Social Question

jca2's avatar

What is your personal opinion on abortion?

Asked by jca2 (3119points) 5 days ago

Do you feel women should have the right to make the choice whether or not to have an abortion, and abortion should remain legal?

Do you think there should be restrictions or limitations on it? For example, meaning you’re against abortion but feel it should be allowed only if the mother’s life or health is at risk.

What about if the child is likely to be born with health issues? For example, Down Syndrome, Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, Cerebral Palsy, severe heart defects, Those are just some examples.

Do you think abortion should be federally funded (through Medicaid or public health insurance)?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

255 Answers

Bill1939's avatar

The choice belongs to the woman and her doctor, not to governments.

hmmmmmm's avatar

Abortion is healthcare. It should be unrestricted and federally funded, like all healthcare.

canidmajor's avatar

I feel it should be only between a woman and her doctor. It is nobody else’s business, not the man’s, not her parents’, not the government’s

janbb's avatar

I believe in a woman’s right to choose what she does with her body and if she wants to and is able to raise a child. The decision should be between her and her doctors. Late term abortion is very rarely done and when it is done, it is for medical reasons, is a painful decision and should be allowed.

If the men in government are so concerned with life and the quality of life for fetuses, why are they quite happy for school children to be killed in school and people to be hungry and not have medical care in the richest country in the world?

gorillapaws's avatar

I think if the fetus is viable then it becomes more complicated morally.

I don’t have the expertise to understand the nuances of fetal development or the philosophical background to fully map out the arguments surrounding the ontology of personhood. These are potentially very complex subjects and I think very few people have the qualifications to speak to those issues with authority. I know enough to know that it’s complicated enough that women should be making those decisions with their doctors on a case-by-case basis and that it’s reckless for uninformed people to try to force those decisions on others, especially when it’s motivated by certain interpretations of some religions being pushed onto other people (i.e. born-again Sharia law).

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

I think it’s a complicated issue that does not lend itself very well to rigid rules. I’m generally against late-term abortions where the fetus is healthy and there is no elevated risk for the mother.

gondwanalon's avatar

As soon as the baby looks human then abortion should not be aloud unless the mother’s health is at risk or the baby is severely deformed.

Government should not support abortion as a form of birth control.

zenvelo's avatar

I support a woman’s right to choose. It is a decision between her and her doctor.

kritiper's avatar

Women have the right to decide what’s going on with their bodies. Men sure as hell do not have the right to decide what goes on in women’s bodies.

Jaxk's avatar

I believe that a woman has a right to choose. At the same time, I believe that a fetus is a life that has a right to live. For me, it’s very complicated but there must be a point between the day after and the delivery room where we could draw a line. The woman is not the only life at stake nor is the fetus. We’ve drawn battle lines based on the the positions of the furthest left and right and any compromise isn’t tolerated. We’ll never reach consensus Based on these rules of engagement. I wish I could view it as a simple ‘yes or no’ issue.

Darth_Algar's avatar

“Do you feel women should have the right to make the choice whether or not to have an abortion, and abortion should remain legal?”

Yes. What someone else does with their own body is no business of mine.

elbanditoroso's avatar

I can think of several politicians whose mothers should have aborted them.

KNOWITALL's avatar

I am against abortion, as everyone here knows.

My uncle was born with a hole in his heart, doctors advised my grandparents to abort, they didn’t and he has lead an inspirational life, helping many others and completely healthy.

I also have a personal story, where my father insisted on a forcible abortion and tried to kidnap my mother in his plane to get it done.

It’s definately not all black/white and not all women who abort choose it of their own free will, so I can’t support it for many reasons. Rape and incest are only @3% of all abortions performed, so that legal loophole for that 3% is something I can support.

Demosthenes's avatar

My personal opinion on abortion is that I don’t care for it. I don’t think using euphemisms like “fetus” or “termination” makes it anything other than what it is: ending a life.

That said, I don’t support a blanket illegalization, as people will seek abortions whether it is legal or illegal and I believe that it should continue to be available, but restricted to an early stage of pregnancy, and ultimately I think it should be discouraged in favor of other options, like adoption.

LostInParadise's avatar

A conservative argument against abortion runs something like this. A fertilized egg cell is not yet a human, but a child about to be born definitely is. Since we can’t specify the exact moment that the fetus becomes human, there is no specific point that we can permit abortion, so we must forbid it at all points.

The argument is fallacious. We can say the same thing that runs along a continuum. At what point do we say someone is overweight or has high blood pressure?

The right thing to do in the case of abortion is to choose two points of development: an earlier stage where the fetus is definitely not yet human and a later stage where the fetus definitely is. Err on the side of caution by using the earlier time as the dividing line. I would say definitely up to three months that an abortion should be permitted with only the coonsent of the mother required.

The philosopher Peter Singer says that a child does not acquire consciousness, and hence humanness, until at least a month after birth. He supports infanticide up to that point.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@Demosthenes “and ultimately I think it should be discouraged in favor of other options, like adoption”

Which sounds all fine and well until you realize that there are already hundreds of thousands of kids who will never be adopted before they simply age out of the system.

stanleybmanly's avatar

The decision belongs with the woman. End of story. The issue is complex with moral, ethical convolutions and epic considerations for the society at large, but the decision belongs with the woman, just as virtually every other decision determining the welfare of a child rests with its mother.

Dutchess_lll's avatar

There is a huge difference between an elective abortion, which is done the vast majority of the time in the first trimester, long before the fetus is viable @gorillapaws, and a “late term” abortion done for serious medical reasons.
No psychologically normal women who is 7 months pregnant is gonna go “I changed my mind! I’m gonna get an abortion!”
When asking questions like this I think it’s important to put parameters around it.

Are you asking how I feel about elective abortions in the 1st trimester? That’s between the girl and her boyfriend (mine insisted that I have one. It was a much easier decision for him than it was for me.)

Anything in the 2nd trimester, if an elective abortion is even legal, I would hope would be for medical reasons. Again, fetuses are not viable @gorillapaws.

3rd trimester…. man that’s a call for the parents and their doctor. I can’t imagine a women having a late term abortion for no damn good reason, nor any doctor violating the Hippocratic oath by performing a nonessential abortion.

None of it is my business.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Here is my opinion,and that is what you asked for in cases of rape, incest, or the mothers health is in danger I am all for it one million percent.
To be used as just a form of birth control I am against it,but even then there are cases where it would be acceptable like some super young stupid teen ager.
BUT in the end it is the womens choice,unless married then the husband does have a say but only then and still as long as the mothers health is not in danger.
That is MY OPINION,agree, don’t agree rip it apart I am not changing my opinion .

Dutchess_lll's avatar

If it was used as a “form of birth control” I can only imagine the succesive and progressive damage would render the woman unable to even bear children.
I can’t imagine what idiot came up with the idea that an invasive medical procedure could be a viable form of birth control.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

@Dutchess_lll The super religious, claim people use it as a form of birth control.

MrGrimm888's avatar

Abortions are kind of like lots of technology. Once discovered, they are impossible to prevent entirely. If made illegal, they will still be performed. The difference is that illegal abortions are usually dangerous for the pregnant women.

In a world of 7 billion, and growing, with little or no care for orphans, I support abortions. Even if it falls under the “lesser of two evils” category.

As far as government oversight,
I would prefer a more realistic pursuit of birth control, without religious overtones, in the US.

Dozens of illegal abortions happen worldwide, and I would liken fighting it to the “Drug War.” An unrealistic battle, with nothing but negative consequences…

As for theists, I credit their God (s.) As should they. If it was such a bad thing to God, then it would have never been possible. More proof that there either is no God, or that God doesn’t care, or even likes abortions…

If I personally had to chose between being aborted, or being unwanted, or growing up in an orphanage, I’d go with abortion. Easy choice…

KNOWITALL's avatar

About half of all U.S. women having an abortion have had one previously.
...
This finding refutes the notion that large numbers of women are relying on abortion as their primary method of birth control. Rather, it suggests that women having abortions—especially those having more than one—are trying hard to avoid unintended pregnancy, but are having trouble doing so.
https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2007/05/repeat-abortion-repeat-unintended-pregnancy-repeated-and-misguided-government-policies

Yellowdog's avatar

I’m muddled as to why the word “fetus” has become a euphenism for an unborn baby, since the word “Fetus” is Latin for “offspring: and would only apply to a baby that is already born. I guess it makes it sound like something disgusting that needs to be done away with.

The only thing I might add or correct about some of the above accounts is, the pro-life agencies are almost exclusively staffed by women, not men, and a good fraction of them have previously worked in the abortion industry, some for planned parenthood. And there are pro-life agencies and churches which will take care of a young mother’s needs for many years.

I am not opposed to first-Trimester abortion and agree with those who have emphasized how complicated the issue is to define personhood, and what is a viable human being. Abortion is never a good thing, and even in the first trimester is an ethical violation that needs serious consideration. Also, I think abortion needs to be shown for what it is—what it looks like on ultrasound to have the unborn child struggle and get destroyed or suctioned/vacummed or cut up—the horrors of the RU486 pill, etc etc. maybe not to those already facing the decision but known to the general public.

MrGrimm888's avatar

^I’d rather be ripped limb, from limb, over a short time, than suffer for years or a lifetime…

I agree with the terminology aspect though. If someone trying to have a child has a miscarriage, they don’t say “she lost the fetus.” They say “she lost the baby.”

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Yellowdog Agreed. I always want to ask any pro-abortion people if they took the time to actually watch one be done.
None of these people I know that are pro-abortion could turn away a starving puppy or kitten, let alone hurt or kill one, so how could they possibly justify or rationalize killing a human baby? The adults anyway.

stanleybmanly's avatar

No one is pro abortion.

MrGrimm888's avatar

^When some people become pregnant, I hope they abort. For multiple reasons.

stanleybmanly's avatar

Interesting point. I stand corrected.

hmmmmmm's avatar

[from the other thread]

@Demosthenes: “We make distinctions in killing all the time. Soldiers killing in war, killing in self-defense, I’m not going to pretend that ending a human life at a very early stage isn’t killing, but abortion is a unique situation that should not be considered murder.”

So, go ahead and make that distinction! What is it? Why is it unique? In what ways is it unique and similar to murder? Why do you support very specific governmental restrictions on human behavior and reproductive freedom if you cannot clearly define what you mean here?

KNOWITALL's avatar

@stanleybmanly Shout Your Abortion sound familiar? It’s all over social media.

Yellowdog's avatar

@Hmmmm We can define that reproductive freedom is a whole separate topic form abortion.

MrGrimm888's avatar

I don’t see how.

hmmmmmm's avatar

@Yellowdog – You really can’t, considering that it’s by definition reproductive freedom.

MrGrimm888's avatar

Choosing to have an abortion, is choosing not to reproduce (at least, in that isolated instance.) Without the “choice,” there is no “freedom.”

Yellowdog's avatar

If people, that is to say the general public, saw abortion for what it really IS, realistically, I think it would be far more rare and fewer people would want it or find it acceptable. At the same time, I think it would be unnecessary to make it illegal—as it would only be done in the most extreme of circumstances.

I’m not for showing the horrors of abortion or the pill to those actually facing the prospect of an abortion. But I DO believe, say, high school students in their health / sex education classes should see it at least once in all its horror on a film or video. They show Drivers Education classes the horrors of car wrecks and drunk driving in graphic detail. Why not show the fear and uncertianty and emotional trauma of abortion, the bloody and painful effects of the pill, and what abortion actually DOES to the unborn fetus in destroying it?

Abortion could still be legal for those in dire circumstances or health issues but it would be far more rare. The availability of pro-life agencies and pregnancy services also needs to be known to all, They seem to be censored. There are lots of alternatives to abortion, and lots of pro-life agencies are also adoption agencies. There are lots of married couples waiting and wanting to adopt.

Inspired_2write's avatar

First trimester development of embryo/fetus
A developing baby is called an embryo from the moment conception takes place until the eighth week of pregnancy.

During the first month of pregnancy the heart and lungs begin to develop, and the arms, legs, brain, spinal cord and nerves begin to form, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG).
Taken from Link : https://www.livescience.com/44899-stages-of-pregnancy.html

The embryo will be about the size of a pea around one month into a pregnancy, Burch said.
Around the second month of pregnancy, the embryo has grown to the size of a kidney bean, he explained.

In addition, the ankles, wrists, fingers and eyelids form, bones appear, and the genitals and inner ear begin to develop.

After the eighth week of pregnancy and until birth occurs, a developing baby is called a fetus.

Unless the fully developed baby and or mother is in dire health conditions its not advisable to abort at this stage.

Before it is fully developed 1— 8 weeks into the pregnancy it is more prevalent to do so on the advice of her Doctor.

Most fathers don’t care and thus have not taken measures not to impregnate and thus leave a women to handle this life altering experience plus carry that guilt of it for the rest of her life.

Better to educate males to take responsibility for there thoughtless actions and thus prevent unwanted pregnancy.

janbb's avatar

And if people saw open heart surgery, they would not want a bypass. Abortion is an invasive procedure, I don’t think many walk into it lightly.

Interestingly, the British program “Call the Midwife” has had many episodes focusing on the dangers of backstreet abortions this year. It’s not likely that poor women will stop having abortions if they are outlawed; it’s that more will suffer from botched ones.

stanleybmanly's avatar

@KNOWITALL I never heard of it. Is it a movement?

JLeslie's avatar

I am completely ok with abortion at will through 16 weeks, although I much much prefer preventing pregnancy instead. After that it gets a little more tricky for me. In terms of law I would want it legal at will through 24 weeks, but I don’t feel good about it after 20 weeks unless there is something wrong with the pregnancy, whether it be the baby or mother.

It’s terrifying to think a doctor or woman could go to jail for an abortion before the baby is viable. WTH?! The fetus is not a separate living human being. I am not arguing if it is life or not, I’m saying the mother is the host, and no law on principle should force a person (man or woman) to sustain another life. And, yet, I contradict myself and say I am ok to not allow abortion at will after the 6th month, unless the mother is at risk.

I do wish abortion was at least partially federally subsidized so they could easily be had very early in a pregnancy if a woman wants one. I prefer birth control being subsidized.

Pro choice keep abortion available and safe for pro life women. Pro life women do get abortions. Women who would never abort a healthy fetus do terminate pregnancies when there is something gravely wrong with the fetus. If they want to have a doctor who can help them, it behooves them to not have a law that threatens the doctor with jail time.

Things like the morning after pill are a form of BC in my opinion, and including that as abortion is a step too far in my opinion, but it can prevent an embryo from attaching to the uterus.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@stanleybmanly Yes, or it was. Check it out if you like.

https://shoutyourabortion.com/

Darth_Algar's avatar

@KNOWITALL

Have you even bothered to read any of the stories on that site? They are not “pro-abortion”. Nobody is “pro-abortion”. We are pro-people having the legal right and ability to do what they feel is best under their particular circumstances.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Darth_Algar Yes I did read some of them.

Interestingly enough, if you clicked the News section, one of the articles says “Plenty of people are pro-abortion.” So I guess you can argue amongst yourselves on using that term.

Listen, if it was all about “people having the legal right and ability to do what they feel is best under their particular circumstances” we wouldn’t need laws at all.

Dutchess_lll's avatar

So some women have had 2 abortions over 40 years of childbearing years and that counts as birth control? That’s ridiculous.

JLeslie's avatar

I’m pro the availability of legal safe abortion, and I don’t mind saying that. I’d much prefer more birth control though. I certainly am not ok with punishing women by making them stay pregnant and have babies because they have an unintended pregnancy.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@KNOWITALL

Well shit, you got me. Your ability to take a single phrase, written as part of one person’s opinion piece, without any sort of context and apply it to the whole is outstanding.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Darth_Algar Yes, speaking in absolutes is not a great idea. You’re welcome! :)

elbanditoroso's avatar

Good god, I am not pro-abortion. I think it’s a last-ditch function for certain women in certain circumstances.

I am for women to make that decision for themselves. Not the government. Not the church. The woman.

stanleybmanly's avatar

That’s my point as well. The state should never be allowed to force a woman to bear a child. There is the additional inconsistency in that such laws as a practical matter only hold for the destitute or those without the ability to travel.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

These people that think the unborn child is the greatest thing ever and must be protected at all costs ,end up not giving a shit about the kid after it’s born.
Is it really about the fetus, or is it trying to control the public?
If it is such a big deal then make birth control FREE or very affordable for everyone,and you wouldn’t have to worry about evil abortions anymore, just another opinion.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@SQUEEKY2 Here, I got free condoms and $5 a month pills from a local agency that dealt with patients on a sliding scale, it’s practically free. If you chose not to read the links I provided earlier, many of the second or third abortions are from inconsistent birth control.

This whole ‘not caring after birth’ is such an idiotic argument. Of course we care, and churches help provide families with food, clothes, rent, a place to stay in crisis, etc….And they don’t limit it to Christians, but to the needy in general. Try again.

stanleybmanly's avatar

There unfortunately aren’t enough of you, and even if there were, the actual repercussions for most women unwilling to see a pregnancy through are more likely than not unacceptable. There are some scary implications in the idea of the state being allowed to force a pregnancy.

janbb's avatar

@KNOWITALL Not talking about you personally or other helpers but a government that slashes food stamps, education funding, aid to expectant mothers, and will not propose any kind of gun control that will make people and especially school children safer. The big picture is that most of these legislators are not showing the milk of human kindness and charity in their actions.

Yellowdog's avatar

Yet every pro-life agency I know is well funded, and provide child care, housing, food and financial assistance for young mothers, staying with them until they are on their feet again, and financially solvent.

jca2's avatar

Pro life agencies are not the be-all, end-all. What about all the kids in foster care who are waiting for a permanent home? All the kids in residential agencies who have languished there for years? All the kids who are f-ed up, mentally or physically and nobody wants them? They need more than cribs and wipes and formula.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

And yet I hear up here is what @janbb is talking about Trump slashing food stamps,medicare,education ,and we have the alt right saying oh no pro life supports well after birth, uh huh sure.
And then is what @jca2 says what about the fucked up kids still waiting for the pro lifers to look after them?
@jca2 Sorry I am going to have to say it THANK GOD Mrs Squeeky and I never had kids.

KNOWITALL's avatar

Okay, so now it’s placing blame for situations that have persisted in America since the beginning….like the orphan trains. smh.

Yellowdog's avatar

Trump has NOT slashed food stamps or medicare, though far fewer people are ON the EBT / Snap programs.

hmmmmmm's avatar

@KNOWITALL – I think what @SQUEEKY2 was referring to is that Republicans, which are correctly associated with being “pro-life”, are essentially a death cult. It has a radical disregard for human suffering and death, so it’s patently absurd to then claim that they are “pro-life”.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@hmmmmmm “are essentially a death cult”

How is trying to prevent more death, being a death cult?
You understand babies actually die in abortions right? That’s not Reps.

hmmmmmm's avatar

@KNOWITALL: “How is trying to prevent more death, being a death cult?
You understand babies actually die in abortions right?”

Whatever you want to call an abortion – that is the only “life” that “pro-lifers” care about. The rest of humanity can suffer and die, along with the actual planet. Again – it’s Onion-level absurdity to claim that “pro-lifers” are pro-life.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@hmmmmmm By definition: opposing abortion and euthanasia.

I mean if you want to get into a pissing match about the entire planet, we can, but it doesn’t seem productive.

Three of you are bringing in fostering, adoption, the environment, food stamps, medicare, education, gun control- I mean basically the entire planet. This is about Abortion, let’s try to stay focused for once. You don’t like Trump and you don’t like Reps, I get it already…lol

MrGrimm888's avatar

Well. The same people crying abortion is murder, usually oppose almost any form of government aid. They claim that churches will help out, and that’s true, but only to spread their religion. So. It’s grow up Christian, or good luck….

I find that quality of life/ability to care for children is a major reason for choosing abortions in the first place. Therefore, it is VERY relevant.

Zaku's avatar

Do you feel women should have the right to make the choice whether or not to have an abortion, and abortion should remain legal?
Yes!

Do you think there should be restrictions or limitations on it? For example, meaning you’re against abortion but feel it should be allowed only if the mother’s life or health is at risk.
Almost nothing comes to mind. (Maybe if the woman is certifiably insane or something).

What about if the child is likely to be born with health issues? For example, Down Syndrome, Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, Cerebral Palsy, severe heart defects, Those are just some examples.
I have some concerns about people aborting fetuses to avoid some genetic traits, but that’s a concern for the consequences of eugenic thinking, not concern for unborn fetuses.

Do you think abortion should be federally funded (through Medicaid or public health insurance)?
Yes, I think abortion and most reasonable medical procedures should be covered by a new universal health care system that abolishes the atrocious current US system that is driven to practical unaffordability by private insurance companies and for-profit hospitals and for-profit pharmaceutical corporations.

hmmmmmm's avatar

@KNOWITALL: “Three of you are bringing in fostering, adoption, the environment, food stamps, medicare, education, gun control- I mean basically the entire planet.”

Really? We are talking about…life in the context of the term “pro-life”.

@KNOWITALL: “This is about Abortion, let’s try to stay focused for once.”

Yes, it sure is. Like I said, the “pro-life” claim is always about abortion. It’s anti-life in every other context.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@hmmmmmm Again, pro-life is about abortion and euthanasia, by definition.

What is the relevance to those two issues that they stand for, with say the environment? Back up your argument please.

Pro-Life is what they do, that’s what it’s about. It’s an entire organization that influences politics. There is no other context.

If you are trying to prove that Pro-Life and Reps are synonymous, then you have failed, because it’s not true. Not all Reps are Pro-Life either, in case you’re under that assumption.

flutherother's avatar

I think abortion is the best option in many circumstances and I think focussing attention on the foetus and disregarding the wishes and the circumstances of the pregnant woman is foolish and achieves nothing good while causing a lot of suffering.

As an aside I found it odd that in a state where a quarter of the population is black and a half is female that 26 white male Republican senators passed the legislation banning abortions..

MrGrimm888's avatar

Good point @KNOWITALL . Not only do “pro-lifers” not care about people after they’re born, they also don’t care about the future of the planet in which they will inhabit… Another relevant variable, in why someone might choose to have an abortion. Why force a lifeform to endure all of these horrific, republican induced challenges?

KNOWITALL's avatar

@MrGrimm I’m not now or ever, defending all policies of the Republican party or its fring groups. Or the Dems either.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@KNOWITALL “If you are trying to prove that Pro-Life and Reps are synonymous, then you have failed, because it’s not true. Not all Reps are Pro-Life either, in case you’re under that assumption.”

And yet it is Republicans passing all these draconian anti-abortion laws (some of which ever go as far as to punish a woman for having a miscarriage). These are the people who Republicans vote into office, these are the people who Republicans are allowing to speak for them.

MrGrimm888's avatar

I’m just giving you a hard time @KNOWITALL ...

mazingerz88's avatar

It’s up to parents to decide to abort or not. I only have a wish that they don’t but it’s not me who has to raise and support the kid. Those who would criminalize people involved in aborting should stop being assholes. Put up or shut up. Offer to adopt the unwanted fetus once it’s born and if the parent agrees so be it. If they don’t, again stop being assholes.

MrGrimm888's avatar

It’s not up to the parents. It’s up to the “mother.”

mazingerz88's avatar

^^Not in all cases. A married mother might share decision making with the other potential parent.

JLeslie's avatar

@maxinger88 Not under the law. Not unless some law changed that I don’t know about. Legally, it’s up to the mother.

Plus, in terms of adoption, a woman who aborts doesn’t want to give her baby up for adoption, or she likely would have done just that. Or, do you mean it’s a race issue?

canidmajor's avatar

The pro-life movement isn’t seeking to prevent abortion, it’s seeking to prevent safe abortion. It seeks to punish women into poverty, crippling injury, and/or death. Saying “Adoption, not abortion” is skipping about 800 steps in between. Look at the foster system, look at the children that get warehoused.

As far as “seeing the procedure” goes, unless you are a vegan who grows, tends, and harvests all your own food, I call bullshit.

JLeslie's avatar

@canidmajor So, you think the average pro-lifer seeks to keep people in poverty and bad health? You think they want ghettos around them full of low income people?

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

I don’t see too many people who speak about abortion be reasonable about it at all. I hear alot of regurgitated talking points and propaganda. I don’t think pro-life or pro-choice advocates have much buisiness speaking out unless they have faced the choice themselves. This “heartbeat” bill that is going on now is but one example. It would force a good number of sketchy pregnancies to go to term when an abortion is entirely appropriate. Any “Feel-good” legislation like this is sooo dangerous. Does not have to be about abortion and it comes from both sides of the isle. I don’t completely blame the politicians either. I blame the complete lack of objectivity that happens when people take sides and assume everyone on their side thinks the same and that anyone on the other side thinks about it in a particular way. The whole abortion debate appears to have no middle ground on the surface but in reality that’s where most people see it. So the loudest voices calling for extremes get the all attention and we get consequences like the heartbead bill that sound warm and fuzzy but are actually somewhat draconian and cruel.

hmmmmmm's avatar

^ What exactly is the “middle ground” re: reproductive health? And is that something worth fighting for? This whole centrist-fetish assumes that for everything, the most reasonable and just solution is to take “both sides” and drop a pin in the middle. This is absurd and immoral.

But I’m curious – what “middle ground” do you see that is the superior solution to a war over bodily autonomy?

gorillapaws's avatar

@hmmmmmm “What exactly is the “middle ground” re: reproductive health?”

How about it’s illegal for men to ejaculate on Mon., Wed., and Fri. but ok on the other days of the week? That seems like a perfectly reasonable “compromise” middle-ground position. Or women can show the left nipple without indecent exposure charges, but flashing the right nipple in public will land them in jail? We just split it down the middle, call it 50–50, compromise is inherently the reasonable approach after all, isn’t it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation

JLeslie's avatar

@hmmmmmm So, are you ok with terminating a fetus the 8th month? If you say no, then I’d say even you have some middle ground. I’m ok with a woman terminating her pregnancy at 8 months, but not the baby. Then, it gets tricky, what about at 6.5–7 months? Baby usually lives with a little help, and has a normal life.

hmmmmmm's avatar

@JLeslie: “So, are you ok with terminating a fetus the 8th month?”

Yes.

JLeslie's avatar

@hmmmmmm I think most people aren’t ok with it. The baby is likely perfectly viable as a separate being at 8 months if it’s delivered.

hmmmmmm's avatar

@JLeslie: “I think most people aren’t ok with it.”

Tough.

Then why worry about it? If most people don’t feel comfortable with this, then it would clearly be an extremely rare thing.

JLeslie's avatar

@hmmmmmm I actually agree with you on that, but what I’m saying is if we want to be able to find a reasonable middle ground, which you seem to not care about, then why not show the other side “we” are not ok with infanticide, their newest popular accusation.

The right talks about the left being ok with killing full term babies, most people are NOT ok with that. An 8 month fetus, and a 2 month baby aren’t much different once outside of the womb. Not different in viability, movement, ability to feed, awareness, etc etc. Is the second it’s delivered the difference? In a healthy pregnancy I say no. If it’s a matter of saving the baby or the mother, like she’s bleeding out or something, I always opt for the mother. That’s different than abortion in my opinion.

hmmmmmm's avatar

@JLeslie: “then why not show the other side “we” are not ok with infanticide, their newest popular accusation.”

Why allow the right to set the terms of the discussion? Why always be on the defensive. They are the ones attempting to assault reproductive freedom. You’ll never win anyone over with mealy-mouthed justifications and apologies. There is nothing to apologize for demanding that woman have control over their bodies.

Once you open the door to “viability”, you know where that leads. And it’s unacceptable and unnecessary. We don’t fight evil by giving in to just a little of their demands. We fight and demand our full rights. F*ck them.

JLeslie's avatar

I’m not on the defensive. If both sides agree there is no battle. Not on that one point anyway. Sure there will be people at the extremes, but if the majority of people on all sides agree on a point, why not just agree on that point?

Your not going to get law that makes it ok to terminate a healthy full term fetus in America. It’s not going to happen. We aren’t going to have a total absence of laws regarding abortion either. Not any time soon.

hmmmmmm's avatar

@JLeslie: “Your not going to get law that makes it ok to terminate a healthy full term fetus in America. It’s not going to happen.”

Well, that should be the goal. Nothing short. Until then, we’ll be fighting these constant battles where the right will find cute ways of denying women their rights.

JLeslie's avatar

@hmmmmmm Ok. Then you are the same as nothing short of no abortion ever. Let women die. Good luck with that.

Darth_Algar's avatar

Yeah, back in the day the “middle ground” led to separate drinking fountains, separate schools, separate restrooms, separate lunch counters, etc. Fortunately, civil rights leaders, despite the pleas of “moderates”, refused to surrender their “extremism”.

elbanditoroso's avatar

The rights of the woman really don’t matter any more.

The whole argument has become an industry. Focus groups, messaging, sign making, publicity, law firms that do nothing but lobby and rile up legislatures. I question the sincerity of anti-abortion people (note: anti-abortion, NOT pro-life) because I think that a good number of them are either in this fight:

1) for the money, see comment above
or
2) to get into politics and amass power.

Yes, there are some sincere people. My guess is – fewer than you think.

hmmmmmm's avatar

@JLeslie: “Ok. Then you are the same as nothing short of no abortion ever. Let women die. Good luck with that.”

That makes no sense. I suggest you re-read my response.

JLeslie's avatar

@elbanditoroso I agree with the money and power for those near the top so to speak, but not the average person just living their life, and whom are influenced by the voices around them.

I also think peer pressure plays a huge part. These average people can’t say they are pro-choice, because their community will ostracize them. It’s a snowball.

One time I went to a fashion event at a mega church with a friend. Dinner, socializing, and then a Christian fashion expert. She eventually went into why you should be a Christian, how it helped her. She went into “for those of you who have had abortions, you will be forgiven, you have to forgive yourself.” WTF?! I was shocked this even comes up in church. The woman I went to the even with had an abortion when she was a young adult and never really forgave herself. I knew this about her from long before I went to this event. I sat there thinking is this a thing among Christians? A lot of them have had abortions?

canidmajor's avatar

Yes, @JLeslie, I think the “average” pro-lifer is more concerned with the subjugation of women and therefore entire communities than some they-can’t-even-name-it definition of human life. A subjugated population is too hungry and fatigued to fight back against oppression. Let’s remember that these draconian measures that are being adopted mostly affect a disenfranchised demographic, poor people of color.
The people on here, like @KNOWITALL, have very strong moral convictions which do not represent the “average”. Most of the middle-aged white men that have been in discussions like this that I have been a part of IRL, have pulled out the old “ I don’t want to pay for some girl’s stupid mistake” argument and called it “pro-life”.

A poor demographic that has to scrabble to feed the family will work for lower wages rather than starve. They don’t have the time or energy to stand up for their rights.
History proves that a hungry, tired, working class is a docile working class. The rich people will be safe in their compounds and penthouses in a way that they don’t have to even see the ghettos. It is already like that in urban areas, and outside cities as well.

It is evident on so many of these kinds of threads that some of the white men on fluther feel that women are just bitching for no reason. How pathetically clichéed that is.

jca2's avatar

I had an abortion when I was 20. It’s not something I tell the world about, in real life, but some of my friends know. I can’t imagine what my life would be like if I hadn’t had the abortion. I probably wouldn’t have gone to college. I probably would have been kicked out of my parents’ house, partly because I’d be with the father of the child and partly because even if I were a single mother, my parents didn’t have enough room for more people to live there. I wouldn’t have the income that I have now, with out the college degree, or even if I got a college degree later. Life would be so different. I can’t imagine.

JLeslie's avatar

@canidmajor So, when one of those white upper middle class Christian girls gets pregnant and won’t abort, because she doesn’t believe in abortion, and her parents agree that abortion isn’t an option, you think the family desires their daughter or niece live in poverty? Some of them give up the baby for adoption, which in my opinion pretty flipping traumatic, but that’s me. I can’t imagine handing over my baby, but they are groomed for it. They are told their entire lives that will be the option if they get pregnant. Still traumatic. Some people are simply just against abortion.

I actually agree some people see it as she screwed up, she has to live with the consequences, and they think abortion isn’t a punishment, but rather a get out of jail free card. I don’t think most people want people to make the mistake though. I think they want people to not get pregnant in the first place. If they were smart they would give a damn about the numbers we are a democracy after all. Numbers count.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

@hmmmmmm Somewhere between “life at conception” and “convenience abortions” at 9 months. Most reasonable people are somewhere between those extremes and will look at the particular situation rather than cast a blanket judgment or rule.

Demosthenes's avatar

@ARE_you_kidding_me That’s what I’ve been saying the whole time, but they won’t accept that. “You can’t define a precise line, so day-before-delivery-abortions-for-any-reason it is”. There doesn’t need to be a precise line. There only needs to be a general cut-off, as there is in most current abortion laws.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

@Demosthenes I don’t know why it’s so hard for people to understand either. I guess this straight, white male here can’t possibly understand either~
Truth is close family members and myself have been hit hard with making this very choice. Each case presents its own special situation and no singular position can possibly address it. This has often been a litmus test for me. People with a hard line on abortion generally are not very objective and tend to be overly ideological.

Zaku's avatar

I think a reasonable point was made and mostly ignored that almost no one would ever request an abortion right near the end of the pregnancy.

Anti-abortion positions seem to me to be all about trying to get laws to enforce one group’s morality and world view on everyone else.

elbanditoroso's avatar

@ARE_you_kidding_me wrote: People with a hard line on abortion generally are not very objective and tend to be overly ideological

——Great comment ————-

JLeslie's avatar

@Zaku I agreed with that point when it was said. My point about it is, if no one is doing it, or even wanting to do it, why not use that as point of agreement on both sides? Instead the conservatives accuse the liberals of being ok with it, and by liberals saying it should be legal, it just sounds like they are agreeing with it.

hmmmmmm's avatar

@ARE_you_kidding_me: “People with a hard line on abortion generally are not very objective and tend to be overly ideological.”

Imagine believing that ideology is a bad thing, while also believing that calls for some government control over women is reasonable and free from ideology.

We’re talking about health care, feminism, class, life and death, and you assert that there is some kind of “objectivity” that is possible or desirable here? Shit, I would have loved to hear you step in to give a reasonable middle ground when discussing slavery.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@JLeslie TBH, it is a serious issue that’s being used as a political ‘point’ for 2020 elections. Nothing more. That’s why everyone is passing laws in states for or against abortions-right now.

I’m sure many people on both sides feel strongly but it’s being used to divide us, not find common ground in a logical way that will appease both sides of the aisle.

See it for what it is at least, the Pro-Life side wants the Left to see the child as a life lost, a viable life.
The Left wants Pro-Lifers to see the mother who is left to carry an unwanted child, and apparently what that child may face in the system (which is broken.)

The only argument really is who’s rights have priority to the American people. The states are making it clear to everyone which they choose.

JLeslie's avatar

@KNOWITALL I agree with you.

hmmmmmm's avatar

@KNOWITALL – I thoroughly disagree with your position re: abortion, life, etc. But I get it. It’s defensible. If I felt that ending a pregnancy was murder, it would make perfect sense to do want to stop it.

What I take issue with are centrists who choose to want to make this into something far more complicated than it is, and find that there is a defensible “middle ground”. The effects of such legislation are devastating from both “pro-life” and “pro-choice” perspectives.

Like many issues, this is a war. The two perspectives are irreconcilable. To pretend otherwise is silly, and dangerous.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

@hmmmmmm There is not always middle ground. Some things really are cut and dry. Someone threw out “straw man” in another thread so in that spirit saying that there is “middle ground” in something like slavery and equating it to middle ground in abortion is not a valid argument, it’s a petty tactic.

Demosthenes's avatar

It makes sense that someone on the extreme of one issue will only see extremes and not admit there can be a middle ground. I agree there is not a middle ground on every issue. Of course not. But there is a middle ground between blanket ban on all abortions for any reason and allowing any abortion up until the day of birth.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Demosthenes Exactly. Neither side are the monsters they’re being made out to be, it actually gives me hope because both side care SO much about the mother and child.

hmmmmmm's avatar

@Demosthenes: “But there is a middle ground between blanket ban on all abortions for any reason and allowing any abortion up until the day of birth.”

Yes, there is. Just like every issue. That is not in question. The question is what “middle ground” position can we come up with that serves two incompatible positions in this case?

Let’s try it out. Let’s solve this right now. If Fluther had the power to solve this issue today, please propose your “middle ground” solution that treats fetuses as human life while protecting a woman’s reproductive freedom and bodily autonomy. Let’s see how that works.

JLeslie's avatar

@KNOWITALL But the difference is the left was basically fine with the Supreme Courts decisions and weren’t asking for laws to protect killing a mature fetus, while the right has hammered away constantly at abortion rights. They push and push and push, they wouldn’t leave it alone. I see people who are pro-life as more black and white on the issue in general. Some of them make exception for incest and rape, which I honestly don’t understand, but I don’t think hardly any pro-life people are ok with abortion in any week or month of the pregnancy.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

@hmmmmmm It’s not a one size fits all kind of problem. As stated before no singular position can navigate this one. I certainly can’t define what I would consider to be the proper approach without pages of flowcharts or lines of code to make a determination. And also it’s not like “every other issue” plenty of things have a clear right and wrong with no middle ground.

hmmmmmm's avatar

@ARE_you_kidding_me: “And also it’s not like “every other issue” plenty of things have a clear right and wrong with no middle ground.”

You keep asserting this, but I see no evidence that there is a middle ground that would satisfy anyone.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

@JLeslie Do we even have any staunch pro-lifers here?

LostInParadise's avatar

For at least one group of people there is no middle ground – those who believe that, upon conception, God reaches out and attaches a soul to the embryo. These people believe that at any stage, taking the life of an embryo is equivalent to the murder of a fully functioning human being. Science is left behind and we are left with a purely religious viewpoint. How is it possible to argue with these people?

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

@hmmmmmm
“You keep asserting this, but I see no evidence that there is a middle ground that would satisfy anyone.”
You are really saying that you can’t be satisfied that abortions may not be ok in some situations. Problem with this is that it puts you in the minority. You want an answer then post up a realistic scenario and let everyone weigh in. I think you’ll find quite a bit of agreement.

hmmmmmm's avatar

@ARE_you_kidding_me: “You are really saying that you can’t be satisfied that abortions may not be ok in some situations.”

I’m saying that the positions are not compatible. If it’s murder to kill a fetus, then it’s murder to kill a fetus. Like many of the issues you have dismissed (incorrectly as “straw man”), you can’t “middle” your way out of this….unless you can. Please try.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

@LostInParadise It’s not possible to argue with them. (I have and it’s pointless) bunch of assholes holding up supposed pictures of aborted fetuses while I’m trying to eat lunch.

hmmmmmm's avatar

@ARE_you_kidding_me: “It’s not possible to argue with them. (I have and it’s pointless) bunch of assholes holding up supposed pictures of aborted fetuses while I’m trying to eat lunch.”

But the position held by these people are to be worked into your “middle ground” approach. You might not like them, but you’re attempting to bake their ideology into the solution.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

@hmmmmmm
Without going into great detail say a fetus has a heart defect and there will not be a heart for it and it will die either before birth or shortly after and say there are other complications such as down syndrom to throw into the mix. On top of that say the mother is also developing gestational diabetes. That’s just one point where I believe it’s completely justifiable at any part of the pregnancy.
Now say a couple get pregnant, everything is just fine and the mother wants an abortion five months in to avoid getting stretch marks. I’m not ok with that.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@All
The thing many on the Pro-Choice deny is that there is a thing called personal responsibility, which means a woman can control whether she gets pregnant or not. As I’ve stated in the past, I was very careful my entire life to NOT get pregnant, sometimes using up to three methods of birth control. Until we as a society embrace the idea that we don’t magically just get pregnant, we can’t find a middle ground.

Yes, there are accidents, yes there are rape and incent (less than 3% of all abortions), there are exceptions- but as a general rule, and I’m just being really honest, a lot of them are due to a lack of responsible birth control use.

I am Pro-Life, but I’d love to be Pro-Choice, but I took responsibility for my own choices, and I think other women can as well. No one needs to die.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

@KNOWITALL so what if the first scenario I posted above happens to a staunch pro-lifer?

KNOWITALL's avatar

@ARE_you_kidding_me The heart defect scenario?

Well, if the person is a Christian (which we’ll assume as a staunch Pro-Lifer), more than likely they will choose to have the child and trust in God to save it.

hmmmmmm's avatar

@ARE_you_kidding_me: “Without going into great detail say a fetus has a heart defect and there will not be a heart for it and it will die either before birth or shortly after and say there are other complications such as down syndrom to throw into the mix. On top of that say the mother is alsodeveloping gestational diabetes. That’s just one point where I believe it’s completely justifiable at any part of the pregnancy.
Now say a couple get pregnant, everything is just fine and the mother wants an abortion five months in to avoid getting stretch marks. I’m not ok with that.”

This is what you consider “middle ground”? It completely violates a woman’s control over her own body in every possible way. It creates a big government police dystopian police state and will end in the deaths of women – mostly poor women – who can’t afford safe secret abortions. It criminalizes healthcare for women.

Now, if I were to believe that a fetus is a human being, murdering it for any reason is murder, and that means that doctors and women should be charged with murder for such an act.

hmmmmmm's avatar

Another one, please. I’m confident you can do this. That last one was unacceptable, however.

JLeslie's avatar

@KNOWITALL I was careful too and never had an unwanted pregnancy, but people aren’t perfect. Condoms aren’t perfect either.

I think my question for you is, does the woman have a right to abort at any point in the pregnancy? It doesn’t matter why she is pregnant in the question, simply that she is. If you believe the fetus is a life, and shouldn’t be aborted, then that’s it.

I take issue with denying abortion to punish the woman in some way. What if she is 15 and made a bad decision?

gorillapaws's avatar

@KNOWITALL “the Pro-Life side wants the Left to see the child as a life lost, a viable life.”

FALSE. The Pro-Life side wants EVERYONE else to accept the pro-life definition of when person-hood begins.

Sadly, they’re not able to argue with any sort of logical consistency to explain why:

-Why it’s ok to pull the plug on a braindead person, but not terminate a pregnancy before the fetus develops a brain capable of higher-level thinking?

-Why it’s ok to kill animals that have higher-level thinking but not zygotes that don’t? i.e. What is it about humanity that’s so important if it’s not our minds?

-Why sperm/egg cells that “are alive” and “have the potential” for becoming humans shouldn’t be treated with the same level of concern as a zygote?

-Why snot, earwax, vomit, etc. shouldn’t be treated with the same level of concern as a zygote when cloning technology means that every human cell has the scientific potential of becoming a human being-at least in theory?

-Why burning a bag of pine seeds is/isn’t the same thing as setting fire to a forest?

-Why Americans should be denied the religious freedom to obey the explicit requirement of the Bible to have an abortion when a wife has committed adultry?

-Why abortion is morally wrong, but miscarriages are incredibly common in nature? Does God just love killing fetuses and gets angry when it’s done electively?

If someone is going to insist that I don’t have the right to come to my own conclusions and follow my own beliefs regarding issues such as these, then they better have a FLAWLESSLY AIR-MOTHERFUCKING-TIGHT explanation for all of that stuff, and all potential rebuttals. When you’re anti-choice, that means that you’re saying that you are 100% certain you’re right and that nobody else gets to follow their own interpretation. If you have that position, you better be able to explain why everyone else needs to obey your interpretation.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

@hmmmmmm _You can’t be satisfied because you’re completely unreasonable. I guaran-damn-tee you what I outlined above is where the majority lie on the spectrum.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@JLeslie No, people aren’t perfect, and I understand that, but do you know how many babies have died since ½2/73? Far more than the Holocaust, and that means something to many of us.

As someone who believes that God is the giver and the taker of life, I don’t feel that a conscious decision to abort a child is ours to make. If you decide to have sex, then decide to protect yourself. You did it, I did it, a lot of women do it. Now more than ever more women are deciding not to have children ever. And most of them don’t get pregnant and don’t have to have an abortion. To me, that’s the right thing to do.

Let’s say my 15 yr old niece got pregnant, even after talks, after condoms, after being given all the necessary information to NOT get pregnant. Legally now, the choice is hers. If it were up to me to advise her, I’d tell her all the statistics about after an abortion such as depression, suicide, regret, some physical repercussions if the abortion goes bad, etc….and I would advise her to have the child and allow someone in the family to raise it, in the family.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

@KNOWITALL I don’t think letting God make the choice really applies when there are health consequences. If I’m sick I’m going to the doc.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@ARE_you_kidding_me Then you probably aren’t a theist.

That’s a whole other controversial topic, when it comes to God and healthcare.

hmmmmmm's avatar

@ARE_you_kidding_me: “You can’t be satisfied because you’re completely unreasonable. I guaran-damn-tee you what I outlined above is where the majority lie on the spectrum.”

You only think I’m being unreasonable because you don’t care. When I read your proposal, my blood boiled – not for some theoretical internet argument. Rather, I actually care about this. The thought of my daughter with this “middle ground” imposed on her gets me seeing blood. For real.

You are greatly underestimating how absurd your argument for moderation is. As clever as you might think you are, it’s not that people just haven’t asked you before or haven’t considered that there is some kind of “middle ground” that will work here. It’s because the positions are fundamentally incompatible. You admit that there are some other issues like this (slavery, for example), but somehow have convinced yourself that this issue is the exception. You are wrong.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

@KNOWITALL I’m agnostic, I don’t believe in the creation story as written in the bible or any other religious text. I don’t call myself athiest though even if technically I am. I don’t want to be associated with stereotypical athiests because I don’t agree with their behavior.

hmmmmmm's avatar

And this issue of extreme centrism goes beyond the question of abortion. There is a belief that dropping that pin in the middle is the most respectable and not driven by ideology. But this type of approach is extremely ideological. The belief that the truth or justice is in the middle of both sides is pretty radical. And this case is no exception.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

@hmmmmmm You blood boiled because…. you’re unreasonable and an ideologue. There is navigating an issue and there is simply taking sides. There actually is no “middle pin” it’s an objective line and it’s not always dead-center. “Extreme centrism” or whatever could be an ideology but that takes the objectivity out. I cannot accept being labeled “pro-choice” or “pro-life” because of the the constituents of those social groups operate in the extremes and taking either side supports their behavior. I don’t believe in either extreme, both so wrong here. Where I am on this spectrum and it is a spectrum is more on the pro-choice side but not as far as you are.

hmmmmmm's avatar

@ARE_you_kidding_me: “You blood boiled because…. you’re unreasonable and an ideologue.”

If you had a daughter and men were controlling her body, you tell me how you would feel. Be honest.

JLeslie's avatar

@KNOWITALL Exactly, it doesn’t matter if she’s 15 or 30. You’re against abortion. If she came to you you would tell her what you feel and believe about it. All that’s fine with me.

I disagree about the complications with abortion, it’s typically very safe with rarely a problem. President Reagan wanted Surgeon General Coop to say it injures the woman and he wouldn’t lie. Just one disagreement he had.

I think you’ve said yourself some women use it like BC. Multiple abortions. How injured do you think they are if they keep getting pregnant?

Most women I know who had abortions now have children.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@ARE_you_kidding_me That’s why seperation of church and state is so important.

Yes, I’m a Christian, yes I’m Pro-Life BUT I also believe in that seperation because of issues like these.

We in America have so much religion in politics that we can’t see issues with any compartmentalization. Instead of changing minds and hearts, we try to change laws and force the issue.

@JLeslie I’d urge you to research abortion complications, since I don’t have time to post them for you. But it happens. Clinics are closed because of poor conditions and bodily fluids not properly cleaned, as the one in Columbia, MO was. You certainly are entitled to any belief you have, but any procedure is not 100% guaranteed safe.

Yes, I posted a link yesterday regarding multiple abortions. I think you overestimate the IQ of the general population.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

@hmmmmmm last time I checked men were not the only ones making those determinations. I see another side of you though.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@ARE_you_kidding_me ” I guaran-damn-tee you what I outlined above is where the majority lie on the spectrum.”

And the majority once agreed with “separate but equal” policies. Appealing to the majority is not a sound argument. The majority can be grievously wrong.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@KNOWITALL ” I’d urge you to research abortion complications, since I don’t have time to post them for you. But it happens. Clinics are closed because of poor conditions and bodily fluids not properly cleaned, as the one in Columbia, MO was.”

Which isn’t an issue with the abortion procedure, but rather with poor practices on the clinic’s part. You could have that issue with any hospital, doctor’s office or medical clinic that doesn’t follow proper hygienic practices.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Darth_Algar Well sure. And you aren’t a doctor and neither am I, but women have died from complications from abortions, which is the point. It’s not harmless in all cases, probably the majority, but not 100%.

Any of us that are concerned about the mother’s health, should be concerned with the people and clinics that are paid to provide safe and effective care, otherwise it’s no less harmful than a back alley abortion, which is what we want to prevent, as well as the death of the infant.

Darth_Algar's avatar

People have died from complications of every medical procedure out there. What’s your point?

gorillapaws's avatar

@KNOWITALL “women have died from complications from abortions, which is the point. It’s not harmless in all cases”

Is it more likely that a woman would die from a complication from an abortion, or die during childbirth? I think it’s actually less risky to have an abortion than give birth, but I’m not sure, and I’m fairly confident you don’t know the answer to that.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Darth_Algar What’s your point, you just popped in with a statement, so I assume you read what @JLeslie and I were discussing. That’s the point, whether abortions are 100% safe or not and they are not.

@gorillapaws No, I’m not a doctor, and that wasn’t the point of my discussion with @JLeslie either. Refer to my post to Darth.

gorillapaws's avatar

@KNOWITALL I was, but it seems to me that you’re making the argument that abortions are dangerous, but then advocating full term pregnancy which is even more dangerous. It kind of makes it sound like you’re full of shit and don’t actually care about the health/safety of the mother, but are just fear-mongering talking points.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

@Darth_Algar It’s not an appeal to the majority to suggest that most people on the pro-choice side are not hardliners like the pro-life bunch.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@gorillapaws Apparently ya’ll can’t read….smh.

Abortions are NOT 100% complication free and safe.

Don’t believe me, Google it.

And frankly, you guys all believe whatever you’d like about me, as you always do. I have always and will always care about the mothers as well as the children. So much so that I have lived my life in such a way as to be an example and show other women they could CHOOSE not to have a child and also not kill a child.

Now if you choose to continue cussing to make an intelligent post to me, take that somewhere else, I’m not interested in lowering myself to that level of low brow discourse. Thanks.

JLeslie's avatar

@KNOWITALL All medical procedures have risks. I couldn’t agree more. Being pregnant and giving birth have risk. If you are very young or very old even more risk to be pregnant or go through labor and delivery. Better to not get pregnant if you don’t want to be pregnant, that’s true too. I know more people personally damaged by pregnancy and delivery than by an abortion, that’s for sure. Complications from abortions in the first three months is less than 2% and that is including minor complications, unless you have different stats. Death from abortion is very rare, less than 1% in the first trimester, but when they were illegal it was much higher. Abortion stats generally do not define whether an abortion was being done because of an already existing complication, or at will, so if a pregnancy was already having problems, I am not sure we can count that the same as an at will otherwise healthy mother, abortion.

The farther along the pregnancy the more risk, so making it difficult for women to attain abortions once they are decided, causes them more risk.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@JLeslie Correct, and just like the fact that Dems often bring up rape and incest (as with the recent Alabama situation), those numbers are very low as well.
So factually there is risk to abortions, factually there are rape/ incest cases that result in abortions. We can agree both are minimal, but we can’t say abortions are safe, and we can say it’s not right to force a 12 yr old to have her daddy’s baby.
Thus it appears we have agreed on something today in regards to this subject.

gorillapaws's avatar

@KNOWITALL It’s like saying “Don’t ride bicycles because you can get hurt, instead ride wild bulls.” Then, when someone calls you out, saying, “all I was trying to point out is that bicycles aren’t 100% safe, all I care about is safety,” while continuing to advocate for the more dangerous option…

Don’t you see how it’s hard for people to take your arguments seriously? Especially when you’re position is that your argument is so ironclad that everyone else has to live their lives according to your definitions? You’re not even capable of putting together an argument that doesn’t contradict itself, why should we all follow how you want to do things?

Imagine if a follower of an animistic faith came to the conclusion that all life is sacred and that killing animals should be treated like murder. Eating meat would be punishable with prison. Further, let’s say that they succeed in pushing through legislation that bans this for everyone.

And then this Christian comes along and says, “I don’t believe that, my faith permits me to eat meat (God tells me that mankind has dominion over the animals), I don’t want you ramming your animistic faith down everyone else’s throats, I should be able to eat meat if I want to. I should have the moral freedom to make that decision for myself. Furthermore, Mr. Animist, under your belief system, you still permit the killing of insects, despite evidence that they have higher orders of thinking. Your position isn’t even consistent with itself or logical! How do you expect me to follow your definitions of what ‘sentient life’ is when your own definitions are inconsistent and make no sense?!?!”

To which the Animist responds: ”... It’s my faith.”

SQUEEKY2's avatar

In the end it’s the woman’s choice which if facing an abortion she wouldn’t go in care free.
For the Pro-lifers how about concentrating on the unwanted children that are already here, instead of the unborn ones that are not?
Just another opinion.
Oh and another opinion some religions really frown on any type of birth control,go ahead and preach how bad abortions are,but educate that other types of birth control are not a sin,and should be used until a pregnancy is actually wanted.
Because religious or not you aint going to stop people from having sex.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@gorillapaws Oh, well your weird analogies make it so much more clear. smh.

I’m not out there marching, I’m not out there legislating, I’m simply stating a pov that isn’t equally represented on this site. Quit posting my name if you don’t care to discuss it with me. Easy peasy.

@SQUEEKY2 Ah, the old go to argument when you are left with the concept that we are diametrically opposite in our beliefs. I chose not to have kids, I didn’t get pregnant, the system is messed up to the point you have to be rich to adopt or go through hellish red tape to foster (yes I checked into it and my friend is foster parent of the year). So I won’t be adopting or fostering. My husband and I did check into it at one point but due to our ages now and other factors, it isn’t something I’m willing to pursue at this time. If that makes me a Pro-Life jerk in your eyes, I’ll manage to cope with that…lol

Yes, different sects of Christianity teach different things, we all know this.

No one wants everyone to stop having sex, we would prefer not to add to the mountain of dead bodies just because you want to have sex. It’s really not much to ask.

gorillapaws's avatar

@KNOWITALL “Oh, well your weird analogies make it so much more clear. smh”

How about this one, what if 51% of the population was conservative Muslim and they told you that you had to cover your head and face at all times by law because they demanded you obey their religious faith?

Is that any clearer for why it’s a bad idea to force everyone to obey other people’s religions by law? SMH

I can’t think of anything more UNAMERICAN than forcing everyone to follow one set of religious beliefs.

Dutchess_lll's avatar

^^^^ It’s unconstitutional. I can’t believe the Alabama governor actually signed the bill with the comment ”…the legislation was a testament to “Alabamians’ deeply held belief that every life is precious and that every life is a sacred gift from God.”

Isn’t that pretty much a guarantee that it will be challenged by the Supreme Court?

Darth_Algar's avatar

@KNOWITALL

Nothing in this world is 100% safe. A person cannot even eat, an activity biologically necessary to survival, without some risk of death. Your argument along these lines goes nowhere. And nobody claimed that abortion was 100% safe to begin with. You’re arguing against a point that no one made.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@gorillapaws Yes, I wrote pretty much the same thing earlier regarding seperation of church and state.

@Darth_Algar Thanks Captain Obvious. :)

“I disagree about the complications with abortion, it’s typically very safe with rarely a problem. President Reagan wanted Surgeon General Coop to say it injures the woman and he wouldn’t lie.”
This is what someone else and I were discussing when you popped in, and have added absolutely nothing to the conversation. Per your M.O. But go on with your life wisdom, I’m sure someone here will pay you some attention.

jca2's avatar

Whatever small risk there is now for women who have abortions, imagine how much those statistics will rise when the abortions are being done in someone’s basement without proper surgical or sanitary procedures?

Dutchess_lll's avatar

Re basement / back ally abortions…. EXACTLY @jca2!

hmmmmmm's avatar

—Everyone – not sure what we’re still talking about. @ARE_you_kidding_me proposed something that should work for everyone. I’m an ideologue (feminist), so my opinion doesn’t matter. But everyone else should be happy. And by “everyone else”, I mean “anyone who doesn’t particularly care about women, bodily autonomy, government power, poor women having to risk their health for dangerous illegal abortions, theocracy”, etc..

Stache's avatar

There goes @KNOWITALL with her Trumpesque insults. Caption Obvious? I’m offended. I thought that was my nickname!

My personal opinion; not my body, not my say. If men could get pregnant this wouldn’t be an issue.

I’m pro-choice.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

@hmmmmmm Hey whatever buddy, I never said that would work for everyone only those who are being reasonable. I suppose anyone that does not agree with your extreme viewpoint is apparently against women, bodily autonomy, gov’t power..etc… Clearly not the case.

kritiper's avatar

@hmmmmmm What about us other poor bastards who only care about the world being overpopulated and then having all of those unwanted children to boot??

Dutchess_lll's avatar

Overpopulation isn’t really part of this issue. No one, NO one is going to say “Oops! Too many people in this world! Ditch this one!” No one.
(Except in China.)

Stache's avatar

Why don’t conservative states just use thoughts and prayers to stop abortions? After all, that’s what they use when people murder actual live children in schools.

Dutchess_lll's avatar

^^^ Good question. Either it really works or it doesn’t.

kritiper's avatar

Overpopulation SHOULD be a part of this issue!

Dutchess_lll's avatar

This is about a very personal and private decision that some women are faced with. To put the face of “population control” on it cheapens a heart rending decision.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Well yes and no @Dutchess_lll what you are talking about is,BUT the question was what is your opinion on abortion?
Pro lifers think every women out there uses it as an easy form of Birth control ,I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT!! regardless of how many links they want to post.
Abortion has a place, and it’s a decision made by the woman and her Doctor.
And EVERY WOMEN if faced with that has the right to a safe legal place to have it done.
And for the pro lifers LOOK after the unwanted children that are already here and leave the unborn ones in the hands of the women carrying them.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@KNOWITALL

So if you knew it was obvious that you’re arguing over a point that no one made then why argue it? Just to waste everyone’s time? To muddy the waters? Or are inane, go nowhere arguments just a compulsion for you?

LostInParadise's avatar

@KNOWITALL , You seemed to have missed the point that was made related to abortion safety issues. What you have to do is look at the risks associated with abortion compared to the alternative, which would be safety issues related to childbirth. The risks related to childbirth are greater than those associated with abortion, so on the issue of health risks, abortion has the advantage, particularly when the abortion is carried out early in the pregnancy.

jca2's avatar

When you read the article in the links I posted, you will see that @LostInParadise is correct. Abortion done early in the pregnancy has a very low risk.

From a physical standpoint, I can tell you that having an abortion was way easier than delivering a baby.

JLeslie's avatar

The risk part of abortion is a scare tactic that really is awful. Women every day get D&C’s for pregnancies that miscarry, and no pro-life person is going around saying, “oh she just had a very dangerous procedure.” No one is happy when one needs to be done, but they don’t think about it in the same way. I don’t hear people saying, “Now she won’t be able to have children,” and a D&C is the same thing. In fact, early abortions are medical (drugs) or vacuum, which are much safer than when a D&C is done to scrape the uterus after an incomplete miscarriage. I’m guessing when a woman has that done and her pro-life friends are comforting her, they say things like, “I know many women who miscarried and had it done and went on to have three children.” Or, “try not to worry, I had it done, and everything was fine.”

Phil Donahue did an episode on abortion, he filmed one being done, most people agree that it could never be done today. He said in an interview with Oprah (I think Oprah) years later that people would be up in arms that it was so quick and easy.

I know women who go through pregnancies who are deathly ill from constant morning sickness the entire pregnancy. One of my friends had to be on IV fluids for months on and off. Another was in and out of the hospital three times during the pregnancy. Another, who was not a friend, but rather one of my high school English teachers, was told she might want to consider aborting that pregnancy, but luckily in her case it let up as her 3rd month was ending. I know women who have been toxic. I know a woman, who is a doctor, who went into early labor while doing rounds, and start bleeding out. If she had not been in the hospital when it happened she would have died. I know a woman who is practically crippled from delivery, because of what it did to her spine. I know tons of women who can’t hold their pee well after delivering, some of them it is a permanent condition. I know women who became diabetic, developed high blood pressure, developed migraines, and who died from pregnancy related heart attack from having a baby. Those are just people I know personally.

JLeslie's avatar

Heart attacks during and shortly after pregnancy on the rise This is how one of my good friend’s SIL died. She left behind a husband and 4 children. The ER sent her home, and she died soon after.

jca2's avatar

I can’t comprehend laws that don’t make exceptions when the mother’s life is at risk. So if the mother dies, then the baby dies anyway. I guess that’s ok, in their way of thinking, because it’s “natural” or “God did it.”

JLeslie's avatar

@jca2 Nature and God aren’t in play when pro-life takes very extreme measure to save the life of a very premature baby or a newborn that cannot survive without surgery. Pro-choice people sometimes choose to do the extreme measures also, but all I am saying is if it was up to nature ad God a percentage of down’s syndrome infants would die shortly after birth from digestive and/or heart defects. From what I understand they are not left to die anymore at all. The court intervene. Premies that are doomed for being severely disabled there is still grey area, and parents can choose whether to take measures. One of my friends who is pro-life is disgusted it is up to the mother, and that she can decide to let the baby die. This isn’t solely abortion, but goes to having to make choices during pregnancy and shortly after a birth, and whether God decides, or medical staff, or the courts, or the mother.

Many people think of pregnancy and birth as “natural” and nothing goes wrong, but without medical intervention a ton of shit goes wrong during pregnancy. A neighbor I used to walk with, her DIL was told by doctors she had a small risk of having a serious problem during delivery and the baby would suffer. By all accounts the baby was normal in utero. She wanted to deliver naturally. The baby was severely deprived of oxygen and is bound to a wheel chair forever, on a feeding tube, and practically no cognitive ability. It’s tragic. They probably could have let the baby die legally after birth, I don’t know. That would have been nature, to let the baby die at that point. I understand why they tried to save it. Full term, otherwise had been healthy, it was heartbreaking. I don’t remember if the problem involved the mom being in danger during the birth.

In Judaism you are supposed to abort if the mother’s life is in danger. The baby is then seen as something the mother needs to defend herself against. Back in the day infant mortality was so high, that to choose a baby over a mother who had other children, who could get pregnant again, who had already lived through infections and made it to adulthood was an illogical choice. The baby’s life and especially the life of a fetus, was very precarious before advanced medicine. In Christianity I don’t know the rule. I know the Catholic church supposedly will grant terminating the pregnancy in specific instances, but when it has been done there has been fall out at times. Like the nun who was excommunicated for okaying a pregnancy termination several years ago. I always feel like Christians value the life of the fetus more than the mother, and I am not talking about abortion choice, I am talking about even in dire circumstances.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

@jca2 “I can’t comprehend laws that don’t make exceptions when the mother’s life is at risk”
I can’t either and as far as I can tell these “heartbeat” bills make no concessions for it either.

JLeslie's avatar

@ARE_you_kidding_me @jca2 I think maybe they don’t believe it happens. When Ben Carson was running for President he said it basically never happens. I see stories on my facebook posted by conservative saying they were told their baby would be disabled and the baby was perfect, etc. They promote the idea that doctors are wrong and don’t abort. It’s true that sometimes doctors can’t tell EXACTLY the risks or what will happen to a baby or the mother, but they can help give risks and options and recommendations. In an acute crisis of mother or baby that is slightly different.

jca2's avatar

In my work for the government, I’ve seen more than my share of wheelchair bound or bed-bound children who require constant medical interventions and tube feedings, (for example children with cerebral palsy), and never get out of diapers even when they become adults. The lucky ones get to take a paratransit to a day program, the others stay in bed at home and need 24/7 supervision. I think the religious right, even if they had the opportunity to see those children, would say this is God’s will. Meanwhile, so many more of them will be born now if there are no abortions.

Yellowdog's avatar

Joy Lynn White, the 1973 Easter Seals poster child from Tennessee, was frequently asked by the pro-choice crowd throughout the 1980s until her death in 2012, if she wished her mother had aborted her,

Joy had Chiari II Malformation and Spina Bifida

Zaku's avatar

@gorillapaws I actually know many animists, and essentially am one myself, and all of us who have discussed it, while in an animist sense abortion is ending a life, we think it makes the most sense to just agree that’s what it is, and accept it. That is, the life of a developed woman has vastly more value and potential and experience and society’s investment (in time, energy, attention, relationships, and yes even money) to be concerned about compared to a proto-person with near-zero language or development. I’m vastly more concerned about animal life than feotus life. Yes abortion ends the life of a feotus, and that life has very little value compared to the even just the risk and impacts on the life of a woman who does not wish to bear the child.

And that choice is never a light thing, and the pregnant woman is clearly the ultimate and most informed authority on what choice to make, and is also almost always greatly inclined to bear the child anyway.

gorillapaws's avatar

@Zaku I should have been more specific, I was referring to a fictional extreme sect of radical Animism that probably doesn’t exist. The point was to create a hypothetical religion to mirror the extremism coming from some of the radicalized extremist Christian sects that we’re seeing now such as Born Agains.(e.g. Explain the difference).

Yellowdog's avatar

@jca2 Not to interfere with your point, but Christians on the Religious Right would say that children born with birth defects are the result of living in a fallen or broken creation.

Most Christians, Right, Central, and even Liberal, would still say that these children / persons are nonetheless of infinite worth to God. The more from the Right you get, the more the “Fallen Creation” hypothesis just shifts towards the natural order—that God’s ordered creation does contain some things we may find imperfect. But even the most physically imperfect, physically flawed among us, can live fulfilled, happy lives according to God’s purpose, and that God will make things right in the culmination of things.

gorillapaws's avatar

@Yellowdog Why does God require women to abort when she’s pregnant with the child of a man other than her husband then? It seems inconsistent with what you’re saying.

See Numbers 5: 16–29

Demosthenes's avatar

@jca2 It would be interesting to know the numbers on that. What percentage of abortions are done because of severe defects?

I certainly would never agree with aborting for something like Down’s syndrome. I just came across someone with Down’s syndrome recently; he seemed perfectly lucid and happy. Why should someone like that be denied a chance at life and a loser who treats everyone in his life like garbage be allowed to live? Here’s a sci-fi premise for you: a time machine allows you to see what the fetus’ future life will be, years ahead. Maybe they grow up to be a murderer or a suicidal drug addict. Then after seeing that you make the decision to abort.

I just don’t think we should be deciding who gets to live or die at this level.

Yellowdog's avatar

@gorillapaws The passage you are quoting is about drinking water cursed by a priest to see if she had been unfaithful to her husband. If she has, it will result in a miscarriage and inability to have children, which is a curse.

There is nothing really here about a woman having an abortion. This is a curse, from drinking cursed water, if she is guilty.

I don’t think many in the abortion industry would prescribe this method, which would require a priest and cursed, bitter water. They just suck it out with a vacume or dismember it with a curvette and remove the limbs and pieces,

jca2's avatar

I’m googling, @Demosthenes. This is one page but I don’t know if it answers your questions:

Interesting fact, that 51% of women who had abortions in 2014 were on birth control. So for those who say that if you have sex, you are responsible to protect yourself or suffer the consequences, apparently there are women who use protection but no method is 100% perfect. Read on:

https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/induced-abortion-united-states

gorillapaws's avatar

@Yellowdog “drinking water cursed by a priest… will result in a miscarriage” It’s obviously referencing an abortifacient. There were many in the ancient world, unless you believe this really is a story about magic water? Really? Magic water?

JLeslie's avatar

In the US it is something like 80% of down syndrome pregnancies are terminated. That means to me pro-life people are doing it too probably.

About 50% of people born with Down’s syndrome have some serious physical problems that need medical intervention. A percentage of that is so serious that the baby would die without surgery.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@jca2 Funny how some of us manage our entire lives when we pay attention and are careful.

jca2's avatar

@KNOWITALL: Many who are careful still get pregnant.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

So unless it’s a wanted pregnancy,
wouldn’t it be the same as a parasite ?
And wouldn’t you go through the steps you had to, to rid the parasite using the woman body to survive?
Kind of a horrible way to look at it.
Children can be the biggest blessing one can have,or the biggest curse depends on the situation, you going to tell a 13 year old sorry you have to carry it to term?
It has more rights than you do.
Going to tell a rape victim sorry you have to carry it to term because it has more rights than you do?

jca2's avatar

Or you don’t have a pot to piss in and nowhere to live, but you’re going to have to have this baby anyway.

jca2's avatar

Oh, I forgot. Go to a right to life organization like Catholic Charities and get your child seat and crib. That should solve everything.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@jca2 Well people hate to admit they made a mistake, or forgot a pill, or didn’t go get their implant when they should have. I don’t really call that ‘careful’.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

And yet they don’t have enough for rent, barely making ends meet but sorry your going to have to carry it to term and care for it.
Because after all it has more rights than you do.
So if not careful they must pay the rest of their lives for it?

jca2's avatar

Condoms break, they fall off, pills are not a guarantee, @KNOWITALL.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@SQUEEKY2 No, they can give it away or sell it. Many infertile couples pay top dollar, plus any medical, some times a bonus, etc… I know you aren’t in this country, but don’t let everyone here fool you, there are many options.

And being a single parent in the US may be hard, but it’s not impossible. We have laws that the state (at least mine) enforces so child support is a real thing, marriage or not. They’ll yank their drivers license if they still don’t pay, or put a judgement on them so they can’t sell real property without paying child support.

@jca2 All of us child free folks must be really smart then, per your comments. Or lucky maybe. Sure are a lot of us.

Here’s the actual numbers, they even list things like ‘nothing’ and ‘fertility awareness’.
https://americanpregnancy.org/preventing-pregnancy/birth-control-failure/

Almost half of women who turned 30 in 2016 did not have any children, up from a low of just 18 per cent in 1976.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/24/proportion-women-never-have-children-has-doubled-generation/

Stache's avatar

@KNOWITALL Millennials are having fewer children or no children at all not because they are “so smart” or “lucky” when it comes to birth control. It’s because they are having less sex. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/living-single/201811/7-reasons-why-young-people-are-having-less-sex

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Stache I guess @JLeslie and I are just super capable representatives of the female race then. Don’t believe we’re millennials either.

Stache's avatar

@KNOWITALL That has nothing to do with what I just posted. You really are horrible at debate.

JLeslie's avatar

@stache And, having abortions.

I don’t feel like I am better than anyone because I never had an unwanted pregnancy. It happens to some of the smartest people. I once had a condom break. I was lucky that I was just a week away from my period, so the timing wasn’t good. My college roommate had sex for 3 years with her boyfriend, used a diaphragm and condoms. One time she didn’t have her diaphragm and they used a condom, and the condom broke, and she got pregnant.

I also think a lot of people get pregnant when they aren’t using birth control as @KNOWITALL mentioned. They might usually use it, but that day they got pregnant a lot of them didn’t, but there are women who get pregnant while using BC responsibly, these things are not perfect. The Pill is not 100%, neither are other methods. People are not perfect. I could have just as easily become pregnant with one screw up.

janbb's avatar

I never got pregnant when I didn’t want to and I don’t have a pre-existing condition and I don’t have kids who were in an active shooter situation (yet) but I have empathy for those who have. I would have thought that’s what charity in the broadest sense was all about.

Stache's avatar

@JLeslie My response was to @KNOWITALL and her anecdotal comment. She shared a link that stated birth rates are down. In her article- “Almost half of women who turned 30 in 2016 did not have any children, up from a low of just 18 per cent in 1976.” This article is speaking about birth rate decline with millennials. I shared a link that gives a reason for the decline among millennials and it has nothing to do with safe practices and luck.

JLeslie's avatar

@Stache My apologies for interfering.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@KNOWITALL

Wow, you’re awfully full of yourself aren’t you?

Stache's avatar

@JLeslie No need to apologize. You weren’t interfering. As @Darth_Algar just said, @KNOWITALL is full of herself. I don’t think you are.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

There was a member here on Fluther,who had some kind of health condition and I remember her saying if she got pregnant it would most likely kill her,so she is extra careful but if it did happen, would you expect her to carry it to term?
Because after all it has more rights than her.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

So if the birth control fails for whatever reason you expect the woman to carry it to term, after she can sell it(which I think is illegal in North America) or give it to adoption?
Do I have that right?

stanleybmanly's avatar

@KNOWITALL The weak point in your argument involves the 9 months of gestation along with the possible ruinous repercussions.

Jaxk's avatar

Interesting reading this thread. It seems everyone wants to dwell on why it should be OK or not to terminate life of the baby/fetus/parasite/whatever but the debate is actually about when is it a person. Most people would agree that at some point it should be illegal to kill it. I’ve seen some say it could be as old as 5 years old and still not be a person so I guess then it would be OK to kill it. Others believe it is a person at the moment of conception. So the morning after pill would be murder. Where ever you draw the line on when it is a person is the line on when it becomes illegal to kill it. All this other stuff doesn’t matter. It’s illegal to kill a person so when does it become a person? Solve that and you’ve solved the problem.

stanleybmanly's avatar

No it goes beyond that. The problem is that even if you grant that a human being exists at the moment of conception, the question becomes should the woman be compelled responsible for its development for at least 9 months with all the manifest repercussions. Were it a simple matter of the quick and easy extraction of the fertilized egg to be turned over to all the do gooders claiming pregnancy is a picnic, I might be content with laws stipulating such procedures, but as of now, in the real world, and as a practical matter, laws prohibiting abortion amount to at least 9 months of compulsory enslavement of POOR women ONLY.

JLeslie's avatar

@Jaxk No, when it is a life is not the main point. The main point is government should not be able to demand a person have to sustain the life of another person with their own body. If you don’t want to give me blood you don’t have to, yet people want to command women to have to support the life of the fetus with their bodies. I did argue above that at 8 months in my opinion that is a baby, so if the woman wants to terminate the pregnancy, I am still ok with that, but not ok with killing the baby, assuming it is healthy, and can sustain its own life, and I don’t mean it can feed itself, or something ridiculous like that, I mean it can breath on it’s own like any healthy baby, and no major health defects.

Jaxk's avatar

@stanleybmanly & @JLeslie
While those seem like good arguments they don’t hold up. No, you can’t be compelled to give blood but you’re not allowed actively kill the other person either. Also it’s not a nine month commitment but rather an 18 year commitment. How ever you slice it, you can’t kill another person and when an embryo becomes a person you can no longer kill it. I’m not trying to draw that line, everyone wants to draw their own line but where ever you draw it once the line is crossed murder is murder. Ten seconds, ten months or ten years, at some point it becomes a person and gains the same rights as any other person.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

I see where you’re trying to go @Jaxk , but let’s take this example a person is going to die without a blood transfusion and for some reason you are the only match that can do it in time, you say no,is that not murder as well?

Late term abortions are only done under dire circumstances, regardless of what the pro life side says.
And at that stage the woman isn’t changing her mind some extreme health issue has come into play, and if that is the case I stand with her not against her.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

I guess the line like you are saying is all over the map, for some it’s at conception, for others it’s when it is a very recognizable human, I don’t think all parties are ever going to agree where that line is, so let’s just leave it in the hands of the woman carrying it.

stanleybmanly's avatar

Alright. If the willful destruction of a fertilized egg can be defined as murder is masturbation mass murder on the part of men?

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Some religious sects look at it that way .^^^

Jaxk's avatar

@SQUEEKY2 – No I don’t see it as such. If you actively and intentionally kill that person so you don’t have to give them blood, then it is murder. Of course if you have a child and willfully deny it food or drink that will at minimal be considered manslaughter.

@stanleybmanly – So how many have you killed lately?

JLeslie's avatar

@Jaxk Let’s say your blood is literally going straight from your arm to the dying man, and you decide you want to disconnect. You can. No law stops you. If you see a drowning man and all you have to do is throw a rope in the water, you want be prosecuted for killing him, even if there was basically zero risk for you. It’s standing by and watching him die. How is that ethically ok? I can see the legal argument, but not the ethical one.

The perceived 18 year commitment is exactly why women don’t want to bring a life that they don’t feel they can be there for in the capacity necessary to give the child/person a good life. The truth is, the mother actually can get out of the commitment, she can turn the child over to the state or give it up for adoption.

Where do you stand when life begins? The Catholic says at conception, so that is within a few days of having sex, way before the missed period. I have no ideas what other Christians think. People who aren’t Christian have other ideas about it.

I don’t have a religious view about it really. Fir me I basically agree with the current federal law regarding viability. If a fetus is parasitic on the mother, dependent on the mother to survive, then is it an individual life? I don’t mean simply because it is in her womb, I mean, is it dependent on being in her womb to live? A full term baby might still be inside the mother just not delivered yet, to me that baby is not dependent. Every day we induce women or do c-sections and terminate pregnancy to deliver healthy full term perfect viable babies.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

@JLeslie @Jaxk The problem I have with the blood donation scenario is that a singular person being the only donor is a stretch and not very realistic.

JLeslie's avatar

Kidney? Liver?

If it’s an accident scene, maybe there is only one.

The point is, no one seems to give a crap that the woman gives her own iron, calcium, kidney function, etc. to the fetus. They just like to see it as natural and zero effect on the mother. A woman should get to choose whether she wants to deprive her own body of these essential things.

What if men could carry a fetus, then I bet they would think about what it will do to their bodies, and I’m not talking about stretch marks. If you want the baby you take the risks, but what if you don’t want the baby? Think about that. You don’t want it, but it will be growing inside of you.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

I have heard all the talking points from both sides and remain unconvinced by any of them. In a healthy pregnancy somewhere between zygote and birth I feel an arbitrary line needs to be drawn and we grant the baby human rights. I don’t know how to resolve all of the unfortunate baggage and aftermath I just don’t think the answer is to kill the baby. I don’t have much of a problem terminating early pregnancies though. That’s when most happen so I’m really only concerned with a small handfull of cases. I have a hard time with this one. It’s not cut and dry.

Jaxk's avatar

@JLeslie – I’m pretty close to where @ARE_you_kidding_me stands. As for ethical I would have a hard time letting some one, anyone, die if I could help. I’d also have a hard time making help mandatory. I’m not religious so all those religious arguments fall on deaf ears for me. I couldn’t kill a puppy nor drown a kitten so killing a baby isn’t something I could ignore. Scott Peterson was sentenced to death for killing his wife and unborn child. A double homicide. If killing an unborn child isn’t homicide, how did that happen.

Basically I would like to see a way out for the 15 year old girl that is looking at a life altering event, a disaster, but that way out must happen before the fetus is viable. Before it is a person. As I said earlier, draw your own lines but you can’t kill a person, morally or legally. And you don’t have to be a woman to figure that out.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

I agree with your last answer @Jaxk , but again late term abortions are not as common as the pro life wants people to believe, if a late term abortion is being thought about it mostly because of a bad health complication NOT a change of mind.
I do not agree with a healthy late term abortion if she has carried it thus far then see it through and put it up for adoption.
But if her life could be in jeopardy then by all means go for it , and the pro life side can go fuck them selves if that bothers them.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

For the bleeding hearts that want everyone to realize it’s a wonderful human life and want to give it full rights and citizenship, great.
But what about the rights of the woman carrying it,does hers not count at all?

JLeslie's avatar

@Jaxk I think we really aren’t far apart. You seem to basically agree with what the federal law is now, which is abortion is legal before viability, and then after there has to be extreme circumstances to the physical health of the mother. I’m not sure where you stand if the fetus has a significant abnormality, I might have missed it if you said it.

Back in the day, amino was done at 5 months, wait for the results, if the baby had Down’s Syndrome, and the mother wants to abort, the abortion was In the 5th month more or less. Now, they can know sooner with CVS testing. Slightly more risk of miscarriage with that test. I think the test is done around 12 weeks. The abortion is still likely a second trimester abortion. If we developed earlier testing it would help. There might be better diagnostics I don’t know about.

Jaxk's avatar

@JLeslie – I don’t know enough to make that kind of call. My Dad had a severe stroke several years back. I got a call from his doctor and they were basically asking me if they should stop the feeding tube and let him die. I couldn’t believe what I was hearing. My brother was on the phone with me and he had the same reaction. I can’t make life and death decisions like that. We kept my Dad alive and I’ll never know if that was the right choice. Someone has to make that kind of choice and I have no problem letting the mother decide. I just can’t see an attitude like ‘yes cut the parasite out’.

Demosthenes's avatar

@Jaxk I’d like to know the answer to that question as well, re. the Scott Peterson case. How come when a pregnant woman is murdered, the murderer is charged with the death of her unborn child? We regard the unborn child as a person when the mother is murdered, but not when the mother has an abortion? This sounds like a “cake and eat it too” law.

JLeslie's avatar

@Jaxk That isn’t the attitude. No one is thinking cut out the parasite. It’s just terminology used when talking about the dependency of the fetus on the mother, and in regards to how the law should view it. I’d say most pregnant women are thinking, do I want to have a baby?

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

@JLeslie I hear the far left pro-choice crowd say things like that all the time. Its been said here. I don’t think anyone who has had to make the choice further along in a pregnancy would say anything like that. That erases their credibility in my eyes. It’s a traumatic experience for the mother and I have witnessed what it does psychologically first hand. Yet, that language persists.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

@ARE_you_kidding_me it was terminology that I used to make a point, example you going to deny a rape victim an abortion?
Because after all it wasn’t the fetus’s fault, you can’t tell me in a case like that the woman wouldn’t regard it as a parasite, why should she be punished for nine months for a crime against her?

ucme's avatar

My word, you take a few days away from the place & all the best china gets broke :D
Abortion is entirely the decision of the mother carrying the foetus…end of!!

JLeslie's avatar

@ARE_you_kidding_me I use that terminology. I don’t use it when I am pregnant, I use it in terms of the law treating women equally.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

I’m not going to use it. I’m also ok with abortions of pregnancy resulting from rape especially if they are dealt with swiftly. I don’t consider a zygote a baby though.

JLeslie's avatar

@ARE_you_kidding_me What I’m going to say is not an argument directed at you, but rather more of a question. I don’t understand people who believe the embryo or fetus is a full fledged life, equal to the mother (some seem to be saying even more important than the mother) and they make an exception for rape and incest. Why?

LostInParadise's avatar

@JLeslie , At what point does the child become human? Is it magically transformed at birth? If not, then you must support infanticide until the child attains an age where it is fully human.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

I would like to ask this question, what what point does the fetus have more rights than the woman carrying it?

JLeslie's avatar

@LostInParadise I’ve said over and over that I agree with the Supreme Court about the viability rule. Viability of course is a little bit of a grey area though, there is no perfect answer. It’s somewhere in the late 5th month to early 6th month in my opinion. My preference is abortion within the first 12 weeks if there is going to be an abortion. Once we get to the 5th month I need a damn good reason to abort, and being raped isn’t good enough in my opinion, unless there were extenuating circumstances that the girl could not get the abortion previous to that.

Also, situations like Texas not letting a pregnant woman who is caught in detention get an abortion, because she recently immigrated, that is disgusting. As she waits the fetus gets older and older. If she has an abortion at 20 weeks instead of 10, that is on the head and soul of those who were preventing her from having one earlier in the pregnancy. The first few weeks of pregnancy the fetus does not have the brain developed, it doesn’t understand life or a will to live. It isn’t consciously aware. It will react to stimulus weeks before it has any sort of awareness that might look like awareness. It is the beginning stages of a human. It is a human developing.

LostInParadise's avatar

@SQUEEKY2 , Upon attaining personhood, whenever that occurs, the child and the mother both have a right to life, with the right of the mother taking precedence if carrying the child leads to her death or to extreme injury.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

@JLeslie Because it’s an extenuating circumstance. If someone gets pregnant through willful actions of their own then personal accountability should be taken into consideration. We are a supposedly mature civilization and exceptions need to be applicable when necessary. Also, in those cases as mentioned before, abortions are going to happen very early, which I don’t really have a problem with for any reason.

JLeslie's avatar

@ARE_you_kidding_me Right, I know you personally don’t have a problem with the early abortions. It’s the people who want to make all abortions illegal at any point in the pregnancy, but they will make exception for rape and incest, I don’t really understand why they have the exception. I should do a Q about it. If it is about the personal responsibility then I have a serious problem with that rationale. It’s saying the fetus is a pawn in punishing a woman for a mistake, or for bad luck when she was using birth control. Or, using her as a vessel to provide children for those who are infertile.

jca2's avatar

Article from The Atlantic Monthly: Why it’s easier for some women to abort than to give a baby up for adoption:

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/05/why-more-women-dont-choose-adoption/589759/

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Stache @Darth_Algar Full of myself? lol, nope, I just practice what I preach. And no one dies. Win win.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

No but condemned to a long life of suffering.^^

KNOWITALL's avatar

@SQUEEKY2 So all babies who’s mom’s keep them are suffering? Whether it’s Downs babies or rape babies, many go on to have normal lives, just like yours. It’s so odd to hear so many people think it’s okay to just kill them.

JLeslie's avatar

@jca2 Interesting statistics. I think the adoption out rate was partly higher 50 years ago because girls were forced to give their children up by their families. The article states what I always have said, the idea of giving my child away and wondering if he/she is ok is incredibly unsettling to me. Like I said above, the Nazis would have to be coming for me to give my baby away.

A friend of mine has a friend whose daughter got pregnant at 17. She gave up the baby in an open adoption. She went to go see the baby almost every weekend. They (the bio mom and her parents) were middle class, and I just can’t wrap my head around the whole thing if it were me. I would keep the baby if I was the grandparent, they have the money, and help take care of it while my daughter finishes school. Unless the teenager actually didn’t want the baby, but I find that hard to believe if she is visiting every weekend. I really don’t know though, I can’t guess how she really felt.

A high school friend of mine who became pregnant in high school, the family did just that. They helped her raise the baby until she was done with college. They were Catholic, my friend was 1 of 10 kids. Now she has 4 children, the first one is obviously much older than the rest, an adult now.

stanleybmanly's avatar

@jca2 ‘s article states that abortion has dropped from 14% of pregnancies to currently 2%. The article further stipulates that there is a huge spike in single mothers along with accelerating rates of abortion probably due to decreases in the stigmatization of unwed motherhood. The trouble with the proposition that adoption is preferable to abortion is that for whatever reason, pregnant women don’t agree. It doesn’t matter how stringent the prohibitions against abortion, nothing short of forced sterilization is going to drive down abortion rates if pregnant women aren’t themselves committed to the “cause”.

jca2's avatar

@stanleybmanly: You meant “decelerating” not “accelerating” right?

JLeslie's avatar

@jca2 I’m actually glad to see an article about how women feel about giving up their baby. I always feel like the lone voice saying I can’t fathom handing over my child. People so casually say, “many people want to adopt.” What does that have to do with how I would feel giving away my baby? I could easily have been one of the women adopting, I understand their sadness if they couldn’t have a baby themselves, I understand wanting to help someone in that situation. I can understand all of the sides. I don’t know why others have no empathy for the bio mom.

jca2's avatar

@JLeslie: I agree. At least one person said it on this thread – people will pay you to adopt your baby. That doesn’t mean it’s a decision taken lightly. I always felt like if you’re going to give birth to the baby, then you’re going to fall in love with it and be willing to do anything to stay together.

Doing CPS work, we had prostitutes that got pregnant repeatedly by their pimps. The CPS worker would go right to the hospital and take the baby and put it in foster care. I think people that are against abortion should go adopt one of those babies right out of foster care. It may be addicted to cocaine or have fetal alcohol syndrome, but if you’re against abortion, you should put your money where your mouth is and take a baby that is needing a home, first, before having one of your own.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther