Rape and pregnancy: the ignorance of the GOP

[Gahars]

Not to throw fuel into the fire, but...

Rep. Steve King: I've Never Heard of a Girl Getting Pregnant From Statutory Rape or Incest

 

[Hells Malice]

Not to throw fuel into the fire, but...

Rep. Steve King: I've Never Heard of a Girl Getting Pregnant From Statutory [censored] or Incest

Link got censored, lol. Miiight have wanted to change the link name

Anyway, what's with all the ignorant white bumpkins talking about [censored] and pregnancy lately? It's a lot more sad than it is funny.

 

[Guild McCommunist]

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/steve-king-statutory-rape.php?ref=fpb

A reposting of the link since I'm exempt from the "censored" thing.

 

[Issac]

Do you disagree that unwanted pregnancy may just be a part of "life is tough," that that's a reasonable assertion? I'm just wondering. It seems a lot of people think "this one part of life should be easy, and only happen exactly when you want it to."

Unwanted pregnancy is as much a part of "life is tough" as getting sick is a part of it, but just because "life if tough" doesn't mean that we couldn't do anything to make it a little easier. When people get sick, we don't tell them to just accept their sickness and do nothing, instead we actively try and improve their situation via modern medicine. Why would we tell a woman to just accept an unwanted pregnancy and do nothing, when we could actually do something to improve her situation?

....because we already have a million things to help moms.....without killing the unborn.

If it was discovered that drinking the fresh blood of a 25-year-old asian man would instantly cure the common cold...would we support that over plain old cold medicine? You had reasonable arguments before that leic7.

No, when someone doesn't want her pregnancy when she's already pregnant, there are really only 2 options for her:
a. stop the pregnancy
b. keep the pregnancy

Those two are mutually exclusive events with a probability sum equal to 1. She has to choose one to the exclusion of another. When a person clearly does not want (b), (a) is her only choice; there is no other choice. If she could not get (a), she would be stuck with (b), against her wish.

As a society, we really cannot justify forcing people to keep their pregnancies and keep their bodies in a certain shape in order to keep the bunch of cells growing *inside* their bodies. Pregnancy is such an intimate bodily function that it has to be a voluntary one, not just at the point of conception, but throughout the entire duration of the pregnancy.

The cells that are developing inside a person, literally, and consuming nutrients from their host, are not a person. A 25-year-old man is a person, a pregnant woman is a person, so is a 1-day-old baby; but a sperm cell is not a person, an egg cell is not a person, a zygote is not a person, neither is an embryo. As far as I'm concerned, a person does not live literally *inside* another person.

I agree with most part of your comment, except for this bolded part. In sweden abortion is legal. Though only within 18 weeks. 19th pregnancy week = you have to keep it.
Now, that little "sperm cell" has a heart which starts to beat of its own after 6 weeks.and around 9 weeks it looks like a human baby. I would feel uneasy not calling that a person, something with eyes, a brain, a beating heart.. However, a woman should be able to choose for her self! 18 weeks is quite far in my eyes, but still alright. I rather those who realise they're pregnant to terminate the pregnancy as soon as possible if they don't intend to keep it.

 

[leic7]

Do you disagree that unwanted pregnancy may just be a part of "life is tough," that that's a reasonable assertion? I'm just wondering. It seems a lot of people think "this one part of life should be easy, and only happen exactly when you want it to."

Unwanted pregnancy is as much a part of "life is tough" as getting sick is a part of it, but just because "life if tough" doesn't mean that we couldn't do anything to make it a little easier. When people get sick, we don't tell them to just accept their sickness and do nothing, instead we actively try and improve their situation via modern medicine. Why would we tell a woman to just accept an unwanted pregnancy and do nothing, when we could actually do something to improve her situation?

....because we already have a million things to help moms.....without killing the unborn.

If it was discovered that drinking the fresh blood of a 25-year-old asian man would instantly cure the common cold...would we support that over plain old cold medicine? You had reasonable arguments before that leic7.

No, when someone doesn't want her pregnancy when she's already pregnant, there are really only 2 options for her:
a. stop the pregnancy
b. keep the pregnancy

Those two are mutually exclusive events with a probability sum equal to 1. She has to choose one to the exclusion of another. When a person clearly does not want (b), (a) is her only choice; there is no other choice. If she could not get (a), she would be stuck with (b), against her wish.

As a society, we really cannot justify forcing people to keep their pregnancies and keep their bodies in a certain shape in order to keep the bunch of cells growing *inside* their bodies. Pregnancy is such an intimate bodily function that it has to be a voluntary one, not just at the point of conception, but throughout the entire duration of the pregnancy.

The cells that are developing inside a person, literally, and consuming nutrients from their host, are not a person. A 25-year-old man is a person, a pregnant woman is a person, so is a 1-day-old baby; but a sperm cell is not a person, an egg cell is not a person, a zygote is not a person, neither is an embryo. As far as I'm concerned, a person does not live literally *inside* another person.

I agree with most part of your comment, except for this bolded part. In sweden abortion is legal. Though only within 18 weeks. 19th pregnancy week = you have to keep it.
Now, that little "sperm cell" has a heart which starts to beat of its own after 6 weeks.and around 9 weeks it looks like a human baby. I would feel uneasy not calling that a person, something with eyes, a brain, a beating heart.. However, a woman should be able to choose for her self! 18 weeks is quite far in my eyes, but still alright. I rather those who realise they're pregnant to terminate the pregnancy as soon as possible if they don't intend to keep it.

Yeah obviously the sooner you do it, the better. I would feel awful seeing a miniature baby get aborted, but still. A person should have full authority over their own body. If they don't, what it means in the context of abortion is that their pregnancy would be involuntary. Involuntary pregnancy, and the subsequent involuntary labour and childbirth, are just as bad as slavery.

 

[Foxi4]

After reading a few posts in this thread I had to shake my head and sigh - there are numerous reasons why abortion is not always the answer, but I'll start from the top.

There are numerous ways two consenting people can make sure they are safe as far as intercourse is concerned, ranging from the most basic like condoms (for men), cervical caps, diaphragms (for women) and so-on to the more elaborate, like long-term implants (usually made of precious metals) - those are the physical contraception methods. Their prices vary, but I sincerely doubt that anyone might not be able to afford even the cheapest of condoms - they're not dear and they're available in nearly every convenience store.

Next there are the contraception pills. Originally quite expensive, as time passed, their prices went down and nowadays you can easily find a monthly set for nearly the same price you'd pay for a pack of condoms. They won't protect you from S.T.D's, but let's assume that the partners are clean and trust eachother in that regard. There are also sprays and foaming capsules if you want to further ensure that the male's seed won't make it to the egg, and although they're not effective enough as a stand-alone contraception method, they further enhance your security while you're using other methods. These are the chemical and hormonal contraception methods.

Now, let's assume that the worst had happened - a woman forgot to take her pill, the condom broke, all protection methods failed - fear not, there's yet another option. A fertilized egg travels quite a distance before it reaches the womb and nests within it. During this process, it is still in a non-developing, "sleeping" state. This journey plus the proper nesting process take aprox. 3 days (72 hours). During that time, a woman may choose to take a "Morning-After" pill (or pill set - they come in many varieties) - this will trigger her body to discard the lining of her womb and block the nesting process, ultimately preventing pregnancy as well. It's not a contraception method, but let's call it the "safety buoy" for those who forgot to stay safe for whatever reasons.

With all those methods available, I deduce that if a woman becomes pregnant after a consentual sexual act... it's her problem. I'm not even being sexist here - both partners had a myriad of options to choose from and refused to use them. Instead, they chose to leave nature's business to dumb luck and cross their fingers, hoping that the woman won't get pregnant. As we already know, hope is not a good contraception.

Now, it's time to face the important questions. Do I think that abortions should be performed at all? Yes, I believe so, but only in extreme cases such as [censored] and only in early stages of the pregnancy. Once the soon-to-be fetus develops its first organs, it's too late. It's a human being that has no means of defense, and if the state has to step in to defend it then so be it. The only instance where abortion should be performed regardless of the stage of pregnancy is when the pregnancy endangers the life of the woman in question, but even then, it should ultimately be her choice as it's her life that's at stake.

What about all those women who became pregnant due to their or their partner's negligence? Tough. The couples in question should face the consequences of what they've done - you have intercourse without protection and you get pregnant, the wheel of life turns. I'm not saying that they have to raise the baby - by no means! There are hundreds, thousands of couples who cannot have children at all, they would really treat a newborn like a blessing.

Why should I care, and more importantly, pay for abortions that are againts what I believe in? "I wasn't careful with my boyfriend, so hey! I know! I'll have an abortion! After all, it's not a baby if it's not out yet, right?" - wrong. I don't think I should be worrying about someone else's pregnancy out of negligence - I did nothing to cause it.

I don't want to point at people, but certain members of this community think that "unwanted pregnancy is as much a sickness as any other" - I just want to say that I find this statement disgusting. Pregnancy is a bodily function, pregnancy is normal. People aren't asking to become sick - they just become sick due to circumstances beyond their control. Consentual intercourse is well-within everyone's control and putting an equating pregnancy with common influenza is stretching the line way too far.

 

[FAST6191]

With all those methods available, I deduce that if a woman becomes pregnant after a consentual sexual act... it's her problem. I'm not even being sexist here - both partners had a myriad of options to choose from and refused to use them. Instead, they chose to leave nature's business to dumb luck and cross their fingers, hoping that the woman won't get pregnant. As we already know, hope is not a good contraception.

Now, it's time to face the important questions. Do I think that abortions should be performed at all? Yes, I believe so, but only in extreme cases such as [censored] and only in early stages of the pregnancy. Once the soon-to-be fetus develops its first organs, it's too late. It's a human being that has no means of defense, and if the state has to step in to defend it then so be it. The only instance where abortion should be performed regardless of the stage of pregnancy is when the pregnancy endangers the life of the woman in question, but even then, it should ultimately be her choice as it's her life that's at stake.

What about all those women who became pregnant due to their or their partner's negligence? Tough. The couples in question should face the consequences of what they've done - you have intercourse without protection and you get pregnant, the wheel of life turns. I'm not saying that they have to raise the baby - by no means! There are hundreds, thousands of couples who cannot have children at all, they would really treat a newborn like a blessing.

I don't want to point at people, but certain members of this community think that "unwanted pregnancy is as much a sickness as any other" - I just want to say that I find this statement disgusting. Pregnancy is a bodily function, pregnancy is normal. People aren't asking to become sick - they just become sick due to circumstances beyond their control. Consentual intercourse is well-within everyone's control and putting an equating pregnancy with common influenza is stretching the line way too far.

My posting probably counts as continuing a topic that had run a course and was beginning to falter.

No qualms with the present incarnation of your options and methods (hence their being chopped)- there are some minor discussion points later (not sure about the last few years but the UK did not care for spermicide for the longest time where in the US at least it was common) and I should note condoms are free to anyone that wanders into a sexual health clinic in the UK among other places (schools and universities will also have things here). What I will posit is some of the chemical methods are quite far reaching with the end result being the foetus being broken down into chemicals and reabsorbed- how might this figure into things?

"When it develops organs"..... if that is your stance then fair enough and I am far too lazy right not to look up the human foetus development chart to reconcile development phases/times with accepted times for various types of abortions but I do have to note it is but your opinion which will probably alter the weight it can carry depending upon the situation. I can certainly see where philosophical issues might arise between abortions being performed at one stage yet with serious medical intervention there is chance that someone could survive at the same stage but that is an adjunct discussion at best.

"Tough [you get to carry it through]". Adoption and such is certainly a viable option but assuming the square bracketed text is accurate I would find that objectionable both on a general philosophical/game playing level (you have a quick, easy and relatively hassle free option and you are choosing the hard method?) and I will go further and say something like then the several months it will realistically cost the would be mother and related support networks are not inconsiderable (even immediate adoption will probably see some maternity leave happen).

""unwanted pregnancy is as much a sickness as any other" - .... I just want to say that I find this statement disgusting"
Far be it for me to interpret the words of another but I would argue it could be read as seen as it is a problem for some that is potentially solved by medical science (be it the results of it or people practising it). Pregnancy is certainly a natural state but it will have a decided impact on lifestyle as mentioned in the previous paragraph and although it is often forgotten medicine is there to improve quality of life as well as make sure you carry on as close to breathing/a normal state should you so desire/for as long as possible. Likewise there are occasions being sick is beyond the control of the person that gets sick but it is not clear cut (see also health and injury insurance rates variation according to activity for a basic one and take to it further I will look at something like teeth- your gnashers might be fine but for at least partially aesthetic reasons braces might be an idea or even come the other way and ponder if not having a completely healthy diet plus exercise plus whatever might trouble something somewhere) which means we have a spectrum rather than a binary classification and as such people can fall along it. Carrying on from that pregnancy is not the only potentially negative outcome of sexual activity and I fail to see a logical leap between denying someone an abortion (time issues aside in the case of purely socio economic reasons) and denying them assistance with a STD/STI/VD/[insert current acronym/initialism de jour] if indeed the object of medical care* is quality of life. As for the phrase I could agree the phrasing itself was not very choice unless it was picked so as to be succinct in which case I might have to say success.

*given everybody living will interact with medical care at some level I probably want a better term but something like "wellbeing management" seems somewhat akin to manglement speak.

I suppose in the end in it a matter of philosophy on what constitutes life, what constitutes viable life/what is a useful abstraction, what is justifiable as far as preventing things from going further, what possible modifiers there are (geography, resources, state of science.....) and assigning/determining value. Given that for each of those there possibility for near endless debate before it even comes to attempting to wring a universal philosophy from it.

 

[leic7]

I don't want to point at people, but certain members of this community think that "unwanted pregnancy is as much a sickness as any other" - I just want to say that I find this statement disgusting. Pregnancy is a bodily function, pregnancy is normal. People aren't asking to become sick - they just become sick due to circumstances beyond their control. Consentual intercourse is well-within everyone's control and putting an equating pregnancy with common influenza is stretching the line way too far.

I may be the one who used the words "unwanted pregnancy" and "sickness" within the same paragraph, but that doesn't mean there's an implied equivalence between them. I never said nor implied an unwanted pregnancy was a "sickness" in my original analogy. Why are you getting all indignant over nothing?

If someone doesn't want the pregnancy, she obviously didn't ask for it. Whether you think her situation could've been preventable is irrelevant. It is what it is now, and that's what matters. If a smoker gets lung cancer, if a drunk driver gets hurt, if someone catches pneumonia after being out in the cold without a jacket, if someone who doesn't know how to swim goes on a boat without a life jacket, and drowns... Do we help them? In Canada, yes we do, with public funding. I would never say because I did nothing to cause their suffering, they should either pay out of their own pockets, or continue to suffer. Could any of those situations have been preventable? That's irrelevant. What's done is done. Let's focus on helping people who need help now.

There's something I don't know how to stress enough: the importance of a person's right to their bodily integrity. I think it's absolutely paramount that a person be able to retain full control over their bodily integrity, that this control should override even the right to life of another human being. So the life of the fetus, even if you do consider it a person, takes a backseat to the right of the woman to maintain her bodily integrity. Why is the right to maintain one's bodily integrity paramount? If it wasn't, the state could forcibly take anyone's kidney, bone marrow, blood, etc. in order to save another person's life, without the donor's consent. But we can't do that, even if you're the only match for them, and your refusal would lead to their certain death; we'd still honour your wish, simply because that's your body, your call.

 

[Foxi4]

I may be the one who used the words "unwanted pregnancy" and "sickness" within the same paragraph, but that doesn't mean there's an implied equivalence between them. I never said nor implied an unwanted pregnancy was a "sickness" in my original analogy. Why are you getting all indignant over nothing?

That's simply how I understood the statement - if that was not your point, fair enough, but that's how it came across to me.

If someone doesn't want the pregnancy, she obviously didn't ask for it. Whether you think her situation could've been preventable is irrelevant. It is what it is now, and that's what matters. If a smoker gets lung cancer, if a drunk driver gets hurt, if someone catches pneumonia after being out in the cold without a jacket, if someone who doesn't know how to swim goes on a boat without a life jacket, and drowns... Do we help them? In Canada, yes we do, with public funding. I would never say because I did nothing to cause their suffering, they should either pay out of their own pockets, or continue to suffer. Could any of those situations have been preventable? That's irrelevant. What's done is done. Let's focus on helping people who need help now.

I think you're mistaking a direct consequence of someone's actions and accidents and illnesses. If a smoker gets lung cancer, that's an actual life-threatening sickness. It may be a consequence of the smoking but it doesn't necesarily have to be connected with it, but that's besides the point - the treatment is beneficial to the patient's health. Unwanted pregnancy, is not an illness, it's not life-threatening - it doesn't have to be "treated", it's simply unwanted and that makes a huge difference. If someone catches pneumonia after being in the cold without a jacket, again, he catches an actual illness. Pregnancy is not an illness, it's a bodily function. If someone starts drowning because he or she had no life jacket on him or her, it was irresponsible to go swimming or sailing, but again, a life is at stake here. In case of pregnancy, there are two lives at stake, which is why abortion "just because I didn't feel like making sure I was safe" should not be legal. A fetus is not a pimple, you can't just pluck it out and get on with your life - it's a developing human being and if you didn't want it in the first place, you had more than enough options to prevent your pregnancy. Doctors vow to first and foremost not harm patients, and abortion is harmful - to the developing fetus and in some cases to the mother as well.

There's something I don't know how to stress enough: the importance of a person's right to their bodily integrity. I think it's absolutely paramount that a person be able to retain full control over their bodily integrity, that this control should override even the right to life of another human being.

So, let's say that you have siamese sisters or brothers who share vital life organs and their separation would mean that one of them dies. What do you do then? It's the exact same relation - you have two human beings and one of them has to die for the sake of the other, right? Wrong. Hardly any doctor would agree to perform surgery in such a case as it spells a death sentence to one of the twins, yet when there's a mother and her unborn child, people are quick to simply scoop up the fetus. How come? Because it cannot speak for itself yet?

So the life of the fetus, even if you do consider it a person, takes a backseat to the right of the woman to maintain her bodily integrity. Why is the right to maintain one's bodily integrity paramount? If it wasn't, the state could forcibly take anyone's kidney, bone marrow, blood, etc. in order to save another person's life, without the donor's consent. But we can't do that, even if you're the only match for them, and your refusal would lead to their certain death; we'd still honour your wish, simply because that's your body, your call.

It's nothing like that situation at all - the patient and the would-be donor do not share a mutual relation like the mother and the fetus do. You're boldly talking about the bodily integrity of a woman completely forgetting about the bodily integrity of the unborn child - you value one life higher than the other, that's a logical fallacy, life is life. Once the embryo turns into a proper fetus and becomes an entity separate from the mother entirely and only connected to her via the womb and the cord, you should consider it as a separate person because that's who it is in biological terms. As I said, if the pregnancy was not wanted, the mother had time before the fetus was formed - why didn't she use that time to take a "Morning-After"? Why didn't she think ahead and protect herself from unwanted pregnancy? Why didn't her partner do it? The couple is at fault and the couple should deal with it - you're shifting the responsibility for their actions from themselves onto the doctors when they had all the chances to prevent their "predicament" from happening.

I'm anti-abortion (on-demand, not when it's necessary for health-related reasons or in case of [censored], where it could cause further psychological trauma), I'm pro education. Teens should be properly taught about how to prevent unwanted pregnancy, contraception should be widely available and affordable and every clinic should have a "safety window" where mothers can leave their "unwanted children" - I choose that option over practically murder for the sake of someone's comfort.

My posting probably counts as continuing a topic that had run a course and was beginning to falter.

No qualms with the present incarnation of your options and methods (hence their being chopped)- there are some minor discussion points later (not sure about the last few years but the UK did not care for spermicide for the longest time where in the US at least it was common) and I should note condoms are free to anyone that wanders into a sexual health clinic in the UK among other places (schools and universities will also have things here). What I will posit is some of the chemical methods are quite far reaching with the end result being the foetus being broken down into chemicals and reabsorbed- how might this figure into things?

"When it develops organs"..... if that is your stance then fair enough and I am far too lazy right not to look up the human foetus development chart to reconcile development phases/times with accepted times for various types of abortions but I do have to note it is but your opinion which will probably alter the weight it can carry depending upon the situation. I can certainly see where philosophical issues might arise between abortions being performed at one stage yet with serious medical intervention there is chance that someone could survive at the same stage but that is an adjunct discussion at best.

"Tough [you get to carry it through]". Adoption and such is certainly a viable option but assuming the square bracketed text is accurate I would find that objectionable both on a general philosophical/game playing level (you have a quick, easy and relatively hassle free option and you are choosing the hard method?) and I will go further and say something like then the several months it will realistically cost the would be mother and related support networks are not inconsiderable (even immediate adoption will probably see some maternity leave happen).

""unwanted pregnancy is as much a sickness as any other" - .... I just want to say that I find this statement disgusting"
Far be it for me to interpret the words of another but I would argue it could be read as seen as it is a problem for some that is potentially solved by medical science (be it the results of it or people practising it). Pregnancy is certainly a natural state but it will have a decided impact on lifestyle as mentioned in the previous paragraph and although it is often forgotten medicine is there to improve quality of life as well as make sure you carry on as close to breathing/a normal state should you so desire/for as long as possible. Likewise there are occasions being sick is beyond the control of the person that gets sick but it is not clear cut (see also health and injury insurance rates variation according to activity for a basic one and take to it further I will look at something like teeth- your gnashers might be fine but for at least partially aesthetic reasons braces might be an idea or even come the other way and ponder if not having a completely healthy diet plus exercise plus whatever might trouble something somewhere) which means we have a spectrum rather than a binary classification and as such people can fall along it. Carrying on from that pregnancy is not the only potentially negative outcome of sexual activity and I fail to see a logical leap between denying someone an abortion (time issues aside in the case of purely socio economic reasons) and denying them assistance with a STD/STI/VD/[insert current acronym/initialism de jour] if indeed the object of medical care* is quality of life. As for the phrase I could agree the phrasing itself was not very choice unless it was picked so as to be succinct in which case I might have to say success.

*given everybody living will interact with medical care at some level I probably want a better term but something like "wellbeing management" seems somewhat akin to manglement speak.

I suppose in the end in it a matter of philosophy on what constitutes life, what constitutes viable life/what is a useful abstraction, what is justifiable as far as preventing things from going further, what possible modifiers there are (geography, resources, state of science.....) and assigning/determining value. Given that for each of those there possibility for near endless debate before it even comes to attempting to wring a universal philosophy from it.

I agree, it is a never-ending debate. It really is simple to me though - pregnancy is not an STD, it's not an illness and requires no "treatment" - it's not something that's broken in your body - it's a natural consequence of sexual intercourse and the resulting "life" should be treated with utmost respect - the same level of respect the mother recieves. People carry on saying that doctors are all about "improving the quality of life" - to me, they're all about tending to the sick and protecting life. I'm just glad that the thread didn't magically turn into a flamewar, really. It's an interesting discussion and I'm glad it's on an appropriate intellectual level so-far.

 

[DiscostewSM]

I keep hearing "what about life-threatening pregnancies? Shouldn't that allow abortion?" (I'm still speaking about government-funded abortions)

At what stage of the pregnancy does one know whether their pregnancy can be life-threatening? Answer - It can be as early as before conception ever takes place. The main ones are life-styles and health. If one lives unhealthily, and gets pregnant, do you think one should be allowed to get an abortion via government funds because they chose even before sex to put themselves at risk? If a woman goes to the doctor, finds out there are risks with her in particular if she gets pregnant, yet does the nasty and gets pregnant anyways even with all available pregnancy prevention methods, does she get a free pass with the government? What if she doesn't go to the doctor to know about the risks if any and the same scenario happens? Free ticket there? We live in an age where knowledge is at a person's fingertips. If a person isn't willing to look things up before engaging in anything, why should they be an exception? Why should ignorance be a passable mindset?

 

[FAST6191]

Agreed that certain risk factors can be determined very early on (both through tests and family history) and before going on I should note that neither of us appear to be that well versed in obstetrics and gynaecology or related fields so debating this will probably end up amusing to ones versed in such fields. Stil I will note one of the most common issues is ectopic pregnancy (umbilical cord attaching to a fallopian tube as opposed to the uterus and crazily risky to all involved) which naturally can not be determined prior to getting pregnant (and given it can be some time from actually being pregnant to being ultrasounded.....). Similarly most modern medics will refrain from blanket statements and will instead say something like if you get pregnant you with your biology are at risk of (diabetes, hypertension, stroke.....) but prediction is hard and when maladies are combined it can turn quite easily from "we will need to keep an eye on that at each checkup" to "you will need to take these pills" to "you will need to do the whole bedrest thing until you give birth" to "get me an operating room this instant". Furthermore you also have probabilistic things like those maladies associated with recessive genes (historically spina bifida although some stuff is happening there through to things like downs, sickle cell and going through to things like deafness*) and things the mother getting illnesses during pregnancy (pregnant but then diagnosed with cancer or possibility of transmission of a disease to the foetus).

*there was actually a debate in the past where deaf parents sought to create a deaf child and on the flip side how far autism might go in the event of a test for it (it is a spectrum disorder but even in the very much not so functional area some interesting things have happened) but that also involved discussion of IVF techniques to attempt to cause it (up to and including inducing multiple pregnancy and selectively aborting) so again probably warrants a different discussion.

Likewise there are also issues like partially detached umbilical cord which is risky for all parties and could be solves either by aborting (in many ways the cheaper, easier and less risky/invasive procedure) and proper surgery in an attempt to reattach it to say nothing of the halfway station of aborting but still needing surgery for the sake of the would be mother and "we will try but if we deem it"- what goes here?

For giggles I will come the other way and note that carrying multiple foetuses can also pose a lot of problems for both the person carrying the foetuses and the other foetuses involved so terminating one can give the other a chance to survive. For further giggles biology itself will often see one of multiple foetuses terminated during pregnancy (see also chimerism and "Siamese" twins) and theoretically you probably could catch it and prevent it happening.

With the exception of the further giggles sentence and maybe some of the cancer stuff and the "Siamese twins" none of those are a "once or twice in a career"/"we are going to need to call in a further specialist" sort of thing probably even at the GP/midwife level and certainly not at the specialist level.

To top it all or perhaps something that will render the rest of this post so much extra food for thought where I might be inclined to possibly entertain the "you screwed up now deal with it debate" aka the merits of socio economic abortion at some level and there are more eminently debatable aspects of abortion procedure (timings and such) how would you answer a charge of denying potentially knowable conditions prior is no different to denying basic emergency care? It gets tricky as it then involves what level of medical care if afforded as a basic human right and/or reconciling it with healthcare systems of a country but my contention would still be "got a potentially viable medical reason- come on in" even if I were to sideline everything else.

Short version- you tried to make a blanket statement of a sort and I am calling you on it.

 

[Hanafuda]

A fetus isn't a human being.

That's what it boils down to, isn't it? Whether you agree with this statement, or not. Because if you don't agree that a fetus isn't a human being, then abortion is clearly intentional, cold-blooded, self-serving murder. And if you think a fetus (which is not "two cells" as someone put it, but by the time most abortions are performed has a face, ten fingers, ten toes, etc.) is not a human being, then what is it exactly?? Does it really matter if it's not "viable" yet, i.e. able to live outside the mother's body? The mother's body is, functionally, just an incubator, a life support mechanism. Is an unconscious old person on life support not a human being?

I have raised three children - adopted one and the biological father of two. During both pregnancies I have felt my babies' feet and hands push and kick, felt their bodies twist around ... they're definitely alive in there. One time after rubbing cocoa butter all over my wife's stomach (supposed to protect against stretch marks) I could make out the profile of my daughter's entire body through the skin ... for just a moment, cuz then she moved a bit and I couldn't see it anymore. Needed to get more comfortable, I guess.

Wow, what an idiot.

Abortion should be legal (since the beginning of time). But many will think it's wrong. Why? Could be morals, religion views, etc.

Oh, I dunno ... maybe it's the ripped-to-pieces human baby corpse in the trash that they find objectionable?



I have a hard time with this issue, because I don't just take one political party's side and rationalize my mind into agreeing. I've thought hard about it, for many years of my life. But believe it or not, despite what I wrote above, I am of the opinion that abortion should be legal. Legal, but not treated as a non-event or 'just a medical procedure.' It should be STRONGLY discouraged, because it is a killing, period. I don't know how it is that we've come to the point as a society that we can digest millions of purposefully terminated babies a year and treat it as nothing, but that is where we are. Still, I am pretty much a libertarian when you get right down to my core beliefs and I don't want the government involved. And that's that.

 

[Haloman800]

I hope everybody realizes that 1 member of ANY organization does not speak for the entire party, or in this case, any of the rest of the organization. I would also like to mention that the man who made the claims retracted his statements later and apologized.

Now, I'm not going to make any comments on [censored], but abortion is wrong. It is murdering an unborn child. Just because he/she can't defend themselves does not make it right. A child in the womb can develop a heartbeat as early as 6 weeks.

I find it funny that liberals thing it's okay to murder innocent babies but they think it's wrong to murder guilty, hardened, murderous, criminals.

 

[MelodieOctavia]

I hope everybody realizes that 1 member of ANY organization does not speak for the entire party, or in this case, any of the rest of the organization. I would also like to mention that the man who made the claims retracted his statements later and apologized.

Now, I'm not going to make any comments on [censored], but abortion is wrong. It is murdering an unborn child. Just because he/she can't defend themselves does not make it right. A child in the womb can develop a heartbeat as early as 6 weeks.

I find it funny that liberals thing it's okay to murder innocent babies but they think it's wrong to murder guilty, hardened, murderous, criminals.

Yeah, well...I'm all for voluntary euthanasia of the elderly and terminal patients, so what's that say about me?

 

[Hanafuda]

Yeah, well...I'm all for voluntary euthanasia of the elderly and terminal patients, so what's that say about me?

Not much of anything when it comes to this issue ... a conscious decision to terminate one's self is not the same as a conscious decision to terminate another.

 

[MelodieOctavia]

Yeah, well...I'm all for voluntary euthanasia of the elderly and terminal patients, so what's that say about me?

Not much of anything when it comes to this issue ... a conscious decision to terminate one's self is not the same as a conscious decision to terminate another.

And as said before in this topic, there really is no straight answer, unless you can set a solid definition of what makes a human...well, human. What is the line between a person, and what's not a person? And for that matter, what right is it for any one person to define it? This might very well be an issue that's debated about and legislated on for decades to come.

 

[DiscostewSM]

Yeah, well...I'm all for voluntary euthanasia of the elderly and terminal patients, so what's that say about me?

Not much of anything when it comes to this issue ... a conscious decision to terminate one's self is not the same as a conscious decision to terminate another.

And as said before in this topic, there really is no straight answer, unless you can set a solid definition of what makes a human...well, human. What is the line between a person, and what's not a person? And for that matter, what right is it for any one person to define it? This might very well be an issue that's debated about and legislated on for decades to come.

Well, just like dogs reproduce more dogs and nothing else, cats reproduce more cats and nothing else, flowers reproduce more flowers, etc etc. so unless somehow we are different from this pattern, isn't it safe to say that humans reproduce more humans? What is in the womb of a human is human and can't be anything else.

 

[FAST6191]

And as said before in this topic, there really is no straight answer, unless you can set a solid definition of what makes a human...well, human. What is the line between a person, and what's not a person? And for that matter, what right is it for any one person to define it? This might very well be an issue that's debated about and legislated on for decades to come.

Well, just like dogs reproduce more dogs and nothing else, cats reproduce more cats and nothing else, flowers reproduce more flowers, etc etc. so unless somehow we are different from this pattern, isn't it safe to say that humans reproduce more humans? What is in the womb of a human is human and can't be anything else.

Strictly speaking evolution dictates speciation tends to happen with the only reason for it not to happen to a species being that it went extinct. This means humans will not always produce more humans and indeed present humans may produce none or infertile offspring with a distant ancestor. There was also that whole debate about introducing long* human gene sequences to other things or introducing long sequences to another.

*do we then have the debate of what constitutes long sequences- all DNA is C, T, A and G arranged in pairs and chemically identical so is removing a section of 6 base pairs from a human sample functionally any different from another sample?

Likewise the argument that waving my arm through the air means a couple of molecules of Nitrogen, oxygen, carbon.... will never meet and as such could form a human life is a bit out there but life in the form of viruses and bacteria ( http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/21/science/21cell.html?_r=1 ) has been created in a lab and the basic model of scientific progress (Moore's law in silicon and the rate of mapping of the human genome and the equivalent string assembly for genes) means it may well be possible to produce a human within our lifetimes effectively from dust. Similarly there was a mouse being altered to produce sperm for another species (in this case monkeys) and some work producing sperm from stem cells and what about stuff like mitochondrial transplantation- http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7227861.stm (a human with three biological parents).

Beyond science is awesome though you are coming up on the debate others have been having- at what point is human life formed? Is it
a sperm and an egg separately? Some philosophies and such take issue here and will try to get their followers to not use contraception but likewise where does that sit with less than stellar methods (rhythm method or plain earning one's red wings/timing accordingly)?
a fertilised egg (still technically a zygote) as yet unattached to a uterus or equivalent?
a fertilised egg now attached? This would bring up the issue of morning after pills in some instances as they could technically be effective at pregnancy termination? Certainly some of the less drastic chemical processes are effective here.

A zygote is technically defined as a single cell despite two being used to make it so does it count after the initial doubling?

Granted it was not your comment formation of a heart.... "my heart was aflutter" yet science says the heart is a basic mechanical pump and the brain is where it is at. Going further down that path compared to other animals human offspring are seriously undeveloped- other animals walk, grab and more within hours and in terms of mental development apes and monkeys outpace human children for several years to say nothing of the incredibly late onset of puberty but as pregnancy is a serious burden in terms of energy gathering and use evolution presumably selected for the nine month gestation. I am not quite sure where I was heading with the previous sentence but I would hold arguing irrelevance is hard.

Again lines in the sand- bloody hard to argue for and especially with a far ranging issue like this.

Also as I forgot it in my initial reply to your questioning of medical reasons what happens if I am playing in say Sub Saharan Africa and without the benefits of a full modern medicine setup at the time and in the subsequent support network? Beyond that HIV transmission can happen from mother to child during pregnancy, during birth and possibly even during breastfeeding and as knowingly causing the transmission of HIV is a pretty heinous act (people doing as such by way of unprotected sex being charged with the more serious types of assault and various types of murder/manslaughter) where does that fit in?.

 

[Pleng]

Same could be said about the women who didn't want to be pregnant regardless of situation. Did they want to be pregnant in the first place? Why should they have to go through with the birth and have a child when they aren't ready for it? So its suddenly okay for those women to give birth and then struggle to live because they have to raise a child as well as support themselves?

"I want to have sex, but I don't want to be pregnant" Is this the kind of thinking people have nowadays when they know that sex can lead to pregnancy?

"I want to eat [at a restaurant] but I do not want to get food poisoning". There's a clear risk of getting food poisoning from eating out - so better not provide any medical for food poisoning for those who have

"I want to have a few beers, but I do not want to fall over, injure myself and have to go to hospital" - Of course your reactions are slower after even one beer, so any accident you might get involved in is clearly not to be treated

"I want to go for a run/jog/walk" - well of course there's a risk there! Better disallow any treatment for ANYBODY who leaves the house

 

[Judas18]

Shouldn't a woman be allowed to decide what goes on with her body? I really don't think anyone has the right to force a woman to have something she doesn't want. Pro Choice.