So this doesn't go into a quote-snipe war, I'll number your replies to my arguments in your post after mine from 1, and retort as per sec.
1. The argument goes like this - *anyone* who has to undergo an abortion would prefer to have an early term one rather then a late term one. This is fairly obvious, as early term abortions have less risk of problems, are usually easier procedures, are usually easier to get doctors to perform, and you don't have a baby inside you for 20 weeks. Hence, if someone had to undergo a late-term abortion, their reasons for doing so *are* going to be good ones. If they weren't, then they would have got an earlier abortion. So the argument isn't that 'even bad reasons for late-term abortions should be allowed', it's 'there is no bad reason to have a late-term abortion'. Your hypothetical 'we couldn't be bothered with a condom, and I was too lazy to get to a doctor for twenty weeks, and I don't actually want a baby' is a complete fallacy.
2. What is this 'good reason' for the other way? Please, I'm wondering what you in your infinite wisdom can contemplate as to why the general populace would be giving birth to more healthy babies then we'd be aborting late-term. And my argument is that 'The woman should be presented with the entire range of options, including giving birth, and, more specifically, abortion.' Stop putting words into my mouth.
3. Who do you mean by 'we'. Who on this forum, in this thread, has demonised a doctor for recommending a woman take a baby to term because it is the best option to keep her and her baby in good health, and there isn't another good reason for her to abort? We might demonise the religious institutions that *always* push for bringing babies to term, but that's because they *always* push to bring babies to term, above and beyond what is good for the mother.
Again, there is this thing, where you are thinking, that we are saying, things that we are not saying. It is no good. We are having problems. I am thinking you are the source of them. (To be read in the voice of Mr. I. Montoya)
4. That word, I do not think it means, what you think it means. A mother can care about the fact that she has just aborted her baby. In fact, I'm pretty sure, that if you ask any of the women around here who have had abortions, it's a fairly big thing in their lives. And it'd probably be an even bigger thing if rather then aborting, there was a chance that they'd had the baby taken out of them, and may have to deal with an unwanted and very likely disabled child for the rest of their lives (even if the child was adopted).
Again, as people have been yelling and screaming at you, an abortion is a pretty big deal in any woman's life. She doesn't just wake up, brush her teeth, flush a fetus down the drain and go about her business. Can you not get this point?
5. Ok, here's what I think is the root of everything. When Angua quotes 40-70% chance of long-term survival and 25-50% chance of long-term disability, this doesn't mean that you can pick 4-7 out of a set of 10 babies and have them live, and then pick 2-5 of the surviving ones and have them live a full and happy life. Statistics and medicine don't work like that. We can't tell what will happen with any given birth, which means that every time you get your 2-5 healthy babies, you also get 3-6 ones that died over the course of a few days/weeks/months, and 1-5 ones that have a long-term, debilitating disability. And those 2-5 babies might be healthy *after* they go through many months of pallative care, but then they're going to a home that doesn't want them, or a foster home.
Angua wrote:And you're misconstruing my point - if the mother is forced to give birth to a live child which will have a much greater chance of disability and suffering, then she'll feel she's consigning them to that suffering (WHEN IT COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED BY HER WAITING JUST A LITTLE BIT LONGER). You might think that women wanting abortions are cruel and heartless, and wouldn't care about the child they've put in that position, but I don't. You might think that a child is better off in suffering than never living at all, but I don't.
Ok, so if it's that important for the mother to believe that the baby came out dead, just tell her so. Or is lying worse than emotional trauma, and worse than killing the baby? Remember, the baby could also be healthy (like omgryebread
Wait up, you think that a mother is going to have a baby and then just walk away? Yeah, at about this point I'm labelling you a sociopath, or a troll. And (though I could be wrong about this), I presume that omgryebread did not come out a healthy baby. Xe(sorry, not sure on gender) just managed to live. Which, looking at the statistics, is pretty lucky, really.
Izawwlgood wrote:Well, FireZ, I'm done responding to you until you read the provided citations about why you are wrong about the safety of what you are proposing.
None of which are "delivering the baby." But at this point you're just being spitefully obtuse. Well, that's the charitable interpretation anyway. I'll also charitably assume you can deduce what the alternative is.
Oh pots and kettles and various shades of blackness.
I don't think anything more will come out of this discussion. You're pretty happy to sit here saying 'killing bebbehs is bad', and then retorting to all the well-thought out arguments for abortion with 'but... but... KILLING BEBBEHS IS BAD!!!!'. Pretty sure I'm wasting my time here.