|
Sheep-Goats posted:I'm real surprised there are actually ppl on someting awful who are waffling about viability and all that nonsense Probs because sane people at least wrestle with the idea that past a certain point of development, the only difference between a baby in the womb and regular baby is location.
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 10:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 06:05 |
|
|
Jeza posted:Probs because sane people at least wrestle with the idea that past a certain point of development, the only difference between a baby in the womb and regular baby is location. I guess for me the whole issue of abortion is that no person has the right to treat another person as life support. So even if I accept that a fetus is a proper person then I think it is still unethical to demand that a woman gives up autonomy over her body unwillingly. But once the fetus is viable (and properly viable, not 'it might survive out the body but be really hosed for its entire life and need years and years of medical care viable') then why not just give it up for adoption? The process of getting it out is going to be pretty similar I would assume. But like I said, the number of people having a very late term abortion when it is not to save the mother or because the fetus is not going to make it is vanishingly low.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 10:18
|
|
|
hookerbot 5000 posted:I guess for me the whole issue of abortion is that no person has the right to treat another person as life support. So even if I accept that a fetus is a proper person then I think it is still unethical to demand that a woman gives up autonomy over her body unwillingly. But once the fetus is viable (and properly viable, not 'it might survive out the body but be really hosed for its entire life and need years and years of medical care viable') then why not just give it up for adoption? The process of getting it out is going to be pretty similar I would assume. http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 10:33
|
|
|
Skinny King Pimp posted:29/F Maybe he's Craster or a Targareyan. Also, to the people who say "give it up for adoption" don't seem to take into consideration it's not as simple as: 1. Give birth. 2. Sign paperwork. 3. Yay baby is adopted to a loving family! There's, if nothing else, the financial and health aspect of it. Labor isn't easy, childbirth can leave a woman sterile or dead. What if the baby is born and has physical deformities or handcaps? Mental ones? The list isn't long for people who want to adopt a baby with a myriad of health issues. gently caress, the list isn't that long for healthy babies unless they are white and often look similar to the adoptive parents. There's also the physical change for the woman in question. The hormones after you give birth are insane. But just sign the paperwork and leave the baby you didn't want and it's cut and dried and no one ever has to deal with the physical resolution of such a bodychanging experience. Ask any woman who has had an abortion, compared to a woman who gave birth and gave the baby up for adoption which was more painful. I'd bet the latter. And no, the "process of getting it out of there" is not very loving similar and neither is the end result. And anyone who says "just give it up for adoption" should also be willing to adopt that baby, and every other baby that they want born into this world.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 10:46
|
|
|
Skinny King Pimp posted:29/F It's not that confusing. I don't support any special status for abortions resulting from rape or incest. Elective abortions of a nonviable fetus are fine. I don't support late term abortions due to incest or rape, just the health of the mother.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 13:05
|
|
|
Leviathan Song posted:It's not that confusing. I don't support any special status for abortions resulting from rape or incest. Elective abortions of a nonviable fetus are fine. I don't support late term abortions due to incest or rape, just the health of the mother. Then you only support abortion for medical reasons, not elective abortions. Elective abortions are obtained for any reason and have nothing to do with the viability of the fetus.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 14:10
|
|
|
Skinny King Pimp posted:Then you only support abortion for medical reasons, not elective abortions. Elective abortions are obtained for any reason and have nothing to do with the viability of the fetus. Maybe I am using viability slightly wrong or maybe you are misunderstanding the definition. I only support elective abortions if inducing labor at that moment would not result in a viable infant. The second trimester limit on elective abortions is pretty close to the point where a fetus is viable without any further time in the womb.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 14:51
|
|
|
hookerbot 5000 posted:I guess for me the whole issue of abortion is that no person has the right to treat another person as life support. So even if I accept that a fetus is a proper person then I think it is still unethical to demand that a woman gives up autonomy over her body unwillingly. But once the fetus is viable (and properly viable, not 'it might survive out the body but be really hosed for its entire life and need years and years of medical care viable') then why not just give it up for adoption? The process of getting it out is going to be pretty similar I would assume. Children turn their parents into life support, as they totally depend on them. You are free to sleep all day if that's what you want because of FREEDOMS but if you do sleep all day and don't feed a baby and the baby dies that's a criminal act. Exercising your freedoms isn't s valid excuse for criminal negligence
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 15:14
|
|
|
Commie NedFlanders posted:Children turn their parents into life support, as they totally depend on them. There is a key difference here, in that rearing a child is a choice, and that choice brings with it legal responsibility as the primary caregiver. Carrying a baby to term is also a choice, with abortion being the alternative. There is no definitional right for a baby to be born or looked after by a particular individual. Criminality only comes into play once you fail to deliver on responsibilities you accepted. For that reason, in most countries, abortion other than as a life-saving operation is illegal past a certain point (i.e. you can't reverse your previous choice), much like accepting responsibility for a child and then failing to deliver. Still, the point remains the same: no person has the "right" to be used as life support by another. In every case where criminal negligence is invoked, that person accepted the responsibility but failed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 15:40
|
|
|
Jeza posted:There is a key difference here, in that rearing a child is a choice, and that choice brings with it legal responsibility as the primary caregiver. Carrying a baby to term is also a choice, with abortion being the alternative. So what about males being forced to pay child support?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 20:29
|
|
|
Commie NedFlanders posted:So what about males being forced to pay child support? The correct answer to that is to replace child support with a guaranteed minimum income and free daycare for all. Child support is an old, sexist law that should be replaced with a modern social safety net.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
Jeza posted:Probs because sane people at least wrestle with the idea that past a certain point of development, the only difference between a baby in the womb and regular baby is location. And the fact that someone has to carry it around inside their body and then take care of that thing until it turns 18 or else consign it to a lovely foster system and generally create an unwanted burden on society that obviously is not likelier than average to become some kind of angry criminal oh wait you forgot about that one (or three maybe) turns out there's more than one difference  Jeza posted:There is a key difference here, in that rearing a child is a choice, and that choice brings with it legal responsibility as the primary caregiver. Carrying a baby to term is also a choice, with abortion being the alternative. The choice here being "having sex for fun" which we must make irreversible and dire in its nature per various holy books and dry cunted old grammas It's especially important to say "it's a choice" and then make it not a choice based on your feelings about what is babby 
raton fucked around with this message at 01:31 on Oct 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2015 01:13
|
|
|
Commie NedFlanders posted:So what about males being forced to pay child support? That's a really good point, and it highlights the mild hypocrisy behind treating birth as 100% a woman's choice yet also a 50/50 financial responsibility. The only answer it is simply a pragmatic solution from the state's point of view. States recognise (esp. those signed up to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child) that raising a child needs to meet certain criteria, and meeting them takes money. The state doesn't want to pay if it doesn't have to, and it's simpler to take the money from the other biological parent. It is worth pointing out that failing to pay child support doesn't make you criminally negligent (at least where I live, and I assume most places too), so my original point stands, but it will end up with you taken to civil court and fined, deduction of earnings, property seizure etc. You could also argue that unprotected sex is also a choice, but really at that point you're stretching the definition of 'choice', and then you have exceptions like broken condoms and whatnot. Sheep-Goats posted:And the fact that someone has to carry it around inside their body and then take care of that thing until it turns 18 or else consign it to a lovely foster system and generally create an unwanted burden on society that obviously is not likelier than average to become some kind of angry criminal oh wait you forgot about that one (or three maybe) turns out there's more than one difference Huh? You're missing my point. If you teleported a foetus at 50 weeks development from inside the womb to outside the womb, it is a baby. There is no reasonable biological distinction. Just think about your argument for 2 seconds and it should be clear. By your own logic, it is totally permissible to kill babies outside the womb for those reasons you give. Sheep-Goats posted:
I can't pick out what you're saying here in the English language. Is it related to what I was saying? At no point did I equate sex with making babies. But I do love The Running Man, so it's ok.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2015 10:02
|
|
|
(33/M/Extensive bioethics background) 1) Yes 2) Yes 3) Yes You can call it whatever you want, but ethically and practically abortion needs to be kept safe, legal, and available. Reproductive autonomy is a basic human right.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2015 10:29
|
|
|
Selection bias means that the results from a survey conducted like this are entirely valueless for statistical analysis. But you probably know that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2015 11:23
|
|
|
Abortion should be completely legal until the baby is 1 year old. Anytime before that if the parents want to bail, it's probably better than raising a child in that home.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2015 12:36
|
|
|
48/male, by the way.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2015 12:37
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:Selection bias means that the results from a survey conducted like this are entirely valueless for statistical analysis. But you probably know that. Maybe he's looking for statistics on a population of men who've only had limited contact with women. We could be the bias he's looking for.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2015 12:46
|
|
|
Li Dawny posted:I'm currently in school becoming a midwife and I'm doing a population survey on abortion. If you don't mind answering, please also post your gender and age. 38m 1. Absolutely. 2. Of course. 3. Yes with one exception: Sex-selective abortion is abhorrent. "I don't want to raise a child right now" is reason enough; "I don't want a lowly female" makes you a person who believes terrible things. People who really really really want abortions are going to have them. Legalizing it is a way to stop these people from dying or mutilating themselves, and even if you're opposed to the principle of abortions one should still support making them available as a form of harm reduction.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
37/m 1) Yes 2) Yes 3) Yes Her body, her right to choose.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2015 20:35
|
|
|
32/m mandatory abortion the voluntary human extinction movement will never work it's time to get serious
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 04:39
|
|
|
[quote="flakeloaf" post=""451189571"] 3. Yes with one exception: Sex-selective abortion is abhorrent. "I don't want to raise a child right now" is reason enough; "I don't want a lowly female" makes you a person who believes terrible things[/quote] 
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 16:42
|
|
|
BobbyDrake posted:37/m Suppose you are having sexual intercourse with a woman, in mid penetrative coitus, and she reaches down with a pair of tiny scissors and snips your penis off at the base? After all, the penis is inside of her which I guess makes it her body, and as you say, "her body, her right to choose". Sound good?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 16:45
|
|
|
Suppose a young child enters your home through the back door without permission because there is a huge hurricane Katrina weather event happening outside, when you discover that the child is in your home, is it acceptable to toss her out of the window into the flood waters because of  My Property! ?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
Leviathan Song posted:Maybe I am using viability slightly wrong or maybe you are misunderstanding the definition. I only support elective abortions if inducing labor at that moment would not result in a viable infant. The second trimester limit on elective abortions is pretty close to the point where a fetus is viable without any further time in the womb. Yeah, nonviable to me means no chance of survival no matter what - probably because I work in genetics. I still think the way you answered it was weird, but whatever. I get what you're saying. flakeloaf posted:3. Yes with one exception: Sex-selective abortion is abhorrent. "I don't want to raise a child right now" is reason enough; "I don't want a lowly female" makes you a person who believes terrible things. The problem with this is that you're putting restrictions on elective abortions. You can't do that beyond a gestational age limit if you want abortion to be actually accessible. Maybe a woman doesn't want to share her reasons for getting an abortion and she shouldn't have to. The only non-medically relevant questioning that is appropriate before the procedure is to be sure that she is not being coerced into having the abortion and that she made the decision of her own free will. Beyond that, it's none of your business.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 17:38
|
|
|
Skinny King Pimp posted:The problem with this is that you're putting restrictions on elective abortions. You can't do that beyond a gestational age limit if you want abortion to be actually accessible. Maybe a woman doesn't want to share her reasons for getting an abortion and she shouldn't have to. The only non-medically relevant questioning that is appropriate before the procedure is to be sure that she is not being coerced into having the abortion and that she made the decision of her own free will. Beyond that, it's none of your business. It's doublethink and I'll freely cop to that but I'm going to dig in my heels anyway. Just about every world government has acknowledged that aborting a fetus because it's female is both a symptom and a cause of cultural backwardness that we're better off without. Actually putting up meaningful barriers to gendercide is impractical and drat-near unenforceable, but this is about how things ought to be and not how they are. So far as gestational age limits, I think 25 weeks is plenty of time to affirm what a lot of pregnant women realize long before then.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 17:51
|
|
|
HopperUK posted:Yes, a woman should be able to obtain an abortion for any reason, at least up to the age of viability. Same. 27/M
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
flakeloaf posted:It's doublethink and I'll freely cop to that but I'm going to dig in my heels anyway. Just about every world government has acknowledged that aborting a fetus because it's female is both a symptom and a cause of cultural backwardness that we're better off without. Actually putting up meaningful barriers to gendercide is impractical and drat-near unenforceable, but this is about how things ought to be and not how they are. Hey, I think it's completely amoral and awful to have an abortion just because the fetus is female. We completely agree there. Where we disagree is about the way things ought to be. No woman should ever have to justify herself before being able to obtain an abortion. Now, if the woman feels coerced into getting the abortion either by someone directly or for cultural reasons, she should feel safe telling the clinic staff and the clinic should have resources in place to help her.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
That's an admirable principle that's very easy to stand behind. Up here, we got around the justification problem by by making it really inconvenient to learn the sex of the fetus before the maximum gestational age. Without that info you can't very well have a sex selection abortion, and whatever other reason you might have (except for duress) is quite rightly none of anyone else's business.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
I'm in an interesting position as the only liberal in a Georgia hospital NICU (also foreign  ) I've seen the horrible cases of 23 weekers who've been aggressively resuscitated. None of the 3 really bad cases I've been involved with in the last year turned out well at all. They were kept alive for torture. But that isn't what you're asking sorry! But yes to all 3: but for the 3rd I think 24-25 weeks would be a cutoff, We can actually get them through ok. 28 F
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 15:11
|
|
|
Brennanite posted:I don't particularly like abortion, but I do believe it should be safe and legal. Well, nobody likes abortions. Being "pro-abortion" doesn't mean being thinking abortions are awesome and that everyone should have one, it means being in favour of abortions being available for those who need them, but preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place would be the ideal. And if you don't like abortions, you should definitely make them safe and legal if you want fewer of them to take place, because countries with safe and legal abortions available have lower abortions rates that countries that have banned them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 12:48
|
|
|
I think its a woman's decision on what she wants to do with her own body. Having an abortion is not like getting your hair cut like some people in our society believe it to be.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 01:01
|
|
|
29 / m 1) Yes 2) Yes 3) Yes It's her body. A man may have a say in the matter, but ultimately it is the woman's choice.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 01:39
|
|
|
It should be mandatory in all cases. (30/f)
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 04:46
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:Selection bias means that the results from a survey conducted like this are entirely valueless for statistical analysis. But you probably know that. Presumably he's posting the same survey in Mumsnet and will compare the results.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 12:30
|
|
|
We should abort every baby
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 13:19
|
|
|
Babies are awful abort babies for their precious precious stem cells pls
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
Yes to the first two. Not my position to say to the third. 24m
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 00:04
|
|
|
Three Yes answers from me I don't understand people who think abortions are legit murder but are somehow okay with 1. but not 3. If the baby is a person, why do the circumstances of its conception matter at all? Jeza posted:That's a really good point, and it highlights the mild hypocrisy behind treating birth as 100% a woman's choice yet also a 50/50 financial responsibility. The only answer it is simply a pragmatic solution from the state's point of view. States recognise (esp. those signed up to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child) that raising a child needs to meet certain criteria, and meeting them takes money. The state doesn't want to pay if it doesn't have to, and it's simpler to take the money from the other biological parent. The most glaring problem with the argument that unprotected sex (or protected sex with failing protection) is the 'choice' men make is that it is equally applicable to women. If the "live with the consequences argument" is applied to men, it should also be applied to women (as many anti-choice people try to do). As it stands now, men are held to have consented to parenthood by engaging in sex (even protected sex, which explicitly indicates a desire NOT to be a parent), but women are not. Obviously it can't ever be equal, because forcing a woman to have a child she doesn't want, or to abort a child she does want would be monstrous, but it could be better if men could legally disengage from parenthood as well. Having your entire future shaped by someone else's decision is lovely, we should limit who can do it to presidents and CEOs
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 06:05 |
|
|
1) Do you agree with abortion in cases of rape/incest? Rape yes, incest no. 2) Do you agree with abortion in cases of medical emergency i.e. the mother's life vs the fetus? Depends on circumstances. If mother has 40% or more chance of fatality if abortion is not induced then yes. No if it's less than that. 3) Do you believe a woman should be able to have an abortion for any reason, as a matter of personal decision? Depends on who is funding it. If they pay out of pocket/insurance yes. If they have to use tax dollars no.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 21:21
|
|