Abortion Discussion

Dan_Solo

eviltwin wrote: »

Right well I must have misunderstood all your references to the father then. A woman should be able to end her pregnancy at any stage, that doesn't always mean abortion though. I wasn't attacking you either btw.

I must mean then that it would be OK to terminate on the day of delivery. Why then would it be immoral to kill the baby seconds after giving birth when it is still entirely dependent on the mother for survival?

Dan_Solo

aloyisious wrote: »

I've seen and read the Mod's criticism to me and it was deserved. I just didn't understand your last above then, so felt enjoined to comment on how one would view what was written about aborting an individual some years out of the womb. having read your further posts here, I understand now that your's was a question not to be read literally, but one with sarcasm at it's base to make a point about points of view. My apologies.

But you see the point of the question? If a baby is entirely dependent on the mother for life after birth, then what has fundamentally changed that there can no longer be a moral case for termination? This is why I have a problem with the any stage abortion, which the "woman's body" line seems to promote without qualification.

eviltwin

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I must mean then that it would be OK to terminate on the day of delivery. Why then would it be immoral to kill the baby seconds after giving birth when it is still entirely dependent on the mother for survival?

Because there is no need. When a woman has an abortion it's because she doesn't want to be pregnant. If the pregnancy needs to end delivery of the baby achieves that. How many pregnant women do you think would think like that anyway?

Dan_Solo

eviltwin wrote: »

Because there is no need. When a woman has an abortion it's because she doesn't want to be pregnant. If the pregnancy needs to end delivery of the baby achieves that. How many pregnant women do you think would think like that anyway?

That's a cop out from the question. Do you not think women are trying to avoid having a baby as well as trying to avoid having the pregnancy? Do you think the only time women have abortions is because they think they can't face the pregnancy itself?
Not having that I'm afraid.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Are you challenged reading this? A woman has a right over HER body. If she does not want to be pregnant it is her prerogative to stop being pregnant. I can't imagine many women will go through 40 weeks of pregnancy, illness and stress to decide on the last day she doesn't want to be a mom.

You're looking at this all wrong. Look at it not killing a person but ending a condition that's affecting her body. From something like 27 weeks a baby can be delivered and survive outside the womb, no longer depending on its mother, as then it's dad can step up and take charge or the child can be placed with someone else.

If a woman doesn't want to carry something - a parasite even - for 5 or 6 months then NOBODY has the right to tell her she should. It's her body and her choice.

Dan_Solo

LexieOnRale wrote: »

I can't imagine many women will go through 40 weeks of pregnancy, illness and stress to decide on the last day she doesn't want to be a mom.

You can't imagine any woman between weeks 27 and 40 of pregnancy deciding she doesn't want to give birth?
Sorry, I just can't believe that's a serious statement and you're obviously just saying it so you can support the "woman's body" and any stage abortion line blindly.

rainbow kirby

Dan_Solo wrote: »

You can't imagine any woman between weeks 27 and 40 of pregnancy deciding she doesn't want to give birth?
Sorry, I just can't believe that's a serious statement and you're obviously just saying it so you can support the "woman's body" and any stage abortion line blindly.

The vast majority of abortions which take place after 20 weeks are for medical reasons - severe and fatal foetal abnormalities. Congratulations on demonstrating some serious ignorance of reality.

eviltwin

Dan_Solo wrote: »

That's a cop out from the question. Do you not think women are trying to avoid having a baby as well as trying to avoid having the pregnancy? Do you think the only time women have abortions is because they think they can't face the pregnancy itself?
Not having that I'm afraid.

There's lots of reasons women have abortions but you know that the vast majority are in the first twelve weeks. Later abortions are rare and with good reason. I'm not buying this idea Dan that women just get fed up late into the pregnancy and demand the baby is killed. It's a ridiculous notion to be honest. Let's focus on the real issues and not some fantasy scenario.

eviltwin

Dan_Solo wrote: »

You can't imagine any woman between weeks 27 and 40 of pregnancy deciding she doesn't want to give birth?
Sorry, I just can't believe that's a serious statement and you're obviously just saying it so you can support the "woman's body" and any stage abortion line blindly.

She doesn't have a choice, living or dead the child will be born

Dan_Solo

rainbow kirby wrote: »

The vast majority of abortions which take place after 20 weeks are for medical reasons - severe and fatal foetal abnormalities. Congratulations on demonstrating some serious ignorance of reality.

Congratulations on ignoring the original statement so you could ram in some other pointless factoid and tack on a personal insult for good measure. Since that's after the usually permissible legal limit for on demand anyway you are pretty much saying nothing at all. Well done again on that.
"vast majority". You said it. Not all. And irrelevant anyway as to whether a woman should be permitted to terminate on demand up to 40 weeks, which is the thing we were discussing which you seem determined to ignore.
Care to give your random fact generator wheel another spin?

Dan_Solo

eviltwin wrote: »

There's lots of reasons women have abortions but you know that the vast majority are in the first twelve weeks. Later abortions are rare and with good reason. I'm not buying this idea Dan that women just get fed up late into the pregnancy and demand the baby is killed. It's a ridiculous notion to be honest. Let's focus on the real issues and not some fantasy scenario.

And yet when other people here say women should be allowed to have on demand abortions right up to delivery day for "parasites" you have no issue. Which is it?
Again that word "vast majority". Am I supposed to pretend this means "every and all cases in the history and future of womankind"? It doesn't you know.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

I'm not saying at all you should be allowed end a viable foetus life at all. Congratulations on dodging and deflecting. When a foetus is viable by itself it will be born, and taken care of. NOBODY decides at 39 weeks and 4 days that they no longer want their full term child.


And you are the only person that you can dictate that to. If you get pregnant and don't want to abort it, good for you. If a woman in a bad place in her life does want to abort, then that's her business it is not yours

eviltwin

Dan_Solo wrote: »

And yet when other people here say women should be allowed to have on demand abortions right up to delivery day for "parasites" you have no issue. Which is it?
Again that word "vast majority". Am I supposed to pretend this means "every and all cases in the history and future of womankind"? It doesn't you know.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. I have no problem with a pregnancy being terminated at any point for whatever reason but there come a point when the child will be able to survive so why would you consider anything else? The outcome for the woman remains the same.

Dan_Solo

LexieOnRale wrote: »

I'm not saying at all you should be allowed end a viable foetus life at all. Congratulations on dodging and deflecting. When a foetus is viable by itself it will be born, and taken care of. NOBODY decides at 39 weeks and 4 days that they no longer want their full term child.

So, if no woman in the world ever would even want a termination after the legal limit in say the UK, then you must therefore agree that legal limit is OK as it is. Nobody wants terminations after that after all, even for "parasites".

Dan_Solo

eviltwin wrote: »

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. I have no problem with a pregnancy being terminated at any point for whatever reason but there come a point when the child will be able to survive so why would you consider anything else? The outcome for the woman remains the same.

So you're saying it should be legal to kill your children because "what mother would kill her children".
That's not even an argument now is it.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Dan_Solo wrote: »

So, if no woman in the world ever would even want a termination after the legal limit in say the UK, then you must therefore agree that legal limit is OK as it is. Nobody wants terminations after that after all, even for "parasites".

What if it's dangerous for the woman to carry the child to term or if the child isn't going to live beyond a few hours is it ok to put that trauma on a woman? Force her to give birth to a child already dead or about to die

Dan_Solo

LexieOnRale wrote: »

What if it's dangerous for the woman to carry the child to term or if the child isn't going to live beyond a few hours is it ok to put that trauma on a woman? Force her to give birth to a child already dead or about to die

That's a different question as to whether abortion should be available entirely by request for any reason up to the date of birth. Why are you changing the discussion to a new topic?

eviltwin

Dan_Solo wrote: »

So you're saying it should be legal to kill your children because "what mother would kill her children".
That's not even an argument now is it.

Where did I say that? I said I think women should be able to end their pregnancy at any point during the process.

Dan_Solo

eviltwin wrote: »

Where did I say that? I said I think women should be able to end their pregnancy at any point during the process.

"there come a point when the child will be able to survive so why would you consider anything else"
You think nobody would ever want to abort a baby that is old enough to survive outside the womb. You say so here.

obplayer

Dan_Solo wrote: »

That's a different question as to whether abortion should be available entirely by request for any reason up to the date of birth. Why are you changing the discussion to a new topic?

That question has already been answered. The answer given was once a foetus is able to survive without it's mother then it is a child and has the rights of a child. Note that it is allowed for a foetus to be supported by another female, a bank of machines etc. in which case it is now a child.
A question (or two) for you. Do you believe that abortion should ever be allowed? Are you a Catholic?

Dan_Solo

obplayer wrote: »

That question has already been answered. The answer given was once a foetus is able to survive without it's mother then it is a child and has the rights of a child. Note that it is allowed for a foetus to be supported by another female, a bank of machines etc. in which case it is now a child.
A question (or two) for you. Do you believe that abortion should ever be allowed? Are you a Catholic?

If it has the rights of a child when it can survive then how can it be moral to abort up to the day of delivery as some here are claiming?
I've already answered the your first question BTW, but I agree with this foetus/child age limit for abortion: when life outside the womb is possible.
But on you other question.... whether I'm a Catholic or not is pretty irrelevant TBH.

Frito

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Where did I say I thought the father has or should have any say? You made that leap all on your own I'm afraid. I've simply corrected the falsehood that a baby is entirely a "woman's body" and raised the as yet unanswered question as to why, if as is claimed the woman is the only person who has any say what happens to her own body, would anybody object to an on demand termination one minute before delivery time.
It's so cliquey and militant here though the immediate assumption is "you don't agree with me on something.... must attack attack attack!". If *I* made a joke like the one above about a penis being a man's genetic material you'd be hitting the nuke button. Don't deny it.
Since you asked, I'm for abortions on demand up to possible survival outside the womb time.

I think you misread Lexie's original point, and thought she meant the woman's choice was absolute because of her ownership of the foetus. I don't think Lexie meant that at all, I think she was referring to the location of the foetus.

Although I did not accept your premise, I was prepared to illustrate that it was irrelevant whether a man contributed 50% or 100% of the genetic material, when it (penis, finger, foetus whatever) occupies another's body, it ceases to become his choice on whether it gets to stay there. It wasn't a joke, it was a point.

obplayer

Dan_Solo wrote: »

If it has the rights of a child when it can survive then how can it be moral to abort up to the day of delivery as some here are claiming?
I've already answered the your first question BTW, but I agree with this foetus/child age limit for abortion: when live outside the womb is possible.
But on you other question.... whether I'm a Catholic or not is pretty bloody irrelevant TBH.

Can you give a quote where someone agrees with aborting up to the day of delivery?

Whether you are a Catholic or not is not irrelevant, it in fact comes down to credibility. Given the Catholic Churches appalling record on morality it is important to know if someone is a member of this vile organisation when assessing how much attention we should pay to that persons views.

Dan_Solo

obplayer wrote: »

Can you give a quote where someone agrees with aborting up to the day of delivery?

Yeah, no problem.

eviltwin wrote: »

I said I think women should be able to end their pregnancy at any point during the process.

obplayer wrote: »

Whether you are a Catholic or not is not irrelevant, it in fact comes down to credibility. Given the Catholic Churches appalling record on morality it is important to know if someone is a member of this vile organisation when assessing how much attention we should pay to that persons views.

The fact that you are incapable of judging an argument on its own merits without the crutch of an ad hominem opportunity, and are proud of it, says quite a bit about how much attention we should pay to your own views.

robindch

Mod:

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Are you challenged reading this?

Dan_Solo wrote: »

The fact that you are incapable of judging an argument on its own merits without the crutch of an ad hominem opportunity [...]

No need for ad hominem's from either of you. One warning has been issued already. Next up are cards.

obplayer

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Yeah, no problem.The fact that you are incapable of judging an argument on its own merits without the crutch of an ad hominem opportunity, and are proud of it, says quite a bit about how much attention we should pay to your own views.

Why not give an answer? Or are you afraid to?

As for

Originally Posted by eviltwin View Post
I said I think women should be able to end their pregnancy at any point during the process.

Should we let eviltwin define what she means by 'the process'?

Absolam

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Are you challenged reading this? A woman has a right over HER body. If she does not want to be pregnant it is her prerogative to stop being pregnant. I can't imagine many women will go through 40 weeks of pregnancy, illness and stress to decide on the last day she doesn't want to be a mom.

I think the point that Dan has been trying to put across is that a womans rights over her body are (and should be) limited, and so are a mans. In this particular instance, her right to use her body as she wishes is limited by the right of the child she is carrying to not be killed. I think the point he was trying to make with regards to the fathers genetic material (and maybe I'm wrong) is that as a result of the fathers genetic input the foetus is genetically distinct from the woman; it is not part of her body. A woman's right over HER body doesn't trump the baby she's carrying's right over HER body, at least insofar as a woman can't choose to abort the life of the foetus she is carrying unless that life threatens her own.

LexieOnRale wrote: »

You're looking at this all wrong. Look at it not killing a person but ending a condition that's affecting her body. From something like 27 weeks a baby can be delivered and survive outside the womb, no longer depending on its mother, as then it's dad can step up and take charge or the child can be placed with someone else.

It's not looking at it wrong, it's looking at it differently.
From one perspective it's ending a condition that affects a womans body, from another it's killing a person. Neither perspective has any absolute claim to being right or wrong, if it did no-one would be debating the subject.

To be fair, muddying the discussion by pretending to varying meanings of the word 'abortion' doesn't really help; in general the majority of people will understand an abortion to be the termination of a pregnancy by aborting the life of a foetus.
It's all very well to claim that delivering a healthy child can be considered an abortion (though, really, in any realisitic sense of the word, it can't) or that abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, rather than the termination of a life, but that's just prevarication for the sake of it, I don't think it lends anything to the debate other than pointing out that people should be more thoughtful about the words they use, or how they use them.

LexieOnRale wrote: »

If a woman doesn't want to carry something - a parasite even - for 5 or 6 months then NOBODY has the right to tell her she should. It's her body and her choice.

That's simply untrue. Society determines what we may or may not do in almost all aspects of our lives; as has been pointed out on the thread before, you can't beat someone to death with your fists and claim you used your body and it was your choice. To claim some abrogation from the rules of the society you live in because you have a body is nonsense.

Absolam

obplayer wrote: »

Whether you are a Catholic or not is not irrelevant, it in fact comes down to credibility. Given the Catholic Churches appalling record on morality it is important to know if someone is a member of this vile organisation when assessing how much attention we should pay to that persons views.

Can you honestly, hand on heart, say you would find Dan Solos views more credible if he produced documentation to the effect that he is a founder Pastafarian who has never darkened the door of a Christian Church in his life?

Regardless, is it not fair to say that if you're assessing how much attention you should pay to his views based on who he is, rather than what views he expresses, then you're attacking the poster, not the post?

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Absolam wrote: »

I think the point that Dan has been trying to put across is that a womans rights over her body are (and should be) limited, and so are a mans. In this particular instance, her right to use her body as she wishes is limited by the right of the child she is carrying to not be killed. I think the point he was trying to make with regards to the fathers genetic material (and maybe I'm wrong) is that as a result of the fathers genetic input the foetus is genetically distinct from the woman; it is not part of her body. A woman's right over HER body doesn't trump the baby she's carrying's right over HER body, at least insofar as a woman can't choose to abort the life of the foetus she is carrying unless that life threatens her own.
It's not looking at it wrong, it's looking at it differently.
From one perspective it's ending a condition that affects a womans body, from another it's killing a person. Neither perspective has any absolute claim to being right or wrong, if it did no-one would be debating the subject.

To be fair, muddying the discussion by pretending to varying meanings of the word 'abortion' doesn't really help; in general the majority of people will understand an abortion to be the termination of a pregnancy by aborting the life of a foetus.
It's all very well to claim that delivering a healthy child can be considered an abortion (though, really, in any realisitic sense of the word, it can't) or that abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, rather than the termination of a life, but that's just prevarication for the sake of it, I don't think it lends anything to the debate other than pointing out that people should be more thoughtful about the words they use, or how they use them.

That's simply untrue. Society determines what we may or may not do in almost all aspects of our lives; as has been pointed out on the thread before, you can't beat someone to death with your fists and claim you used your body and it was your choice. To claim some abrogation from the rules of the society you live in because you have a body is nonsense.

While it was refreshing to read the opposing arguement made in a clear and consise manner, I most definitely disagree. Nobody else's right should trump the right somebody has over their own body. That is what is so wrong with this law. As a woman, I am responsible for my body and I will do with it whatever I wish.

It is wrong to force a woman to put such an enormous toll on her physical and mental wellbeing if it's not what she wants. In fact, forcing a woman to continue with a pregnancy that she doesn't want is just as horrific as forcing a pregnant woman, who really wants that baby, to have an abortion. Why is one acceptable and one not?

If the foetus is not viable outside of the woman's body, it dies. If it is viable outside the woman's body then it will be taken care of until it's strong enough to be taken into the care of someone who wants it.

Whether or not it's genetically half the males material is irrelevant. That does not mean it has more rights over another's body than they have over their own.

By all means, if abortion is not for you, don't have an abortion. But if Mary down the street gets pregnant and doesn't want to keep her baby, she owes you or society no explanation or is under no obligation to continue with the pregnancy. It's nobody else's business, except the would be fathers and mothers.

Delirium

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I must mean then that it would be OK to terminate on the day of delivery. Why then would it be immoral to kill the baby seconds after giving birth when it is still entirely dependent on the mother for survival?

Nonsense. Anyone can provide for the child once it has been born, it's no longer reliant on a physical connection to the woman for nutrients/food etc.