I'm not sure that it's accurate to suggest different medical procedures will have exactly the same outcomes for the health of the woman. I don't see how you can justify choosing for her at that point. Let's say doctors predict that a woman needs a Cesarean or the fetus will die. Should we force her to have a cesarean?

8/3/2011 9:38:31 AM

No body should have any right to tell a patient and her doctor what to do in any case. I don't feel this way for most professions, but doctors are there to make life and death decisions.

I guess there would be problems if the patient and the doctor were at odds, but no one has formalized any such situations right now.

8/3/2011 9:46:01 AM

Everyone that says "I draw the line at" any place earlier than birth is doing so. You're creating a situation where at some point it would be a crime for a woman to make a particular choice about which medical procedure to take regarding her pregnancy.

8/3/2011 9:48:53 AM

Please note that when I say "I draw the line" is not where I think laws should be put in place. This is the point where I myself, would not go through with an abortion.

I am Pro-Choice and respect individual civil liberties. An abortion is a womans personal decision to make and no one should ever interfere with that right.

8/3/2011 10:33:50 AM

10/14/2011 12:51:40 AM

I don't see what religion has to do with abortion.

I don't see why a woman should get to claim any particular right to the decision, unless her health is seriously in question.


It all boils down to the question of at what point you define the unborn as a human life. Without a doubt, that is well before birth. How much so is a grey area, but at any time before that point, I don't see how there's anything wrong with abortion. Go for it, I'm all for the practice under those conditions. After that, I don't see how you can call it anything but murder.

[Edited on October 14, 2011 at 1:04 AM. Reason : ]

10/14/2011 1:03:29 AM

Quote :

"I don't see what religion has to do with abortion."

Can you clarify this? You're usually so damned commited to absolving religion that I may be thinking you're concluding something that you're not. Are you saying that you cannot see what Abrahamic religion in America has to do with the crusade against Planned Parenthood? Or do you mean that you can't think of a religious justification to be opposed to aborting a fetus before whatever demarcation point you call that fetus a person?

Quote :

"I don't see why a woman should get to claim any particular right to the decision, unless her health is seriously in question."

I would prefer if we had ultimate say over what happens to our bodies. I think we have every right to have whatever medical procedure we wish if we deem it necessary, not whether theDuke866 deems it necessary.

Quote :

"It all boils down to the question of at what point you define the unborn as a human life. Without a doubt, that is well before birth. How much so is a grey area, but at any time before that point, I don't see how there's anything wrong with abortion. Go for it, I'm all for the practice under those conditions. After that, I don't see how you can call it anything but murder."

Sure if you ignore the one human life in the situation that is most definitely a person and has rights to her own body, then that's all it boils down to. You are reducing a pregnant woman to an inanimate birthing vessel. Why?

[Edited on October 14, 2011 at 1:28 AM. Reason : .]

10/14/2011 1:27:26 AM

Quote :

"Are you saying that you cannot see what Abrahamic religion in America has to do with the crusade against Planned Parenthood? Or do you mean that you can't think of a religious justification to be opposed to aborting a fetus before whatever demarcation point you call that fetus a person?"

More the latter. Basically, I just don't view it as a religious question. It's a biological question. Now, practically speaking, some people's religious views color their views of biology, but even then, it's not a question of religion (if that subtle distinction makes sense).

Quote :

"I would prefer if we had ultimate say over what happens to our bodies. I think we have every right to have whatever medical procedure we wish if we deem it necessary, not whether theDuke866 deems it necessary. "

I don't give a fuck what anyone does with their bodies. I give a fuck what people do with other peoples' bodies.

Now obviously, it's tough to draw that line. My personal view is that it's pretty easy to have an abortion very, very early on, and we ought to just draw the line very early and give unborn babies the benefit of the doubt (for the reason that if we draw the line wrong, we're fucking killing people)--but very early on, I have no problem with abortion whatsoever. However, if someone chose to give more of the benefit of the doubt to the mother, I can see and respect the reasoning there (for the reason that you state, that there is no question as to the personhood of the mother).


What I don't see or have any respect for are the arguments that "it's a woman's body and you can't tell her what to do with it", or "yeah it's murder, but it's for the best", or "the Bible says abortion is bad", or pretty much any other argument for or against the practice. It's a pretty simple decision matrix that we pollute with all sorts of irrelevant distractors, I suppose due to the fact that the one simple thing that it hinges on is so elusive.

10/14/2011 1:42:59 AM

Quote :

"You're usually so damned commited to absolving religion"

Do you really get that impression? I don't feel like that at all. Maybe it just feels like that from your perspective because I sometimes defend religion when I feel like you are going too far in attacking it.

Quote :

"You are reducing a pregnant woman to an inanimate birthing vessel. Why?"

It's not that, exactly. It's that I'm not in the least concerned with her convenience at the expense of a baby's life, just as I'm not in the least concerned with a lump of cells with human DNA being given the chance to grow into a human over her convenience.

10/14/2011 1:48:56 AM

I don't agree with labeling a person's right to his or her body an "irrelevant distractor." Personal freedom is what is most important to me. We may have to just chalk this up to a difference in opinion.

Quote :

"Do you really get that impression? I don't feel like that at all. Maybe it just feels like that from your perspective because I sometimes defend religion when I feel like you are going too far in attacking it. "

So do you think I'm going to far in blaming evangelicals for the current crusade against Planned Parenthood in America?

10/14/2011 8:58:10 AM

What did you say about them?

10/14/2011 8:45:27 PM

i, actually, agree with duke on this on the the fact that this boils down to when it's a life. is it when it could survive on it's own outside the womb? but is that survival only going to happen if there is medical life support?

what i do have a major problem with is people in the federal government, state government, whatever government trying to dictate when that time is.

10/14/2011 9:48:09 PM

Yeah, but that's the nature of the beast. The only other option is to allow open season on babies, which is by far even worse. I'm hardly a statist--government, in my view, should primarily exist to facilitate the net maximizing of liberty.

I mean, I think mine is the only ethically acceptable position on this one. I don't see how one could justify anything else. It so happens that it's fairly pragmatic, too--just don't delay the decision to abort unduly.

[Edited on October 15, 2011 at 12:05 AM. Reason : ]

10/15/2011 12:02:55 AM

^^sooooooooooooo if it's a life when it can survive outside the womb then it's not a life until its around 13-22 years old?

[Edited on October 15, 2011 at 12:05 PM. Reason : That joke has to already be in the thread... Somewhere...]

10/15/2011 12:04:21 PM

Yeah, I don't think that's a good way to draw the line from a philosophical, medical, or practical standpoint.

10/15/2011 2:49:27 PM

Quote :

"I think mine is the only ethically acceptable position on this one. "

well of course you do - why would you have that opinion if you didn't think it was the right one?

10/15/2011 5:27:15 PM

Well obviously I wouldn't make a statement like that about, say, how progressive our taxation should be, or what our foreign policy should be with respect to a particular country, or capital punishment.

I would have an oPinion and obviously think mine was the right one, but I certainly wouldn't view it as the "only ethically acceptable" position. Most things fall into the realm if philosophical differences, but not so much this one.

[Edited on October 15, 2011 at 10:19 PM. Reason : ]

10/15/2011 7:06:54 PM

well that's fine if you think that.

i'd be interested to see what men's opinions would be changed if they were in a precarious situation.

don't get me wrong, i'm all for banning late term abortions. but yea, just saying.

10/15/2011 10:00:04 PM

I'm saying that what I'm arguing is not subject to a sliding scale based on the precariousness of a situation...not unless you would argue that murder for convenience is OK if you manage to put yourself in a precarious situation. That's the only alternative to my argument.

The only thing to discuss regarding the subject of abortion is what point we are dealing with a human being.

I would characterize myself as pro-abortion, but only in much more limited circumstances.

[Edited on October 15, 2011 at 10:20 PM. Reason : ]

[Edited on October 15, 2011 at 10:51 PM. Reason : And it's not just an academic issue to me]

10/15/2011 10:18:07 PM

men have 100% responsibility for a child except for the 9 months b/w conception and birth.

if a woman can choose to pay a fee to get of a baby, shouldnt a man be able to do the same?

yes this is kinda off-topic.


other than the obvious ethical questions, it does gnaw on me a little bit that two people can agree they want to have a child, then the woman can just change her mind.

10/15/2011 10:38:10 PM

^hmm i've never thought of it that way b4. iiiinnteresting.

10/16/2011 1:27:03 AM

I kind of see your point, but the biggest issue is the woman is carrying that child and will be taking a hit much more than the man. It's not like pregnancy is a walk in the park

10/16/2011 12:41:55 PM

And bingo was his name-o.

Also, men don't have 100% of the responsibility, wtf are you smoking? At most they have 50% and even then that's questionable in the traditional American family.

10/16/2011 6:08:50 PM

100% in that they cant take a pass on responsibility. child support is not optional.

and pregnancy is no fun, but it affects you for 9 months then its over.

10/17/2011 10:44:29 PM

10/17/2011 11:03:08 PM

Let's not even get into that argument.

10/17/2011 11:05:45 PM

i don't think anyone's gonna argue that, lol

10/17/2011 11:20:48 PM

haha that is why i stay away from soap box, i tend to oversimplify

10/18/2011 9:57:02 PM

10/19/2011 9:51:15 AM

Quote :

" it all boils down to the question of at what point you define the unborn as a human life. Without a doubt, that is well before birth. How much so is a grey area, but at any time before that point, I don't see how there's anything wrong with abortion. Go for it, I'm all for the practice under those conditions. After that, I don't see how you can call it anything but murder."

This is what is misunderstood about the abortion issue. You can't really argue that "it is not alive therefore we can abort it" because you can see a heartbeet at about 6 weeks, and I don't see how anyone could argue that something with a beating heart is not alive. I am a left winger, I am prochoice, but that baby is alive.

The real issue, however, is why a mother-to-be that is poverty stricken, homeless, an addict, etc... be forced to raise a child when that child is going to have almost a 0% chance in life and will just burden the mother. So why not give her the choice to abort it?

Not giving her the choice is holding her accountable for her situation, correct, but in reality people are born into those situations, so really you are just forcing one to be accountable for being born poor.

10/19/2011 2:51:32 PM

I think that when he said "a human life" he meant a human person. I mean, an egg or even a zygote is alive but it's definitely not a person. A beating heart isn't incredibly relevant to personhood in my opinion.

I'm not convinced that even reasonable definitions of personhood are enough to trump the bodily rights of the woman however.

10/19/2011 3:10:24 PM

Really? If you can reasonably and safely say, "this is another fully functional human with all the rights we would afford to anyone" you still think that it's ok for the mother to decide that person doesn't deserve to live? Her right to not be inconvenienced by carrying a child to term outweighs a human being's right to exist? How is that moral or logical?

10/19/2011 6:45:09 PM

Quote :

"I brought you into this world, I can sure as hell take you out of it."

-Parents Everywhere

10/19/2011 7:21:26 PM

Quote :

"The real issue, however, is why a mother-to-be that is poverty stricken, homeless, an addict, etc... be forced to raise a child when that child is going to have almost a 0% chance in life and will just burden the mother. So why not give her the choice to abort it? "

which is all fine and dandy, but why wouldn't this also apply to a newborn in the same situation? Do not the same arguments apply here? Hell, it's only a few months down the line, so there's not much of a difference as far as time goes.

10/19/2011 7:29:29 PM

because by that point she has already made the comitment to go along with it.

10/19/2011 7:42:04 PM

How is that different from electing to continue a pregnancy to whatever point we decide that the unborn baby is a human being?

10/19/2011 7:47:04 PM

becuse that argument is flawed

10/19/2011 7:57:46 PM

Quote :

"Really? If you can reasonably and safely say, "this is another fully functional human with all the rights we would afford to anyone" you still think that it's ok for the mother to decide that person doesn't deserve to live? Her right to not be inconvenienced by carrying a child to term outweighs a human being's right to exist? How is that moral or logical? "

Because you cannot reasonably say "this is another fully functional human with all the rights we would afford to anyone" because those rights are contingent on infringing the medical rights of another human being: the mother. The fetus does not yet have independent rights for that reason. Not all "persons" have equal rights. A serial killer for instance, is definitely a person, but do they have the same right to exist (or right to freedom, if you're against killing serial killers) as every other person?

The instant that the fetus is no longer contingent on the mother, bam: person with full rights that we as a society are bound to protect. Until that moment, regardless of development the mother's rights are paramount. Childbirth is a medical procedure like any other, with risks involved. I see no reason to force women to go through a particular medical procedure if alternatives are available and they so choose.

And considering an unborn fetus a person has tons of other legal and moral pitfalls as well. Should smoking or drinking while pregnant be considered child endagerment? Should an accidental fall resulting in a spontaneous abortion be considered manslaughter? Should any spontaneous abortion be investigated as potential murder?

[Edited on October 19, 2011 at 8:27 PM. Reason : l]

10/19/2011 8:27:13 PM

It's interesting to me that in the U.K. they used to abort babies for having a cleft lip, which means that Rick Perry (if he was born in the UK) would have been aborted.

10/19/2011 8:35:55 PM

I just dont understand why this and gay marriage are the most polarizable political topics. I fear that it is done intentionally to keep Amurica divided.

10/19/2011 8:38:03 PM

Because the most recent poll suggested that 44% of Americans are creationists. Let that sink in.

10/19/2011 8:48:09 PM

Quote :

"This is what is misunderstood about the abortion issue. You can't really argue that "it is not alive therefore we can abort it" because you can see a heartbeet at about 6 weeks, and I don't see how anyone could argue that something with a beating heart is not alive. I am a left winger, I am prochoice, but that baby is alive. The real issue, however, is why a mother-to-be that is poverty stricken, homeless, an addict, etc... be forced to raise a child when that child is going to have almost a 0% chance in life and will just burden the mother. So why not give her the choice to abort it? Not giving her the choice is holding her accountable for her situation, correct, but in reality people are born into those situations, so really you are just forcing one to be accountable for being born poor."

Having a heartbeat in the womb doesn't guarantee a good outcome after birth. Many children with fatal disorders or birth defects die soon after birth but had a normal heart beat at first..

10/19/2011 8:55:47 PM

I just don't understand how poeple can put their entire moral beliefs off of a supernatural belief. Add that to the list of things that I dont understand. But I tolerate it.

10/19/2011 8:57:25 PM

Quote :

"Having a heartbeat in the womb doesn't guarantee a good outcome after birth. Many children with fatal disorders or birth defects die soon after birth but had a normal heart beat at first.."

yeah but there is a 97% chance after the 1st trimester that the baby will be born. So, odds are that the baby that is aborted would turn into a "real person". I am not trying to swing into some pro life propaganda here, but I think that the majority of the "baby isn't alive" arguments are based off of small tecnicalities.

10/19/2011 9:00:45 PM

Where did you even get that statistic? And like I said, many children die right after birth. So, they would technically count as a "real person" if you look at it using your defense. I don't know about you, but I have no issues with something like that being prevented if you know it ahead of time and can prevent undue suffering (both mentally and physically for the family).

[Edited on October 19, 2011 at 9:03 PM. Reason : And honestly, being past 12 weeks doesn't equal out of the danger zone - more like 20]

10/19/2011 9:02:39 PM

Quote :

"I don't know about you, but I have no issues with something like that being prevented if you know it ahead of time and can prevent undue suffering (both mentally and physically for the family). "

People that want mothers to go through births which are detected as suffering from shit like Anencephaly are monsters.

10/19/2011 9:06:59 PM

Quote :

"I don't know about you, but I have no issues with something like that being prevented if you know it ahead of time and can prevent undue suffering (both mentally and physically for the family)."

I don't have any problems with that either; It is one of the clear cases where the method is warranted.

I don't have any problems with prochoice either, I just don't understand how we can sum up the argument as "it is not a real person yet" and not expect people to yell at each other. The case that you mentioned, although it is correct, is ultimately an exception, a technicality. In general, fetuses are aborted because the mom doesn't want to have the baby.

Did I jump in at the wrong time? I dunno, I havent been on TWW lately.

[Edited on October 19, 2011 at 9:10 PM. Reason : we]

[Edited on October 19, 2011 at 9:10 PM. Reason : gh]

10/19/2011 9:09:26 PM

This whole thing reminds me of a particularly sad case... A woman was sent to the fetal anomalies clinic because they were worried what could be normal gut herniation in the 12th week (goes back in at 14 wks) could actually be something worse and they wanted to be doubly sure. Ended up being a case of body stalk anomaly - DON'T google it - and let's just say, that's not a baby. She couldn't afford to have a termination and Medicaid wouldn't cover it because her life wasn't at risk - so she has to carry around a mass of tissue for months.


And I definitely agree that it still blows my mind when people want others to birth a child with anencephaly or some other neural tube defect. I had the misfortune of watching an ultrasound when a case of exencephaly was discovered, and let me tell you... it was hard even imaging what that kid would have looked like coming out, especially when you could tell something major was up just from a black and white image on the screen. Then having to hear the MFM tell the couple it was incompatible with life? Major suck.



^ I really don't think you get how many terminations occur due to medical reasons. I wish people would stop acting like it's some rare thing, because it isn't. People just don't like to talk about that stuff.

[Edited on October 19, 2011 at 9:13 PM. Reason : .]

10/19/2011 9:11:46 PM

Quote :

"becuse that argument is flawed"

No you're wrong

Quote :

"Because the most recent poll suggested that 44% of Americans are creationists. Let that sink in."

For what it's worth, I would say that I'm agnostic, or at a minimum not Christian in any meaningful sense (i.e. maybe there's a God, or maybe not, but I don't buy into what's taught in the Bible)

10/19/2011 10:11:28 PM

Well they asked why it's a polarizing issue. Part of the reason is that nearly half of the country is against it a priori without good reason, then they grasp at straws to rationally support their preconceptions.

The other half is like us, not against it, but disagreeing philosophically when a fetus becomes a person with rights. So even if you're not pro-life, there's a lot of ground to reconcile and room for discussion.

10/20/2011 8:50:19 AM