involved? That's like you buying a puppy, and a few months in realising that you can't keep it for whatever reason, and instead of putting it down in it's sleep the vet slits its throat half open and you have to watch it die. And if it lives, then you have to keep it anyway. It's sick, sadistic, and twisted. If you place the existence of human life so far above anything else, then surely you shouldn't be on this forum trying to argue that others should go through trauma for your fucked up morals, because there's thousands of children dying daily, and they're healthy and could possibly survive given assistance. Oh, but that might actually involve you personally rather then having theories on the internet.

Who said she must be forced to watch? We don't force the women to watch videos of the late-term abortion. If it lives they don't have to keep it; that's the point. And really, if YOU want to feel high and mighty, maybe YOU shouldn't be on this forums trying to argue that others should kill what is easily at that point a living baby that is no longer dependent on the mother for YOUR fucked up morals. Because let's face it, they are pretty fucked up if it's that important to you that you insist what supposedly "never happens," should happen if the opportunity presented itself.

And I'm probably not going to post here again

Yeah, that's probably best. For you.

[Aaeriele]

See Morris's Rule.

You can imply you understand all you want, people are a lot more likely to believe you if it's actually reflected in what you say though.

[Angua]

So if it doesn't happen, then not having it be legal shouldn't matter. And yet here we are with a ton of people saying that even if it did happen, it should happen.

As has already been said, the rare cases in which a healthy foetus is subject to a late-term abortion is when the mother was unable to get an earlier abortion in time for whatever reason. We don't want to put a limit on one day from when a woman is allowed to get an abortion to when she is not. You may not mind if a child has to live an extremely disabled life because the woman had to abort later, personally, I would be more horrified at the idea that the child might live like that for the rest of it's life when I could have waited an extra 3 months for it to be born healthier, in which case I'm just being basically blackmailed into going through a pregnancy because I don't want it to have that extra suffering if it's going to be born anyway. However, if it never lives, then I am spared the guilt, and still get right to my bodily autonomy (win-win for me, null (neither win nor lose) for the non-existent baby).

[Izawwlgood]

Except what I've already told you, and you could have found out yourself if you had gone to wikipedia and typed in 'abortion', is that the things done to kill the fetus prior to removal are done to make the procedure safer for the mother.
Please awknowledge that fact before continuing to talk about how expelling the fetus from the mother should be done sans killing the fetus (as if, by the way, that is somehow, anyhow [barring perhaps the 3 or so weeks at the end of gestation], different from killing the fetus prior).
I get what you're trying to say as it pertains to a fetus [a short time] before it's birth, sort of, ethically anyway, because certainly not medically, but I don't understand what you mean at all for literally every other real life circumstance.

Ok, so allow that my very narrow scenario should be illegal. You can't even do that; as it is you're not talking about reality either. Your position is that even if there's no additional risk to the mother, the mother should be able to kill it coming out. That's just not justifiable.

For the sake of clarity, I'm limiting the situation we're discussing (or rather, the one I'm responding to) to only late term abortions: The REALITY of the situation is that the procedures to kill the fetus are done primarily to minimize the risk to the mother. And just to be crystal clear about this, because I still don't think you've gone to the wiki and read about this, to be CRYSTAL CLEAR, the reason those things are done is because giving birth comes with it a range of complications, and inducing premature birth comes with it additional complications. Killing the fetus prior to inducing labor MINIMIZES those risks.
As to your further point, of whether or not a woman should be able to chose whether or not to kill the child up to some arbitrary point or not, I'm still uncertain of what your contention is. For the purposes of keeping the discussion grounded in reality, I'm putting the burden of proof on you, now, to do a bit of research, and find out what the latest point in a pregnancy an abortion was performed.

[dedalus]

Whoop, quote-sniped already:

So if it doesn't happen, then not having it be legal shouldn't matter. And yet here we are with a ton of people saying that even if it did happen, it should happen.

Note to self, clearly you have a hard time comprehending English. Late-term abortions *do* happen, but they're hardly preferential. Hence why if someone has one, they usually have a fucking good reason for it.

And you've demonstrated a willingness to dismiss statistics that don't support your position, while drawing conclusions without any statistics of your own. But you're hardly alone in this thread.

No, I'm willing to dismiss the conclusions you've erroneously drawn from misrepresented statistics. And I've pointed out that there's a good reason why the statistic would be higher, and pointed out why it'd be hard to find realistic ones. Given that I'm not basing my entire argument on 'women die about as often doing x as y', I think it's pretty reasonable for me to not have to support this part of my argument as much as you.

Again, the statistics suggest otherwise. You have nothing to back up your claim that late term abortions are the "safest medical procedure possible;" which, by the way, shows how little YOU actually know about abortions. (Hint: it's not the same thing as a first-trimester abortion).

I'm pretty sure that if it was easier to bring the baby out, then that's what we'd be doing. That kind of makes sense, because surprisingly enough, except for Dr.Babykiller, doctors are human, have souls, and care about keeping other people alive and in good health. It's kind of in the job description.

Who said she must be forced to watch? We don't force the women to watch videos of the late-term abortion. If it lives they don't have to keep it; that's the point. And really, if YOU want to feel high and mighty, maybe YOU shouldn't be on this forums trying to argue that others should kill what is easily at that point a living baby that is no longer dependent on the mother for YOUR fucked up morals. Because let's face it, they are pretty fucked up if it's that important to you that you insist what supposedly "never happens," should happen if the opportunity presented itself.

Well, given that the survival of the baby is a pretty important part of the mother's life, I'd assume she's not just going to go home and forget about it. But hey, I'm human; if something like that happened to me I'd actually give a damn. You might feel different.

Now, go and re-read the statistic on the %age of babies that survive coming out prematurely (pretty sure it was quoted in the thread). And go and read up on what happens to ones that live and ones that don't. And go and realise that that statistic is probably distorted due to the fact that many babies that we know have a very little chance of survival get aborted. You're not trying to save 'what is easily a living baby' here. You're trying to save 'babies that probably could never survive'. And you seem too damn stupid to know the difference.

[FireZs]

So if it doesn't happen, then not having it be legal shouldn't matter. And yet here we are with a ton of people saying that even if it did happen, it should happen.

As has already been said, the rare cases in which a healthy foetus is subject to a late-term abortion is when the mother was unable to get an earlier abortion in time for whatever reason. We don't want to put a limit on one day from when a woman is allowed to get an abortion to when she is not. You may not mind if a child has to live an extremely disabled life because the woman had to abort later, personally, I would be more horrified at the idea that the child might live like that for the rest of it's life when I could have waited an extra 3 months for it to be born healthier, in which case I'm just being basically blackmailed into going through a pregnancy because I don't want it to have that extra suffering if it's going to be born anyway. However, if it never lives, then I am spared the guilt, and still get right to my bodily autonomy (win-win for me, null (neither win nor lose) for the non-existent baby).

Well, except that's not what's being argued. What's being argued is that EVEN if there's no other reason besides the mother feeling like it all of a sudden very very late (up to the point of birth, and even PAST birth), she should have the right to have the abortion. Unless you're also saying that that shouldn't be right either?

For the sake of clarity, I'm limiting the situation we're discussing (or rather, the one I'm responding to) to only late term abortions: The REALITY of the situation is that the procedures to kill the fetus are done primarily to minimize the risk to the mother. And just to be crystal clear about this, because I still don't think you've gone to the wiki and read about this, to be CRYSTAL CLEAR, the reason those things are done is because giving birth comes with it a range of complications, and inducing premature birth comes with it additional complications. Killing the fetus prior to inducing labor MINIMIZES those risks.
As to your further point, of whether or not a woman should be able to chose whether or not to kill the child up to some arbitrary point or not, I'm still uncertain of what your contention is. For the purposes of keeping the discussion grounded in reality, I'm putting the burden of proof on you, now, to do a bit of research, and find out what the latest point in a pregnancy an abortion was performed.

Ok, point out where it says "100% of abortions performed after <x, where x > 21> weeks are performed solely for the sake of minimizing health risks to the mother." I don't doubt that it IS a reason. But if you're claiming 100%, then the burden of proof is on YOU.

Whoop, quote-sniped already:

So if it doesn't happen, then not having it be legal shouldn't matter. And yet here we are with a ton of people saying that even if it did happen, it should happen.

Note to self, clearly you have a hard time comprehending English. Late-term abortions *do* happen, but they're hardly preferential. Hence why if someone has one, they usually have a fucking good reason for it.

They're likely, but are they guaranteed? But as I said, people here are even more extreme than that: they're saying that even if the reason is bad, the abortion should happen anyway. Well, either that or they agree that abortion for bad reasons late in the pregnancy shouldn't happen, so they (and you) try to argue that it never happens.

And you've demonstrated a willingness to dismiss statistics that don't support your position, while drawing conclusions without any statistics of your own. But you're hardly alone in this thread.

No, I'm willing to dismiss the conclusions you've erroneously drawn from misrepresented statistics. And I've pointed out that there's a good reason why the statistic would be higher, and pointed out why it'd be hard to find realistic ones. Given that I'm not basing my entire argument on 'women die about as often doing x as y', I think it's pretty reasonable for me to not have to support this part of my argument as much as you.

There's a good reason why it could go in the other direction too. And a large part of your argument is "abortions = safest possible, giving birth = deathtrap," so yeah, you have to come up with at least as much stats as me. So far you have zero.

Again, the statistics suggest otherwise. You have nothing to back up your claim that late term abortions are the "safest medical procedure possible;" which, by the way, shows how little YOU actually know about abortions. (Hint: it's not the same thing as a first-trimester abortion).

I'm pretty sure that if it was easier to bring the baby out, then that's what we'd be doing. That kind of makes sense, because surprisingly enough, except for Dr.Babykiller, doctors are human, have souls, and care about keeping other people alive and in good health. It's kind of in the job description.

Sure, and doctors do recommend that. But we tend to demonize them as misogynists.

Who said she must be forced to watch? We don't force the women to watch videos of the late-term abortion. If it lives they don't have to keep it; that's the point. And really, if YOU want to feel high and mighty, maybe YOU shouldn't be on this forums trying to argue that others should kill what is easily at that point a living baby that is no longer dependent on the mother for YOUR fucked up morals. Because let's face it, they are pretty fucked up if it's that important to you that you insist what supposedly "never happens," should happen if the opportunity presented itself.

Well, given that the survival of the baby is a pretty important part of the mother's life, I'd assume she's not just going to go home and forget about it. But hey, I'm human; if something like that happened to me I'd actually give a damn. You might feel different.

Strange to be talking about the mother caring about survival of the baby when she was ready and willing to kill it.

Now, go and re-read the statistic on the %age of babies that survive coming out prematurely (pretty sure it was quoted in the thread). And go and read up on what happens to ones that live and ones that don't. And go and realise that that statistic is probably distorted due to the fact that many babies that we know have a very little chance of survival get aborted. You're not trying to save 'what is easily a living baby' here. You're trying to save 'babies that probably could never survive'. And you seem too damn stupid to know the difference.

And you seem to be too stupid to understand that thinking "definitely dead" is slightly worse than "probably could never survive" is not a monstrous position to take. And I'm not just trying to save those babies. They're just a part of the distribution. You're trying to advocate for killing the very much survivable and healthy babies along with all of them.