The abortion thing

[TheHuckster]

The biggest issues on the table right now are: should health care plans be required to cover abortions, and should religiously-affiliated entities be required to cover said plans? I believe that if one is truly pro-choice they will recognize that some people do have a very moral conviction that abortion is wrong and the government should not force them to pay money toward pro-abortion efforts, including insurance.

Abortion is a heated issue because, unlike most moral dilemmas which typically only affect the person committing whatever they think is a sin, this is an action which people feel affects the life and soul of another human being. Agree with it or not, it's a belief that a lot of people hold, and simply dismissing all of them as crazy, bible thumping, lunatic, women-haters is insensitive and over-simplistic; and telling them they must purchase insurance to support these kinds of actions is a difficult pill for them to swallow, and many feel it's a trump on their religious rights.

This isn't the same as those who incorrectly claim that their religious rights are being violated by seeing two gay people holding hands with rings on their fingers walking down the street, or by seeing to their horror that a man wearing a turban dared to move next door. When you are forced to purchase a policy whose fund even partially pays for the extinguishing of life which they see as immoral, it invokes a much different feeling.

Anyone who has a problem with their health insurance providing cover, or access to these services, that badly should either find one that doesn't or you (generic 'you') could always start your own with fellow -insert religion here- believers.

People are fighting to have that choice in the ACA.

2) miscarriages- if a foetus is alive from conception, do you blame the mother for miscarriages- especially in the first trimester, when the risk is highest.

Every time I hear this oft-used argument, it makes me want to scream. This is akin to accusing the mother of infanticide for a viral infection which kills their infant child. So, no. Miscarriages are not the same as abortion.

I will have to say, I'm very happy that this community is here and we can actually talk civilly about a topic which, in 99.99% of the rest of the Internet, would have devolved into absolute trashy arguments back and forth over one side calling the other Hitler-loving baby killers and the other calling them Hitler-loving woman-haters.

[NecCat]

My body, my choice.

Absolutely, you can do anything you want with your body, unless it hurts someone else. Abortion doesn't just hurt, it kills someone else.

Nowhere else does the law allow or require one private person to arrogate the flesh of another. It's a bit much to argue that the woman should be forced to donate her entire body for 9 months. 'The fetus will die if this procedure is performed'. Well, yes, and? This principle doesn't apply at any other time in the fetus' projected lifespan.

Anytime another life is in your hands, you are responsible for it, in all aspects of the law. If you start CPR you have to continue until someone else takes over or the person is declared officially dead. If you stop before either of those things happen you can be charged with murder. In any situation you can imagine the responsibility to continue keeping the other person alive is yours, by every law you can name.

Nowhere is one person allowed to arrogate the flesh of another, because in no other situation is it practical or likely to happen. Imagining any improbable one though, and the responsibility for the other life would stay yours. Ex . If you were somehow kidnapped and hooked up to a machine that made your heart pump blood into you and the person in the bed beside you, when you were found you would NOT be unhooked until someone had found a system to keep the other person alive, no matter how much you begged and pleaded. Regardless of how illegal the act that led you there, you would be considered responsible for their life until someone else could be.

Weighing the scales between one persons life or death vs one persons temporary inconvenience, it's not even a contest, the law is very clear about that. By accepted scientific definition of life, separate being and human being a foetus is a living separate human being, yet the law won't recognize them as such yet, much like was once true of women and children.

There are several reasons NOT to believe a foetus is a separate person the moment it is conceived, actually:

1) not all foetuses implant in the womb wall
2) miscarriages.

1) As far as I know the fertilized egg doesn't exhibit signs of life until after it is implanted in the wombs wall (homeostasis, metabolism, growth etc etc), so no I wouldn't believe it from the moment of conception, just from the moment it becomes it's own life (and just a side note, the only problem I have with the morning after pill is the terrible job it does informing women of the weight limitations it operates successfully under).
2) People die. All kinds of people die. I accept that people die for a variety of reasons, including many where no one else is to blame. I just have a problem with other people killing them.

[Blue Ginger]

Absolutely, you can do anything you want with your body, unless it hurts someone else. Abortion doesn't just hurt, it kills someone else.

I just want to know how far you are willing to take your beliefs. I want you to consider your stand on a real level, not an abstract one. While we only share a forum and don't know each other in real life, imagine we do.

I my case, where continuing a pregnancy has a 90% chance of killing my kidneys, and having a rare blood type makes getting a transplant damn near impossible, you would insist that I continue? That a potential baby completely takes precedence over my health and body? A baby that I probably wouldn't even live to see grow up? Because otherwise I would be killing someone.

Are you willing to kill me slowly to save a collection of cells?


Just curious: Have you ever had the morning after pill? Or known anyone who has?

I have had it twice and helped a few friends get it too. It is not a 2 second 'here it is, go away' process. Each time it was the pharmacist/chemist or a nurse that asked lots of questions, including about any other birth control that might have been taken, to make sure it was the right dose/strength and it wasn't going to react with anything else taken.

[Blue Ginger]

People are fighting to have that choice in the ACA.

Sorry from Oz, what is the ACA?

[NecCat]

I have had the morning after pill. I got it OTC at the same pharmacist who I get the rest of my medications from. I don't remember exactly what he said, but he mentioned nothing at all other than any drug interaction concerns he might have had. There was no questions, or feeling like I needed anyone to help me get it. It was no more of an issue than going to buy condoms would be. Maybe it is different here, you mentioned difficulty in the previous post if the pharmacy had religious ties, I'm not sure I know of anybody who had faced issues like that. Since I personally feel like birth control of all types should be readily available, I would consider that a social problem that would need fixed, if you feel it is difficult for people to get.

As far as what you, personally, should do about a pregnancy. The first thing I would say is that were I in the position you are in with health concerns I would opt for permanent sterilization. That is another form of birth control, and one that should be readily available to any who need or want it.

Should a person with medical concerns become pregnant, I can't advise what is right on individual cases, I am not a doctor. I do not believe that a failure to save everyone is the same as killing someone, I would expect a doctor to make an intelligent choice, based on the medical problems and his abilities to work with them, based on the knowledge that two lives hang in the balance. We expect this of doctors all the time, when two patients are in a car accident and come in the ER, they have to pick which one to work on. When one liver is available to transplant into multiple patients, the doctors have to choose who to save. It is unfortunate for them that doctors are expected to make these decisions, but it is an expectation that we place on medical professionals, and a situation with a pregnant woman is no different.

[Crazedclerkthe2nd]

Sorry from Oz, what is the ACA?

The ACA or Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare, is a law that was passed several years ago requiring every American to carry health insurance, among other things.

The law also required that all health insurance plans cover contraceptives for women, a provision that just this past week was recently ruled unenforceable in certain instances where it pertains to company provided health insurance.

With regards to abortion, I feel I should point out that the issue of "when an embryo becomes a person". There are separate scientific, legal and religious answers to that question and the situation being addressed dictates which is applicable.

I know it seems logical that we should settle on one universal definition of when "life" begins, but that's never going to happen.

[TheHuckster]

I know it seems logical that we should settle on one universal definition of when "life" begins, but that's never going to happen.

The problem I have is it's often contradictory in the eyes of the law. If you murder a pregnant woman, you can be charged for murder twice. That same pregnant woman can terminate that same life for no reason besides "I don't want what's inside me to be alive anymore" and there's no legal consequences. In order for that to make any sense, you have to consider what's inside of the mother "life" if she was murdered by someone else, but "not life" if she herself terminated it. That's an awfully flimsy definition of the term.

I'll mention that, personally, I am of the opinion that if a mother's life is threatened or will have serious health complications from giving birth, it's alright to terminate the pregnancy. It just leaves a very sour taste in my mouth when someone terminates a pregnancy solely on the premise that she's not ready to raise a child, especially if it is late-term.

That said, I'm not going to go on a crusade to deny every woman that freedom, especially after it was historically decided on by the supreme court decades ago. I do think, however, that we should make efforts to minimize abortion rates as much as possible through contraception, education, and responsibility; as well as respecting those who do feel life begins at conception or soon thereafter by not forcing them to financially support it.

[s_stabeler]

I actually agree that abortion shouldn't be compulsory in 100% of plans. but I WOULD require that companies offer a plan including abortion coverage. If they want to also offer one excluding it, fine. I have no problem with someone refusing an abortion on religious grounds. I have a problem when those religious grounds are forced on someone not part of said religion.

Oh, and Huckster, I actually agree with you- I dislike abortion for non-medical reasons- and think that certainly late-term, when the foetus can survive on it's own, it SHOULD be banned. But i'm of the opinion that it's the beliefs of the mother that count- that nobody has the right to say "you can't get an abortion".

[Crazedclerkthe2nd]

Huckster and s_stabeler,

I'm curious, do either of you support abortion in cases of rape or incest?

[Gravekeeper]

It is one of the indicators. I would say that access to safe, legal birth control is a far greater boon to women's health, and the ability for a women to have and safely raise a baby, or exist with a surprise pregnancy without fear is a far greater indicator of a women's status as a person.

Abortions will occur whether you like it or not, whether it is legal or not, and whether they deliver weekly condom packs right to everyone's door step. There will always be a need for them. And that's not me talking, that's straight from the World Health Organization. I'll go with their years worth of research over your biased opinion, thanks.

Legalized abortion is the single greatest source of gender inequality I have seen introduced into law in the western world recently. It's the womans baby, it's entirely her decision, and she can have an abortion no matter what the father wants. Unless of course she decides to have the baby, in which case the father made it, he can damn well pay for it, whether he wanted it or not.

You can't be serious. While those are valid problems, they are not by any stretch of the imagination the greatest source of gender inequality introduced into law in the western world. Furthermore, the alternative is to force a woman to be an incubator at behest of a man That is far more unequal, unethical and damaging then whether or not the father has a say in the matter of an abortion.

I know that when looked at from a scientific point of view, an embryo is alive (go check any scientific definition of living thing, and check it off against what an embryo is), and is a unique person (see DNA above), that is completely incapable of making it's own decision. It is up to society to protect it's weakest members, and it's up to the government to make laws to effect that.

The is a gross oversimplification of biology used to justify a platitude. Also, from a legal standpoint, an embryo is not a legal member of society until it is born. Also its incapable of making its own decisions because it does not yet have a fully functioning central nervous system and conscious thought process. It is not thinking or feeling anything.

Yes, abortion term limits should be restricted to before the point it IS thinking or feeling anything. But prior to the development of the nervous system required to do that, it is still in effect a lump of cells.

[Gravekeeper]

do think, however, that we should make efforts to minimize abortion rates as much as possible through contraception, education, and responsibility; as well as respecting those who do feel life begins at conception or soon thereafter by not forcing them to financially support it.

Meanwhile, at Hobby Lobby. >.>

[Crazedclerkthe2nd]

Hey gravekeeper, do you get into abortion debates with other Canadians? I don't remember coming up that much as an issue in all my time there.

[patiokitty]

I am going to admit that I only skimmed the previous posts before deciding to put my own two cents in.

I believe that choosing to abort or not abort is a matter of personal ethics. Yes, that means I am staunchly pro-choice. When I was 18 and discovered I was pregnant with my son I was given the choice to abort or not. Obviously I chose not to abort and 22 years later my son is still alive and kicking. However, that being said, when I found out I was pregnant 11 years later I was fully prepared to abort due to personal circumstances at the time - I miscarried so that made it a moot point, more or less.

I do not believe that abortion should be used as birth control, and I have known women who use it exactly as that. But it is their choice to make. Ditto for anybody else choosing to have an abortion. The only person we have any say over is ourselves, end of story.

Proper sexual education is a necessity in order to minimize unwanted pregnancies and terminations. But, just like you can lead a horse to water and not make him drink, you can lead people to the education and access to birth control but not make them put those things into practice. Sure it's shitty, but there it is, and it still boils down to each individual's personal ethics. If they can justify it to themselves who are we to gainsay them? Who is the government to gainsay them? No corporate, government, or religious body has the right to dictate what a woman chooses to do to herself.

[NecCat]

Hey gravekeeper, do you get into abortion debates with other Canadians? I don't remember coming up that much as an issue in all my time there.

I'm Canadian if that helps?

[TheHuckster]

Huckster and s_stabeler,

I'm curious, do either of you support abortion in cases of rape or incest?

That's a admittedly difficult question to answer, especially when you hear of cases where the child is forcibly given dual custody with the scumbag who impregnated the victim, or if the victim is either mentally incapable or immature to raise a child. In my heart, I think any termination of an unwanted pregnancy is unjust regardless of the circumstances, however I offer total sympathy and compassion for those who have such a decision to make.

When asked these kinds of questions, I find myself in somewhat of a hypocritical conundrum, since while I am male, I know if I were female and something like that were to happen to me, I'd have a very difficult time making such a decision myself, even though I have a moral conviction that such a termination is wrong. It's for these reasons I cannot commit myself to any political or legal crusade against abortion, even though in my heart I disagree with termination of unwanted pregnancies, because in those rare cases, it's an especially turmoil-inducing personal issue.

Meanwhile, at Hobby Lobby. >.>

Yep, my wishes to minimize abortions and give people the choice to not financially contribute to an institution that supports abortions make me a women-hating bastard. Go on, say it.