Abortion

smash wrote: »

Regarding rape, I think it should be optional for sure. The mother never wanted to get pregnant or even have sex. It's got to hard for a child to grow up knowing that and knowing their father was a rapist and they're the result of his behavior.

I'm pro choice, and I think they should all be optional up to a term.

What I am having trouble reconciling is how people can go on and on about the life of the foetus being saved and how important it is on the one hand, and then suddenly switch to "oh but that doesn't matter anymore if it's not her fault".

The mother never wanted to get pregnant if it is an accidental unwanted pregnancy in any case, consenting or otherwise. She didn't want to get pregnant if she was on birth control, for example. To most people, that doesn't seem to matter because "omg it's a human life".

LorraineMcFly wrote: »

again i find it irresponsible a child had to die cos your friend chose to sleep with a man she didnt love, a man who has no job? and cannot afford to support his family.

It wasn't a child, it was a foetus. And she did the responsible thing by leaving him.

LorraineMcFly wrote: »

She should have been taking more precautions than the pill as its not a very reliable method, a mother of 2 would know this.

Earlier you said she should have been taking contraception, I said she was and now you're saying she should have taken more. And I have no idea why it would matter that she already had 2 children. :rolleyes:

bluewolf wrote: »

I'm pro choice, and I think they should all be optional up to a term..

Does that include any reasoning whatsoever?

bluewolf wrote: »

The mother never wanted to get pregnant if it is an accidental unwanted pregnancy in any case, consenting or otherwise. She didn't want to get pregnant if she was on birth control, for example. To most people, that doesn't seem to matter because "omg it's a human life".

The difference is one consented to sex in the first place, one didn't. Sex has consequences, even when using contraception.

You may as well argue that there is no difference between a woman who catches an STD from consensual sex, and one who contracts one through a rape. I'd argue there is a huge difference between the two. Just because the intention not to contract one might have been present, the circumstances in which they were are completely opposite.

prinz wrote: »

Does that include any reasoning whatsoever?

As far as I can think of right now, but if you want to fire any examples at me I can think about those too

I'm more conservative about it than I used to be, and I've always stated that the ideal would be if the pregnancies didn't happen/weren't unwanted in the first place. I also don't think it's nothing.
But in the early stages yes, I think it should be an option

prinz wrote: »

The difference is one consented to sex in the first place, one didn't.

But still, neither wanted to get pregnant. And the consenting party took precautions that didn't work.

prinz wrote: »

The difference is one consented to sex in the first place, one didn't.

So what? Are we saying the foetus can't help its conception and should be saved as it's a human life, or not?
Why is this about women having sex all of a sudden?

LorraineMcFly

smash wrote: »

It wasn't a child, it was a foetus. And she did the responsible thing by leaving him.

Earlier you said she should have been taking contraception, I said she was and now you're saying she should have taken more. And I have no idea why it would matter that she already had 2 children. :rolleyes:

im saying this cos my sister got pregnant on the pill and a a friend also. so i know its not reliable and most women know it too. it has been known to fail quite a bit. just think if you sleeping with a man you dont love you and are leaving you should be extra careful.

LorraineMcFly wrote: »

im saying this cos my sister got pregnant on the pill and a a friend also.

Your sister and friends should have been more responsible then shouldn't they :rolleyes:

LorraineMcFly wrote: »

so i know its not reliable and most women know it too. it has been known to fail quite a bit.

Yet is probably still the most common form of contraception isn't it.

bluewolf wrote: »

As far as I can think of right now, but if you want to fire any examples at me I can think about those too

Gender selection? When it comes out that many people go for abortions because their foetus is female, you still say... yep that's a good reason?

smash wrote: »

But still, neither wanted to get pregnant. And the consenting party took precautions that didn't work.

Again see above. Do you think there is a difference between someone who gets HIV through consensual sex, and one who gets it from a rapist?

up for anything

prinz wrote: »

The difference is one consented to sex in the first place, one didn't. Sex has consequences, even when using contraception.

You may as well argue that there is no difference between a woman who catches an STD from consensual sex, and one who contracts one through a rape. I'd argue there is a huge difference between the two. Just because the intention not to contract one might have been present, the circumstances in which they were are completely opposite.

Why are you bringing STDs into it? There is no difference between a woman who catches an STD from consensual sex and one who contracts one through a rape - what is the huge difference you are speaking about. Why does it matter if the circumstance in which they were caught were completely opposite?

Seachmall

Lorraine! Over here! Look at me!

Why does the child's right to life vanish when the mother's life is in jeopardy?

Is there a reason or is it simply what you believe to be fair?

up for anything wrote: »

Why are you bringing STDs into it? There is no difference between a woman who catches an STD from consensual sex and one who contracts one through a rape - what is the huge difference you are speaking about.

One willingly has sex, aware of the possibilities of STD's, pregnancy etc, no matter how many precautions they take.

The other had no say in the matter.

Using a condom or the pill is not the same f*cking things as getting raped.

prinz wrote: »

One willingly has sex, aware of the possibilities of STD's, pregnancy etc, no matter how many precautions they take.

The other had no say in the matter.

We're taking about the life of a foetus/baby here.
What's the difference?

Using a condom or the pill is not the same f*cking things as getting raped.

Again, if the outcome is an unwanted pregnancy with a healthy mother and foetus, what's the difference? Or do you just not actually care about the life of the foetus after all?

bluewolf wrote: »

We're taking about the life of a foetus/baby here. What's the difference?

That's not my argument. I am merely pointing out why some people see a difference for the slow learners.

prinz wrote: »

Again see above. Do you think there is a difference between someone who gets HIV through consensual sex, and one who gets it from a rapist?

I see HIV as an incurable disease, I see unwanted pregnancy as a curable problem.

nozzferrahhtoo

bluewolf wrote: »

What I am having trouble reconciling is how people can go on and on about the life of the foetus being saved and how important it is on the one hand, and then suddenly switch to "oh but that doesn't matter anymore if it's not her fault".

I have long had trouble understanding that too. The argument "The fetus has a right to life but not if the mother was raped" has never made any sense to me. Either the person arguing against abortion thinks the fetus has a right to life... or they do not.

X no longer has a right to life because Y committed a crime on Z literally has never made sense to me. Why does a fetus lose this "right to life" because someone else committed a crime. It is like vicarious death penalty.

Thankfully however I do not argue the fetus has a "right to life" so it is not my problem, but it does seem like a weird contradiction in the anti abortion arguments.

up for anything

prinz wrote: »

One willingly has sex, aware of the possibilities of STD's, pregnancy etc, no matter how many precautions they take.

The other had no say in the matter.

Using a condom or the pill is not the same f*cking things as getting raped.

Why the hell is AH selectively choosing what appears in posts today? That last sentence in your post that I quoted didn't appear in your post.

(and now it does - there are ghosts in my machine!)

I don't agree with what you are saying. Nobody sets out to catch an STD unless they are mentally impaired. If you are trying to use it as an analogy for pregnancy and abortion it's not working for me.

Seachmall

prinz wrote: »

That's not my argument. I am merely pointing out why some people see a difference for the slow learners.

I think the point is this,

Why should someone's right to life be dependent on how the child was conceived?

If it is dependent on how it was conceived then the child's right to life is conditional.

If the child's right to life is conditional then it's not an absolute right.

If it's not an absolute right there is no justification for opposing abortion (in terms of "rights" anyway).

Greentopia

kylith wrote: »

If you don't agree with abortion then the answer is simple: don't have an abortion. But don't you dare claim that you know what's best for other people.

Oh, and all this 'pro-abortion' talk is just ridiculous. No-one is pro-abortion, it's a terribly sad and traumatic period of a woman's life, it makes it sound like we want compulsary terminations. We're pro-choice.

That's my opinion on abortion too. Whether I'm pro or anti-choice should have nothing whatsoever to do with whether it should be freely available for other women, that's not my decision to make.

I don't believe in legislating religious views into law and imposing them on others. The only option I believe is to let others choose what is right for them, therefore abortion should be freely available on demand (Including elective) for those who want it.

Seachmall wrote: »

I think the point is this...

I get that, that's fine some people think abortion should be available in rape cases, some don't/

What I don't get is people trying equate pregnancy through consensual sex, and pregnancy through rape as if there is no difference.

I'd see the hypocritical opposite of it on the pro-choice side where people agree with abortion in x,y cases but not in z. Of which there are plenty.

prinz wrote: »

What I don't get is people trying equate pregnancy through consensual sex, and pregnancy through rape as if there is no difference.

There is no biological difference. Either the foetus has a right to life or it doesn't.

Knasher

prinz wrote: »

Does that include any reasoning whatsoever?

I'd hold the position that abortion should be optional up to the point where the baby has the ability to survive outside the womb on its own. The right to life doesn't override the right to bodily integrity of anybody else. If I had leukemia my life could be dependent on getting a bone marrow transplant from a donor. However I do not have to right to legally force somebody to donate, because my right to life doesn't override their right to bodily integrity, hell the donation process is even set up so that the donor and recipient are never in contact with each other so one can't influence the decision of another.

So even if the debate over whether a fetus can qualify as a person and be deserving of equal rights, were resolved in your favor. Equal rights would still mean that the fetuses right to life wouldn't override a woman's right to bodily integrity and abortion would be legal until the fetus has the ability to survive outside the womb. I think this is roughly how abortion goes in most countries where it is legal, the fetus has the right to life when it has the ability to execute that right without overriding the rights of another, same as the rest of us.

bluewolf wrote: »

There is no biological difference. Either the foetus has a right to life or it doesn't.

..and if it doesn't presumably you have no problems with any reasoning whatsoever being used to obtain an abortion. Health problems, gender, day of the week, flip of a coin? Do you?

prinz wrote: »

..and if it doesn't presumably you have no problems with any reasoning whatsoever being used to obtain an abortion. Health problems, gender, day of the week, flip of a coin? Do you?

With the exception of some Asian countries, I've never heard of this.

Seachmall

prinz wrote: »

What I don't get is people trying equate pregnancy through consensual sex, and pregnancy through rape as if there is no difference.

Because arguing the child has a right to life and then providing the exception of rape is an inconsistency that questions the validity of the entire "right to life" argument.

And it needs to be pointed out. Either the child has an absolute right to life or it doesn't. No "if"s, "but"s or "maybe"s. No exceptions.

I'd see the hypocritical opposite of it on the pro-choice side where people agree with abortion in x,y cases but not in z. Of which there are plenty.

I agree.

smash wrote: »

With the exception of some Asian countries, I've never heard of this.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9161850/Abortion-investigation-Its-not-my-job-to-ask-questions-said-consultant-willing-to-bend-the-rules.html

Knock yourself out. Despite being officially illegal in the UK it seems many clinics don't really care.