Opinions on abortion

[Seshat]

Alright, well, from the first one, the only thing I see from it is the doctor telling the woman that there's only blood in there. I didn't see anything about an ultrasound or any such thing.

In the second one, she acknowledges that she knew she was pregnant, and that she knew that pregnant = baby on the way.

The second link says, in many places, that she's suing because the doctor didn't say that she had 'an existing, living human being' in her. That's it. She knew she was pregnant, she knew she was growing a baby.

To go back to the 'plants and seeds' argument from earlier in the thread: it's like she'd planted a seed, gone back and knowingly pulled out the germinating seed, then been surprised when she didn't get a plant.
'It was only a seed! I didn't know that removing the seed would stop the plant from growing! Someone should have told me there was an existing living tree in the soil!'

[Ryu]

I dont think the issue is that she thought she would still be pregnant but when complications arose and she was told there were still parts of the embryo inside of her she somehow didnt realize that it was an entire embryo as opposed to just blood or just a blob of tissue. So when she was told there was still parts of the embryo in her she didnt know how that could be based on what the doctor said.
She is obviously poorly informed or something but that doesnt mean the doctor shouldnt have ensured she knew that what was in her was an embryo.

[AFPheonix]

For starters, that 1st article is a very slanted opinion piece.

Thing 2, how could she NOT know that she had an embryo in there? It's not like her previous 2 kids showed up under a cabbage leaf.

[Seshat]

She is obviously poorly informed or something but that doesnt mean the doctor shouldnt have ensured she knew that what was in her was an embryo.

Since we don't know the details of this case, I'll take this to a more generic case.

You're familiar with customer service. You know how a sizable percentage of customers don't read signs. Or pamphlets. Or listen to CS staff explain things.

Do you honestly think that customers change just because they're in a doctor's office? A doctor could hit them on the head with one of those big 'stages of development in pregnancy charts', hold it in front of their faces and say 'this, this is what's inside you', and still a lot of people will say 'waah waah they never told me'.

Doctors have a duty of care. A doctor who does an abortion without having attempted to have the patient understand, is negligent. But a doctor does his part when he gives the patient a pamphlet on pregnancy, shows them a chart, explains the chart and the pamphlet, sends them to a midwife/obstetrics nurse/qualified counselling service/whatever, and recommends they discuss the matter with their priest/rabbi/ethicist/friends/'when is an embryo a living person'-ethics-counsellor of choice.

Patients have a duty too. They have a duty to say 'I understand', 'I'd like more information' or 'I don't understand' and be accurate when they say it. They have a duty to listen when they're told this stuff, and to try to understand it. They have a duty to make their own moral/ethical decisions, and suck up the consequences of those decisions once they've made them.

Unfortunately, these patients are the same customers who claim they understand 'all sales final' or 'returns must have a receipt', buy the stuff, then come back and say 'noone told me!'

[rahmota]

Okay coming into this one very late term....I'll give my opinion on this one and then eject.

It should remain legal as the fetus is not a baby until it can exist outside the body of the mother. until then it is in all senses of the word a parasite dependent upon the host(mother's) body for all (Repeat ALL) life support. Remove it early and it will not be able to exist on its own. Remove it early enough and it is not even a fetus but a lump of cellular tissue not unlike a blister on your toe. Yes it may be a potential sentient lifeform but until that potential is realized it is not. This is of course leaving all emotions/religion/belief structure out of the situation and looking at it from a strictly biological standpoint. Sorry if that sounds so cold but its the reality truth that a lot of people dont want to accept or look at or consider.

I do think that casual abortions as a form of birth control should be discouraged very strongly and more and better alternatives be put into place. But society doesnt want to bear the cost of those sorts of things. Too bad because better sex education, access to birth control and counselling for responsible sexual practices would probably help reduce abortions and unwanted pregnancies and reduce the amount of welfare children around. So which in the long run would be more economical?

Just some thoughts.

[blas87]

If those who insist on doing damage to abortion clincs, aka, taking lives to save lives, if more of those people were more willing to offer health care for these babies that they fought so hard to abolish the right to an abortion for, I'd understand the pro-life point of view a bit better.

I consider pro-choice as being a CHOICE. You are not that poor little 16 year old girl who was raped and is now pregnant. You are not the girl whose boyfriend just ran for the hills when he found out he is going to be a father. You have no idea how this person may feel. You cannot speak for God. You cannot say what God forbids and what God allows.

We as women fought for this right for how many years? And people just want to take this right away? Ok, take them all away then.

Take away the right to have an abortion, and you'll still see top secret clinics and unlicensed people with dirty knives and folding tables performing abortions. Do you people want women resorting to such measures just because their right was taken away?

[Lace Neil Singer]

What about those of us who don't want a pregnancy? Even the best pregnancy, with no complications, leaves the body permanently changed. Pregnancy is not a trivial thing.

I agree. I am not physically, mentally or financially able to have a child. I also worked hard to overcome my eating disorder and depression, and refuse to jepordise all that. I am not maternal at all. I like children once they have reached the age where they can converse, but not when they're screaming, vomiting and pooping everywhere. I like to be able to spontaniously jump on the bike and shoot down to Brighten, take a train to London, or just stay out til 4am if I want to. Finally, I like being able to spend my spare money on me, myself and I.

My boyf feels exactly the same as me. If I got pregnant, he'd draw out the money to pay for an instant abortion. We've only had one scare (I'm on the pill and he always uses a condom) when the condom split; we rushed to the chemist to get the morning after pill. Whether it was a false alarm or if the morning after pill did its job, I don't know; but it worked.

I'd love to get sterilised, however I am not 30 yet and no doctor will ever sterilise a woman under 30 over here, cuz they think we might change our mind later. Even over 30s still get that crap. If I did, I'd prefer to adopt, maybe an AS kid so we can be on the same wavelength. I have no desire at all to have babies.

[tendomentis]

I believe a woman has the right over her own body, but without getting to "Merchant of Venice" about the issue, the fetus is not part of her body. It is, in fact, a separate organism with its own DNA. It may be utterly dependant on the woman's body for the first 9 months or so, but it is still its own organism.

So, the woman can do whatever she wants to her own body, but if it terminates another organism with DNA that identifies that organism as belonging to the human species, I can't understand why that wouldn't be considered murder of a human in the same way that I am entitled to do what I want with my own body, but if I use my hand to brutally impact another human's skull until they are terminated it is considered murder. To say that being considered a human being is dependant on your cognitive abilities would classify extremely mentally retarded human adults as no longer human (as some newborns are born with a greater cognitive ability than the most extreme cases of mental retardation).

One could argue that a 3 day old fetus, while having its own DNA does not posess any mind at all is to set a bar that no human may be truly qualified to set. A human couldn't be completely objective in making that qualification as we are biased by the very nature that we are using our supposed intelligence to make that determination to begin with. Only an entity whose intelligence is not based on the presence or absence of neural tissue would be qualified to make that determination.

At the same time, one of my biggest rants is the critical situation of overpopulation by the human species, so I'm all for the next two generations being limited to one child per couple.

I just can't understand the mentality that would allow convicted murderers to live, humans who have knowingly and willingly taken away another organism's ability to live, but disallow a human entity to be allowed the opportunity to continue living once the process of life has already been initiated. So I see being pro-choice and anti-death penalty as a somewhat hypocritical standpoint.

[Seshat]

It may be utterly dependant on the woman's body for the first 9 months or so, but it is still its own organism.

So is a bacterium, a virus, and a mosquito.

To say that being considered a human being is dependant on your cognitive abilities would classify extremely mentally retarded human adults as no longer human.

How about to 'ability to survive independent of the mother'?

I just can't understand the mentality that would allow convicted murderers to live, humans who have knowingly and willingly taken away another organism's ability to live, but disallow a human entity to be allowed the opportunity to continue living once the process of life has already been initiated.

If you read earlier in this thread, you'll see that I consider 'personhood' to appear at some nebulous and unknowable-to-science point between conception and the stage in which an infant displays a distinct personality. Science is unable to answer questions such as that - there is no way to apply scientific method to the question.

Since science can't answer it, I consider the question of where in that continuum personhood appears to be a matter for religious and philosophical debate. So far, the best religious, theological and philosophical minds humanity has, have not been able to come to a consensus agreement on that issue.

Since the experts do not agree, I believe that whether an embryo/foetus is an independent person is a decision to be made by the parents and their ethical advisor, and not by doctors or lawyers.

That is why I'm pro-choice.

[Amethyst Hunter]

I'm all for the next two generations being limited to one child per couple.

Agreed. IMO China has the right idea, but they're going about it the wrong way in that they *mandate* abortion for anyone going over the limit - which takes away all choice. Forced abortion is as bad as forced breeding.

I see being pro-choice and anti-death penalty as a somewhat hypocritical standpoint.

Not necessarily. The reason many pro-choice people are also anti-death penalty is because there are instances, they say, where the penalty has been found to be applied inequally (i.e., singling out one race/class moreso than others for the specific reason of race/class).

Myself, I personally have no problem with the death penalty - at least, for cases where it's proven beyond all shadow of a doubt that the accused did it. In that case I can't say that I would feel too badly about some scumbag frying in the chair or whathaveyou for having committed some terrible crime and is pretty much unredeemable (religion aside) and incapable of any rehabilitation, and will pose a direct threat to society if allowed even paroled freedom (Google William Pettit in Connecticut; that horrible crime was committed by parolees). Good riddance to bad rubbish, as far as I'm concerned.

[tendomentis]

Agreed. IMO China has the right idea, but they're going about it the wrong way in that they *mandate* abortion for anyone going over the limit - which takes away all choice. Forced abortion is as bad as forced breeding.

A topic I've done a lot of thinking on... I would imagine a system whereby a couple only can count one child as a tax deduction would work better in the USA. Any more children than the one would not be able to be used as a tax deduction (families with more than one child at the enactment of said law to be exempt of course).

Personally, I believe bettering a population can be done just as effectively with "personal benefit incentives" as with state-mandated requirements, and will generally keep the overall population better contented than using state-mandated requirements. In this case, a couple who restricts themselves to one child benefits more financially than couples who decide to have two or more children. Having more than one child hasn't been made illegal, but such a law would make it less beneficial to have a large family.

To the best of my knowledge (and please feel free to correct me if I'm incorrect), there are no religious or medical mandates that would require a couple to have more than one child, and if this is true there would be little to create legitimate opposition to this kind of legislation.

[Rapscallion]

To the best of my knowledge (and please feel free to correct me if I'm incorrect), there are no religious or medical mandates that would require a couple to have more than one child,

I believe there's something in the tenets of most religions to say that the adherents should 'go forth and multiply'.

Rapscallion

[rahmota]

Tendo:

To the best of my knowledge (and please feel free to correct me if I'm incorrect), there are no religious or medical mandates that would require a couple to have more than one child

Look up the "Quiverfull Movement". They are a religious group who take the be fruitful and multiply concept literally. Their biggest best known family is the Duggars of Arkansas with 17 kids.

[DesignFox]

I believe in a woman's right to choose.

Mostly, I believe that keeping abortion legal is necessary to keep women from stuffing unwanted babies in garbage cans or resorting to unlicensed back-alley abortionists.

Not to mention what happens when you force a woman to carry/attempt to care for a baby she doesn't want or can't afford. Then you run into all sorts of horrible possibilities for the youngster from birth defects to nutrition problems...etc.

Oh, and the wonderful burden that pregnant mothers who can't afford health care puts on the rest of society...IF they can even QUALIFY for medical assistance to begin with.

I could go on...but I think most of the points I would make have already been made.

[tendomentis]

Tendo:

Look up the "Quiverfull Movement". They are a religious group who take the be fruitful and multiply concept literally. Their biggest best known family is the Duggars of Arkansas with 17 kids.

Well, obviously. I'm aware of the "be fruitful and multiply" mandate, but my reasoning was that no mandate exists that would allow people an exemption to the one child rule on religious grounds.

As it would likely be interpreted from a legal standpoint, the mandate to "multiply" doesn't specify by what number to multiply against

I.e., the mandate could still be observed by only multiplying by one. Is it what the observers of that mandate would assume that means? Probably not, but as it was never specified, observers of that mandate would have no legal ground to challenge the one child rule.