Thread: Women’s right to chose

Sure. It's against the law to kill a human.

It is NOT against the law to freeze off a mole, now is it?

A lump of cells dividing in the womb is no different than a mole growing on the skin. It's just a bunch of cells dividing and growing.

If guys carried the fetus, this wouldn't even be a discussion-point. The churches would have ruled thousands of years ago that of COURSE it was his right to choose!

I'm definitely pro-choice. But the line does have to be drawn somewhere.

The problem is that some (very few...hopefully) women treat pregnacy exactly a you say kim, a defect to be removed. So they go out and have all the unprotected sex they want without having to worry because they can just get an abortion anyways.

Oh and dreamtamer...what about cases of rape resulting in pregnacy?

I don't understand the problem with you religious types. The babies are going straight to heaven, aren't they? You should be happy for them! It's a testament to your ignorance that you're not. You don't trust God to his work and sort it out. And that's a testament that you don't really believe in him - a further testament of your ignorance.

Originally posted by bradybaker
The problem is that some (very few...hopefully) women treat pregnacy exactly a you say kim, a defect to be removed. So they go out and have all the unprotected sex they want without having to worry because they can just get an abortion anyways.

Even if that were so, which is entirely irresponsible of them, if only for reasons that they're jeopardizing their own health, it is far, far, far, far worse to bring an unwanted child into this world to weak parents, in this society that gives them so much influence.

Did anyone else notice that the famous drop in crime that occured in the 90s happened at about the time a huge amount of pregnancies in poverty that were aborted in the 70s would have made babies that would have then been old enough to start a life of continuous crime?

From Freakanomics. (Warning, may cause economics majors who are not at Yale or Harvard to have aneurisms.)

Fair enough, BradyBaker. I'm talking now from a practical perspective only. There's no "there" "there". It's not a human. It's a collection of cells, that god willin' and the creek don't rise, may someday become a baby human. It's not viable away from the host organism.

Am I advocating being stupid? Of course not. You'll be hard-pressed to find someone more dedicated to personal responsibility.

But that choice, for most women, is one of the ULTIMATE personal responsibility.

Ex makes some excellent points too regarding financial and maturity issues.

I say we take all the unwanted pregnancies that were carried to term, all those babies, every last one of 'em, pack 'em in a box (punch some holes for air, duh!) - and send them straight to DT so he can take care of them for the next 25yrs each. (By that time, statistically they'll be in prison and you and I will be supporting them anyway)

Consider the case of misscariages. According to various studies (link) the miscarriage rate has been identified at 15-20% of all pregnancies from women of all ages. This number may actually be higher, as:

Originally posted by &#091;url=http://www.allaboutlifechallenges.org/miscarriage&#045;statistics.htm+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(&#091;url=http://www.allaboutlifechallenges.org/miscarriage&#045;statistics.htm)</div>

(link)[/url]]Many women, before realizing a life has begun forming within them, may miscarry without knowing it-assuming their miscarriage is merely a heavier period. Therefore, the miscarriage rate may be closer to 40 or 50 percent.[/b]

So lets for arguments sake say the percentage of miscarriages is 30%. One third of all pregnancies abort naturally. Doesn't this make god the biggest abortionist of all? If this occurs naturally, as set out by god, why should we not perform it ourselves? He obviously doesn't have a moral problem with the procedure.

Looking in the bible will easily confirm that yahweh has no problem with killing babies:

Originally posted by Psalm 136@
137:8 O daughter Babylon, soon to be devastated!

How blessed will be the one who repays you

for what you dished out to us!

137:9 How blessed will be the one who grabs your babies

and smashes them on a rock!

<!--QuoteBegin-1 Samuel
15:3 So go now and strike down the Amalekites. Destroy everything that they have. Don’t spare4 them. Put them to death – man, woman, child, infant, ox, sheep, camel, and donkey alike.’”

Christians don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to abortion.

Thanks be to unto the divine kitchen utensils, with a big shout-out to the



Amen.

LMFAO, Ex. That's gotta be the best damn tribute I've ever seen given on the site.

I'm somewhere in between on abortion. I'm totally pro-choice, but to a point. Late-term abortions strike me as sickening...honestly, with modern medical technology, the baby could survive if they were born at that point, but they just kill it instead. I mean, I could still understand if it was a rape case or something similar and they hadn't had the opportunity to get it aborted earlier, but in most all other cases I don't see why the mother would carry around an infant for that long, then just abort it in the end anyways...
I'm all for late-term bans, so long as they leave loopholes for the occasional odd circumstance. Rape or incest victims, for example.

I think the most important fact to consider in the abortion debate is that a fetus does not have the neurons involved in conscious experience until the third trimester. So first and second trimester fetuses don't have consciousness, and don't even have the neurons that are responsible for it. Therefore, there is no mind that is being killed in an abortion. The injustice of true murder is that a complex universe of consciousness with emotions, dreams, sensations, and other experiences is brought to an end. That does not happen in a first or second trimester abortion. You can't murder something that has never had the neurological capacity for consciousness. It is more of an injustice to kill a mosquito.

If somebody wants to make the point about how a fetus is a potential seat of human consciousness, then I can argue that so is the potential child that I can create with you or your girlfriend. Is my not reproducing with you or your girlfriend murder because of the mind that COULD be created? If that's how it is, then tell Britney Spears and Madonna that they better hurry to my apartment.

The pro-choice movement is going to have to start arguing this if abortion is going to remain legal in the United States. Screaming "Right to choose!" all day every day is limited and unresponsive. The pro-life movement is claiming that abortion is murder. The way to argue is to counter points, not to merely repeat your own. The argument cannot be won that way. "Right to choose" means absolutely nothing to people who think you are talking about murder. The only argument that is going to work is that abortion is not murder.

Originally posted by Tsen
LMFAO, Ex. That's gotta be the best damn tribute I've ever seen given on the site.

Then either you don't see the one for KP or it's not good enough, which may as well mean the same thing... I'll make a better one.

Originally posted by kimpossible
A lump of cells dividing in the womb is no different than a mole growing on the skin. It's just a bunch of cells dividing and growing.

So isn't that what you are? (A lump of cells dividing) Your words.

Nope. The early-stage fetus, as UM also noted, is nothing more than a lump of cells.

I have consciousness going on as well as a lump of cells.

That's what differentiates murder.

Of course, I half suspect I could whack several people here on the forum, and considering the lack of consciousness and thought-process, I could simply claim it to be a late-term abortion. . .

Originally posted by Universal Mind
The only argument that is going to work is that abortion is not murder.

You're right.. how did I not see it.. pulling the fetus part ways down the birth canal, jabbing a hole in the back of its head, and sucking its brains out to kill it... how could anyone have ever thought that was murder?

Hey you should consider getting a job with the UCLA. I hear they are looking for people to rally support to petition the release of rapists and murders from jail.

Sorry - murder requires it to be a viable human. Living, breathing, self-aware.

Originally posted by dream&#045;scape


You're right.. how did I not see it.. pulling the fetus part ways down the birth canal, jabbing a hole in the back of its head, and sucking its brains out to kill it... how could anyone have ever thought that was murder?

Hey you should consider getting a job with the UCLA. I hear they are looking for people to rally support to petition the release of rapists and murders from jail.

Wow, you did such an excellent job of countering my argument about not having consciousness. Way to overlook the fact that rapists and murderers attack beings with human consciousness, which is very different from doctors who abort fetuses that have never had it. Excellent work showing that you now understand the difference, Aristotle. And, uh, I think you might have meant "ACLU"? I heard that they monitor the upholding of constitutional rights of people who have had them infringed upon. Dammit! We should be more like the Soviet Union.

Originally posted by dream&#045;scape
You're right.. how did I not see it.. pulling the fetus part ways down the birth canal, jabbing a hole in the back of its head, and sucking its brains out to kill it... how could anyone have ever thought that was murder?

The procedure you described amounts to 0.2% of all abortions performed in the US. The medical reasons it is performed are: when the mother is at extreme risk by carrying the baby to term, in cases of foetal abnormality, or when an almost mature fetus has miscarried. Now apparantly from what I've read it is also used when the mother does not want to carry the baby to term. Keep in mind that this amount for a fraction of 0.2% of all abortions.

Now, I believe this procedure when used for no medical reasons should not be performed. But I don't pretend to know the circumstances of each case, and I'm sure that under some circumstances this could be permissable. Maybe a rape victim was prevented by a religious family from getting help for a long time, would you expect a young girl to carry a baby to term in those circumstances? I don't know, its a hazy issue. I do know that if abortion was widely available and accepted that these procedures would not need to happen except under extreme, medically valid, circumstances.

So the fact remains that this procedure is 0.2% of all abortions. Compare that to the 2.8% of all abortions that are performed due to severe risk to maternal health. If you want abortion outlawed on the strength of this 0.2%, you're putting the life X amount of babies above the already well established life of 14 times as many women. I say X amount because I don't know how many 0.2% accounts for.

So 99.8% of all abortions are performed without this procedure. The (high) majority of those are performed before the foetus (as Universal Has mentioned, and you failed to respond to) has developed higher-brain functions. If they are performed after the foetus develops higher brain functions, this is a problem with abortion legislation and information - not with the procedure itself. Fine, make abortion after 24/26 weeks illegal except in medically (and probably psychologically) valid cases. But make abortion readily available and make it societally acceptable to perform it and then women would not need to wait until 24/26 weeks to perform the procedure.

The amount of lives saved through abortion is 14 times greater than lives stopped. Unless you can demonstrate how a foetus without the emergent property of intelligence is alive.

-spoon

note: all of my figures come from en.wikipedia.org

I agree fully, Spoon. We can't predict all cases, and it's quite clear that abortions are quite necessary in cases of rape or fetal abnormalities to prevent psychological or physical harm to the mother. Under such circumstances, even late term abortions are acceptable. Otherwise, the process IS quite inhuman. Sickening, really...and only for use in extreme circumstances. If a lady just decides she doesn't want a kid anymore, she should have thought of that before having unprotected sex. Or, assuming that they tried to have safe sex, but the rubber broke or something, she ought to have got the baby aborted immediately instead of waiting seven months or more...

But, as said, not all circumstances can be foreseen. So, my position, barring unusual circumstances, I'm whole-heartedly against late-term, like I mentioned earlier. But early on, abortions aren't that...crude. Nor does the baby have consciousness or self-awareness. At that point, no human life is being destroyed, only the potential for human life. Potential that will still exist after the abortion.

Or you can just masturbate and make this a non issue.

I'm either/or on this. My consience isn't completely at peace with desotrying any fetus at all, but I also perceive the valid reasons to do so, like the case of being raped. It's hard not to feel intense hatred to be violated and grow the seed of the violator within you. Besides, it's bad for the baby if he/she delivers, anyway.

The concepts of one's rights is often very loosely defined. That someone doesn't have a right to do this or that is just as valid of a statement has someone having a right to. It all depends on what society agrees on, therefore compelling any thinker to go with the flow.

I had to read about 10 posts to understand what the thread was talking about...gosh, choice and abortion didn't link together in my mind for quite a while.

What are your views on the following regulations of abortion:

1. Mandatory information & waiting period - women wishing to abort must be given information about the procedure, usually in person by a health care professional, and must wait a given period between receiving the info and having the abortion, usually 24 hours. Currently about 30 states have this kind of legislation, but only 24 of those enforce it.

2. Parental consent for minors - minors wishing to abort must first get parental consent or notify one [or both] parent first. 44 states have laws like this, but only 35 enforce it. Of those 35 that enforce it, 21 require consent, and 14 only require notification. In those groups [require consent & require notification] only 2 states in each require both parents consent or be notified

3. Post-viability abortion bans - The Supreme Court has said that states can ban abortions after the point of viability [except in life threatening conditions or to preserve health in extreme cases like rape or incest of minor]. The SC defines viability as "the capacity for meaningful life outside the womb, albeit with artificial aid, and not just momentary survival." I'm not exactly sure but I think this is somewhere around 24 weeks. 39 states have bans on these types of abortions, but only about 19 meet the SC requirements.

4. Partial birth abortion bans - usually [but not always] bans late-term abortion methods where partial breech delivery is induced, and the fetal skull is collapsed to completely "deliver" the fetus. About 31 states ban this type of abortion.

5. Spousal/father consent/notification - Although the SC ruled in 92 that states cannot require spousal consent, since this is not a court room, it is still a viable area of discussion. And some areas of the world do require this. One of the most common arguments is that it is a woman's body and therefore her right to choose [and hers alone]. It is a woman's issue as they say. However, a fetus does not entirely come from a woman and she certainly does not create it on her own; it takes 2 to tango and the fetus comes partly from her and partly from her partner. It is a couple's issue. So should the 2 co-partners responsible for the conception also be co-partners in resolving the fate of the fetus?

An interesting thought I just had when writing that last one, is if it is unconstitutional for a father to have a [mandated] responsibility to his unborn child, then why is it not unconstitutional for him have a [mandated] responsibility to his born child?

All statistical info I got from the Kaiser Family Foundation statehealthfacts.org

> 1. Mandatory information & waiting period

Fine - if we're talking 24hrs.

> 2. Parental consent for minors

16 and under - fine.

> 3. Post-viability abortion bans

As long as health issues are FULLY covered - fine.

> 4. Partial birth abortion bans

As long as health issues are FULLY covered - fine

5. Spousal/father consent/notification

NO F**KING WAY.

> An interesting thought I just had when writing that last one, is if it is unconstitutional for a father to have a [mandated] responsibility to his unborn child, then why is it not unconstitutional for him have a [mandated] responsibility to his born child?

The child can go live with him. Then I'm fine with that. The fetus can be transplanted to him and if it then survives, that's cool with me. If he can carry it, risk his life, and deliver it - good on him! Otherwise, see NO F**KING WAY above.

Originally posted by kimpossible
> 2. Parental consent for minors

16 and under - fine.

it is usually 18 and under as the legal age is 18, not 16.

I'm not saying if I'm for or against, but I remember something interesting this one woman said in a pro-life speech:

"You say you want to give women the right to choose abortion, because it's a woman's body and she should have the right to choose. Well, when the sperm meets the egg in the fallopean tube, there's a 50/50 chance an X sperm will meet up with the egg, therefore there's a 50/50 chance that baby who's about to be aborted will be female. So a female embryo is aborted, where was her right to choose life?"

That always stuck with me, was a good point.

Ok I'll say it: I don't think I personally would ever have an abortion (though impossible to say for sure what I'd do, if I was in the same situation as a woman who wanted an abortion, but I like to think I wouldn't have one). But I don't want anyone to take that choice away from any other woman. Even if that embryo is XX.

Is masturbation murder? Think of how those poor sperm cells are so brutally dried up on those paper towels. It's awful. Every man on this site is Hitler.

>> therefore there's a 50/50 chance that baby who's about to be aborted will be female.

Unfortunately, there's a huge amount of logical fallacy there.

It's not a baby. It's not a human. It's neither male nor female in early-term abortion. It can't possibly be a 50/50 chance of being female - as/per the numbers above, there's nearly a 30% shot that it won't be anything even if left alone! If the mother dies or becomes ill prior to it being viable, it has a 100% chance of being nothing.

And even DC above established that it has no rights until (he wants 18. CA just overturned a vote for 15). If the mother doesn't give her consent (the flip-side of a consent law, eh?) - then it doesn't get the choice anyway!

Originally posted by OpheliaBlue
So a female embryo is aborted, where was her right to choose life?\"

Good point. Male or female, where is there right to choose?