your rapist is forgiven, your mother goes to hell!

[linguist]

Yes, you're right. Telling a woman what she can or can't do with her own body would be misogynistic. I'm not concerned what she does with her own body - I'm concerned what she does with the other person's body.

apparently you are concerned with what she does with her own body, because until a fetus can survive on her own, it's not a viable being and is a part of her body.

If you want to label me a misogynist over that, fine. I have nothing but respect for women, and certainly don't think of them as being any lesser than men in any regard.

except between conception and birth, when you apparently just think of them as incubators, even if they don't want to be. how very respectful.

[Jaden]

apparently you are concerned with what she does with her own body, because until a fetus can survive on her own, it's not a viable being and is a part of her body.

For the billionth time, I see the fetus as another human being with its own body. I think the child's entire life is more important than the mother's right to just not have a child because she doesn't want to have one, but, as I've said several billion times by now, I don't see it as more important than the mother's life.

What you seem to be missing is that it's a matter of perspective. You don't see it as a life - I do. I could start raving and accuse you of advocating murder and having no respect for life, and from my perspective, it would be just as valid as your accusations that I'm a misogynist are from your perspective. But that would be stupid, because you don't see it as a life, so even if, ultimately, I may feel as though you're advocating a form of murder, I know that you, personally, are not. I'm not merely writing off the pro-choice opinion as being inherently hate-filled because I have respect for the people who hold that opinion, because they're still people and are thus deserving of my respect.

You, on the other hand, apparently feel the need to label those who disagree with you in such a way that you don't even have to consider their opinion, or even consider them as good of a person as you. That is what's wrong with American debate - people do that all the time.

except between conception and birth, when you apparently just think of them as incubators, even if they don't want to be. how very respectful.

Yes, I "just" think of them as incubators Clearly you're actually paying attention to what I'm saying instead of just labeling me as a misogynist in order to invalidate my opinions, and all those of people against abortion, so you don't have to even consider it as remotely worthwhile. It's just not possible for somebody to be against abortion and have just as much love and respect for women as anybody else, is it?

[Andara Bledin]

For the billionth time, I see the fetus as another human being with its own body.

Until that body can sustain itself or be adequately and easily sustained with technology, this is, at best, a polite fiction.

There is no "its own body" at that early a stage and no amount of handwaving is going to change the fact that until it's viable without the mother, it's part of the mother and not a distinct entity unto itself.

What you seem to be missing is that it's a matter of perspective. You don't see it as a life - I do.

Speaking of putting words in other people's mouths...

Nobody said that an early stage fetus wasn't a life. The facts are that it isn't a distinct life, which is a massive qualification to just sort of shove off to the side and ignore.

^-.-^

[crashhelmet]

Until that body can sustain itself or be adequately and easily sustained with technology, this is, at best, a polite fiction.

There is no "its own body" at that early a stage and no amount of handwaving is going to change the fact that until it's viable without the mother, it's part of the mother and not a distinct entity unto itself.


Speaking of putting words in other people's mouths...

Nobody said that an early stage fetus wasn't a life. The facts are that it isn't a distinct life, which is a massive qualification to just sort of shove off to the side and ignore.

^-.-^

At what point is this life distinct?

One little girl was born at 21 weeks, 6 days. That's approximately 2 weeks before the cutoff point where abortion becomes illegal. She turns 6 this fall.

So I ask again, at what point, at what stage, is that life distinct?

[Nekojin]

I'd like to point out that, with all of the shit-slinging that goes on over this topic, that there are a lot of pro-choice people who disapprove of abortions, but view it as a necessary evil, or sometimes the best of a selection of bad choices.

Nobody views surgical abortions as a viable form of birth control. Nobody. The idea of people using abortions as a form of post-facto birth control is a strawman that the pro-life camp loves to beat on. Surgical abortions carry with them significant risks to the mother's health, both immediate and long-term. It's not something to be done lightly.

But then there are other forms of abortion, such as the "morning-after" pill. At this point, the zygote hasn't attached to the wall of the uterus yet (which can take as much as a week). This is still a form of abortion, and die-hard pro-lifers object to even this. But if the people had used reasonable birth control (or the birth control hadn't failed), they could still end up in a situation of using this, to much the same effect.

So, ultimately, it comes down to, when do you think it becomes a person with its own rights? Upon insemination (which can be as little as a half hour after sex)? When the ova successfully attaches to the wall of the uterus (before which time it could simply fail to attach, and get washed out in menstruation or cleaning)? When it develops a brain (~ week 5)? When the brain starts functioning (~25 weeks)? Or some other developmental point? There are lots to choose from.

But let's take a step away from the pregnancy to the post-birth life of the child. A child who is unwanted is likely to have a miserable life. Parents that resent the child are unlikely to give it a warm and comfortable existence. The same can be said for orphanages, foster families*, and many adopting families. We have a glut of people, far more people than we need, and we're getting more every minute of every day. The world has a limit on how many it can sustain long-term, and some analysts estimate that we've already passed that limit.

With all that in mind, is it really worthwhile to force this one child to be brought to term? Wouldn't it be better for a prospective mother to wait until she's actually ready to be a parent? Or are you intent on punishing her for making a bad choice (or accident!) with regard to sex?

* This has been covered on these forums recently, but I can say from experience that families that foster children for the money are frequently some of the most squalid and unhappy environments for a child, and should not be wished on anyone.

[Andara Bledin]

At what point is this life distinct?

[glurge snippage]

So I ask again, at what point, at what stage, is that life distinct?

That's an outstanding question and one that nobody can actually answer.

However, with current medical technology, it's very rarely during the first trimester and very often before the third, but there is no hard line because everybody develops differently, so setting a line in stone is foolhardy.

There are some babies (less than 10% that are actually delivered, and the true number is probably much lower) who can survive by the 20th week, which is about the half-way point of a typical pregnancy, and halfway through the second trimester which spans weeks 14-28. It's about week 24-25 that the survival rate climbs up over 1 in 3 and by the 26th week, the survival rate is very high. But there are some babies who never become viable no matter how long they are carried.

^-.-^

[Nekojin]

At what point is this life distinct?

One little girl was born at 21 weeks, 6 days. That's approximately 2 weeks before the cutoff point where abortion becomes illegal. She turns 6 this fall.

So I ask again, at what point, at what stage, is that life distinct?

That's an interesting case study. According to conventional measuring, that's 2 to 4 weeks before active brain function is likely to happen; without active brain function, there's virtually no way that a preemie like that can survive.

That said, however, it's not outside the realm of possibility. I was a so-called "preemie" at 8 months, and according to my mom, I was as large as any of the full-term babies in the ward. If it's possible for me to have squeezed an extra month's worth of growth in the previous 8 months, it's certainly possible for some other baby (or the baby in this case, more specifically) to have done the same.

Which is why hard lines based on developmental time are misguided, and developmental growth (and associated key points in development) are a better metric. In attempting to treat everyone the same, it either ignores the outliers, or uses them as an excuse to keep moving the timeline for everyone.

[Hyena Dandy]

[Nobody views surgical abortions as a viable form of birth control. Nobody. The idea of people using abortions as a form of post-facto birth control is a strawman that the pro-life camp loves to beat on. Surgical abortions carry with them significant risks to the mother's health, both immediate and long-term. It's not something to be done lightly.
[/quote]

Or, rather, not "There are no people who do it" but "There are people who do it who are being stupid, and certainly don't make up a large amount."

[Nekojin]

Nobody views surgical abortions as a viable form of birth control. Nobody. The idea of people using abortions as a form of post-facto birth control is a strawman that the pro-life camp loves to beat on. Surgical abortions carry with them significant risks to the mother's health, both immediate and long-term. It's not something to be done lightly.

Or, rather, not "There are no people who do it" but "There are people who do it who are being stupid, and certainly don't make up a large amount."

No, I mean that there's literally nobody who goes without a condom thinking, "Oh, if I get pregnant, I'll just have it aborted." I don't think that there are even any mentally-unstable people who think that's a viable option.

I do agree that there are some people who get pregnant, and then go, "Oh, shit, I'd better get it aborted," ONCE. And then start being more careful about using protection afterward. (Although, in some cases, probably still not careful enough)

[draco664]

No, I mean that there's literally nobody who goes without a condom thinking, "Oh, if I get pregnant, I'll just have it aborted." I don't think that there are even any mentally-unstable people who think that's a viable option.

Unfortunately, you are wrong.

My wife and I shared a flat in London with such a woman for half a year. She would pee on a stick to see if she was ovulating, and if she wasn't, she'd have all the sex she wanted. She fell pregnant, and went to get an abortion.

It did not change her behaviour. She saw it as a managable consequence of her chosen method of birth control failing. Given her chosen method was about as reliable as the rhythm method, it was essentially unsafe.

Of course, if she was required to have a surgical abortion, I suspect her ambivelance would soon vanish. But at only 6 or 7 weeks, there are plenty of other, non-invasive options.

[Nekojin]

Unfortunately, you are wrong.

My wife and I shared a flat in London with such a woman for half a year. She would pee on a stick to see if she was ovulating, and if she wasn't, she'd have all the sex she wanted. She fell pregnant, and went to get an abortion.

It did not change her behaviour. She saw it as a managable consequence of her chosen method of birth control failing. Given her chosen method was about as reliable as the rhythm method, it was essentially unsafe.

Of course, if she was required to have a surgical abortion, I suspect her ambivelance would soon vanish. But at only 6 or 7 weeks, there are plenty of other, non-invasive options.

Fair enough.

[Rebel]

That would be the parasite one. OK... so, the argument goes, even if it's a full person from the moment of conception, it's still fine and dandy to abort because a fetus is a parasite and nobody has the right to another person's nutrients. Given, for the sake of this one argument, that both are people, it seems to me that the one has a much higher stake in the matter than the other. For the mother, most likely nothing but a few months' inconvenience; for the fetus, certain death. The two really don't even seem comparable to me.

For this argument to work, it would have to be applied to all persons.
As you said, the fetus is completely dependant on the mother to live. If the fetus is considered a person at this point and one was to argue that the woman should just 'put up with a few months inconvenience', then the same should work for all people that would depend on another person to live.
-Person A is dying of kidney failure needs a new kidney. Person B happens to be a perfect match. By this framework, Person B would not be asked for permission for the kidney to be taken as it is Person A's only chance for survival. This would be inconvenient for Person B's life and the surgery required does carry risk of death, but Person A now has a higher chance of living.
-Person C has a rare blood type. Person D has a universal blood type. Both would be expected to be kept on call and to donate blood at a moments notice.

Fact is, offering to donate a part of yourself so another person can live is a very noble thing, but it should never be compulsory. As organ and blood donation is not compulsory, neither should be incubating a fetus for 10 months.

This idea also ignores the risks associated to pregnancy, and the fact that a woman is 14 times more likely to die from carrying a baby to term than they ever are from a legal abortion.

Beyond that, bringing an unwanted child into the world is a very cruel thing to do.
If the parents don't want it, it would be sent into the underfunded foster system in the US.
Currently in America there are around 424,000 children in the foster system. At least 50,000 of these children will spend 5 years or more in the system and a further 30,000 will never be adopted and will spend their entire lives there. Currently only 15% of all children that go through foster care will ever be adopted out.
Of the children in foster care the most likely to be adopted will be a healthy white male baby, after that, a healthy white female baby. The likelihood of the child being adopted decreases as their age increases, their skin pigmentation darkens or their health decreases.
The cost of adopting a child is often between $4,000-$70,000 depending on the process you choose. Only well-off families or people with a bit of excess money would be able to complete this process. However, older children are relatively cheaper and special needs children often have no fee attached to the adoption.

Those are the main problems with the suggestion you put forward.

[AdminAssistant]

Most pro-life zealots are only concerned about the fetus. After the baby is born, good luck! You're on your own.

[guywithashovel]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/127559/ed...-abortion.aspx

Here is a resource that gives some analysis of people's views on abortion from the angle of gender. As we can see, there are many pro-life women out there (for those who think that pro-lifers (or anti-choicers, whatever term you prefer) are misogynistic men.

[PepperElf]

context is wrong. excommunication does not mean "you go to hell"

Yes you're kicked out of the church but it doesn't mean you're going to hell.
Nor does not being excommunicated mean you've been forgiven.



Although suggesting that it does... i guess that helps turn up the volume on emotions for this case. (looks like it worked too)


http://www.catholic.com/quickquestio...nicated-damned



Although part of me really does blame the mother too. Why? How dare I say something so horrible?

Cos... how can a mother NOT notice that her daughter was being raped for THREE YEARS? I mean really? Is it that easy to miss?