Seeking Clean Discussion and to Understand Pro-Choice Stance

[NWRatCon]

Frist of all, Thank you for your willingness to be open minded.

However, I do not accept your axiom 1 to be completely true.

For example, your part "A" of your axiom #1. While life "could" be thought to begin at contraception, I don't look at "just contraception" to dictate life. I look at viable life. For instance a fertilized egg doesn't necessarily implant itself correctly and you can have a miscarriage or a situation where the fertilized egg implants into the actual tube and must be medically removed. Miscarriages happen, so if life began does that mean the woman's body caused murder?

For your part "B" of axiom #1 I also disagree. I look at the woman (and frankly men as well) to have 100% control over their own body. If they choose to end their own life, that is up to them and I fully support their own (maybe misguided IMO) decision to do so. I do not believe in the war on drugs either. I think the age of adulthood should be ONE age for everything and not just a few things, like 18 to enter into a contract, 21 to drink, etc. It should be one age. So in rough terms, I do not consider a woman having control over her body murder.

So with those two things in disagreement, I simply cannot follow or agree to your logic. And do not get me wrong, you can be 100% against abortion and I don't really care. What you choose to do with your own body is your choice IMO. Where I have issues is when you tell others what to do or force laws for them to follow what you agree with.

Hope that helps.

I copied this to endorse it, but also to expand upon it. (Jumping in before I got to the end of the thread, so may be repeating others.) I, too, disagree with Axiom 1, and so did the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade. The decision was based upon practical medical-legal considerations at the time, but also based upon, literally, centuries of the conception of "life". The key issue was, and remains in my view, "viability".

The legal/moral conception for most of recorded history was that an embryo/fetus was not a "living thing" until it could survive outside of the woman's body - i.e., at birth. Caesarean births were possible, but were generally fatal to the mother (and usually only performed if the mother was dying, or had died, in childbirth). The ability to survive the procedure is a relatively modern development. Roe was based upon the understanding of fetal development based upon medical realities of the time (1973). Of course, medicine has moved on, but the general realities it is based upon (trimesters) have not realistically changed significantly. Fetal viability is still the medical, and legal, hallmark, in my view, and is really at 24-25 weeks of gestation. Before that, the fetus has not developed far enough to survive. Medical science has pushed it back, but there are still limits.

There is a problem, I think, both legally and morally, with the framework proposed, and "fetal heartbeat" bills and the like. It comes in two forms:
First, is that we're not really talking about a separate "being". An embryo is a potential life, but is not, realistically, a separate entity from the mother. Someday, maybe soon, science will get there, but we're not there yet. Until we do, I am not an advocate for creating artificial distinctions that have no real-world meaning.
Second, though, is the issue of limits. "Conception" is generally considered (medically) when the fertilized egg is implanted in the uterus. Unless that happens, the zygote will never be viable. Unless viability is the standard, there is no meaningful distinction between life and potential life. Why stop at the heartbeat? (Or, for that matter, why start there?) Is every fertilized egg a "human being", despite the fact that the vast majority don't survive? Why stop there? Aren't all eggs and sperm "potential human beings"? Do they require protection as well? From a moral standpoint, in my view, that goes too far.

Roe was intended to be a balanced approach to a thorny moral issue. Frankly, the framework it created is still viable in today's moral universe. It is for these reasons I reject axiom 1.

 

[Obscurity]

Roe was intended to be a balanced approach to a thorny moral issue. Frankly, the framework it created is still viable in today's moral universe. It is for these reasons I reject axiom 1.

It's not morally thorny. At all. It's morally abhorrent to deny folks the right to the autonomy of their own person. Undoing roe would threaten so many privacy laws and rulings it would be obscene.

The only thing thorny here is how little the pro-rights lobby actually frames the conversation. They are spineless and continue to allow religious zealots to undermine and command the conversation with emotional agitprop that would lead to the most intrusive and authoritarian sort of government imaginable.

 

[NWRatCon]

Stretch marks and a loose vagina is not even close to what a fetus has to endure in an abortion. You're talking about violently killing a person so another person doesn't have to be uncomfortable.

Nobody is denying that pregnancy can be tough but clearly there's a dilemma here. Abortions being illegal means women need to be a bit more careful with their sexual choices and face up to the morning sickness. Abortions being legal means millions of dead bodies a year. Tell me which one is worse.



Nobody is forced to be pregnant. There are countless ways to avoid pregnancy. One of them has a 100% success rate, the others have high 90s. There are so many options for women it's absolutely ridiculous to make the argument that abortion is a necessity. It's a convenience in 99.9999998% of cases.

I think this is exactly the kind of argumentation that JeenLeen was trying to avoid.

 

[AlphaOmega]

I never said it was a disease but it needs to be closely monitored because it can become life threatening very quickly.



Any pregnancy can take a turn at a moments notice and put the woman’s health and even her life at risk, at a point where an abortion once the symptoms are there will be too late to prevent a death of the woman or lifelong major irreparable disability.

That’s why no woman should be forced to take the risk if she wants an early elective abortion it should be her choice not to risk the pregnancy. Some women can sence there is something wrong ahead of time.


Life threatening complications aren't rare up to 8 percent of all pregnancies affected by pre- eclampsia or one of it's variants including HELLP syndrome.

We never know when a pregnancy might take a turn and become life threatening to someone we love.

Another 1 to 2.5 percent of pregnancies are ectopic pregnancies which are also life threatening.

So about 1 out 10 pregnancies can be life threatening just from 2 of the many types of life threatening complications.... eclampsia variants and ectopic pregnancies.

My daughter had HELLP syndrome with her pregnancy and she was very close to death when they performed the emergency
C section.

She went to the ER a few weeks before her due date because she was getting a horrible pain in her back just below her ribs which was caused because her liver was being damaged from the HELLP syndrome.
Usually there is pain the upper right part of the abdomen but her pain was in the back because her liver was swelling and shutting down.
They were worried her liver might fail.


Her OB/GYN was shocked when her test results came back showing she had HELLP syndrome. She had just seen him a couple days before and everything with the pregnancy appeared fine then.

My daughter was one the up to 8 percent of women in the US who every year developes 'preeclampsia, eclampsia, or a related condition such as HELLP syndrome." Thankfully she was not one of the roughly 300 US women who do die from the syndrome every year but she was one of the roughly 75,000 women every year who are counted as near misses.

From the following article:



Beyond Downton Abbey: Preeclampsia Maternal Deaths Continue Today




A little more about HELLP Syndrome:



HELLP Syndrome: Preeclampsia Foundation

HELLP Syndrome: Preeclampsia Foundation

Now many women like myself and my daughter continue our pregnancies because we choose to become parents.

But I cannot support a law or a country that did not allow elective abortions and thus forced women to continue a pregnancy that may very well put her long term health or life at risk.

On the other side of the coin I could not support a law or a country that would force a women to have an abortion against her will even if her unborn were so malformed that if it did survive birth it would cost taxpayers millions of dollars in medical care.

Each woman should have the legal option to choose whether or not she wishes to continue her pregnancy.

I support abortion if the mothers life is in danger.

 

[minnie616]

I support abortion if the mothers life is in danger.

What about irreparable damage to a major bodily function of the woman such as a stroke, heart attack, paralysis from the neck down, irreparable damage to kidneys or liver, etc.?

 

[year2late]

Strawman. I never claimed once pregnancy cannot cause complications. The claim by the pro choicer was....normal pregnancy is a disease. It is factually not a disease.

And back to the point. I do not consider it a disease but rather a "condition". A condition that causes in and of itself a host of potentially deadly diseases. I know first hand. I likely have my kidneys (maybe even my life) because I had the best of access to health care through great insurance. Most women who choose abortion do not have the medical or social support I was privileged to have.

But go ahead down the "it's not a disease" rant. A distinction without a true difference. Disease or condition? It still can cause grave harm to women. Especially the under-resourced women,

 

[AlphaOmega]

What about irreparable damage to a major bodily function of the woman such as a stroke, heart attack, paralysis from the neck down, irreparable damage to kidneys or liver, etc.?

Wouldn't that fall under life threatening?

 

[wolfsgirl]

And if they had your permission initially?

Even if a person had permission to live in my house I can legally evict them.

 

[AlphaOmega]

And back to the point. I do not consider it a disease but rather a "condition". A condition that causes in and of itself a host of potentially deadly diseases. I know first hand. I likely have my kidneys (maybe even my life) because I had the best of access to health care through great insurance. Most women who choose abortion do not have the medical or social support I was privileged to have.

But go ahead down the "it's not a disease" rant. A distinction without a true difference. Disease or condition? It still can cause grave harm to women. Especially the under-resourced women,

Please adhere to the clean discussion topic. I am not ranting. I am stating fact. A normal pregnancy is not a disease and never will be. A broken leg can also lead to all sort of life threatening complications but we don't tell people they have broken leg disease. Pregnancy is factually a condition not a disease.

 

[year2late]

I support abortion if the mothers life is in danger.

What you fail to understand is waiting to abort until the woman's life is in danger is too late.

Waiting until a woman is already on the dying path is frequently too late. And who is to judge when is too late?

I had no symptoms and my kidney's were already in peril! How would I have known ahead of time to go to doctor? I am here because an experienced MD who knew me saw a subtle sign. A woman relegated to county clinics and making decisions to make or skip appointments because she did not want to go homeless would not have the "luxury" I did.

A woman knows what resources she has to support her pregnancy - access to medical care, social resources, housing security, etc. Having poor resources makes a pregnancy and living situation much more dangerous.
'

 

[j brown's body]

I support abortion if the mothers life is in danger.

Who determines that and by what criteria?

 

[American]

Even if a person had permission to live in my house I can legally evict them.

But even after an eviction, they are still alive.

 

[wolfsgirl]

Wow. Opening-poster here. This thread has grown. I haven't been online over the weekend and won't be able to take the time to read up on all this until after Wednesday (have to study for exam for a graduate degree), but I wanted to at least add one thing.

I've been thinking a lot over the weekend about the idea of 'bodily autonomy'. And, as I think about it, I think it's a "necessary evil" sort of law. (That might be too strong, but I'll elaborate.) Some laws exist to enforce good behavior, like don't kill, don't steal, etc., and to make sure other citizens don't take away our rights. But some laws exist to make sure the government doesn't go overboard and take away our rights. Sometimes those laws might not be best from an objective morality point-of-view (and I fully admit many people believe in subjective morality or some variant thereof), but they're needed because the government is not infallible. Bad Example: even if someone didn't like freedom of religion (and I'm NOT saying that is my view), I would think they'd want it because you can't trust a government not to oppress or eventually oppress you; even in times when Christianity was a legal religion and others outlawed, there's examples of an emperor taking fancy with an idea and suddenly all the other Christian groups that were formerly legal are now illegal (e.g., Byzantine Empire with Arianism or Iconoclasm).

Bodily autonomy seems similar in that we don't want the government (or any other) to force us to use our bodies wrongly or unfairly.
I was asked a while ago (page 1 or 2 of this thread) if I thought I should be forced to give my kidney to save someone's life. After pondering, I think the answer is "in an ideal situation, yes". We aren't in a government free of bureaucratic inefficiency and corruption, and I don't think such can exist, so an "ideal situation" can't exist. But if an ideal government could exist, I think it would be reasonable to have a law saying someone should give an organ to save another's life, assuming minimal risk (akin to a normal pregnancy or extracting a kidney for donation. Not a doctor so unfamiliar with actual relative risk.)
Side note: thank you for this point, in that it did really get me thinking. Also, to avoid being a hypocrite, I think I need to figure out how to go about routinely donating blood.

So, to go back to relation to abortion, I think 'bodily autonomy' is a legal right because it's necessary for some protections. But I don't think it's a natural right we should take advantage of. (I expect many will disagree with that, and I understand that your views probably come from your beliefs and mine from mine, so it's reasonable and logical that we disagree since we have different foundations.) Thus, I don't think it's a reason to abort.
And, thus, I think bodily autonomy should have pregnancy as an exception. In a sense, once pregnant, your body is not just your own. Maybe an analogy of suddenly becoming a conjoined twin, in the situation where both are viable but death would occur to one if it were extracted... Eh, it's hard to find good analogies.

So now that the government can take my body to be used to keep another alive, can they require me to use my house to house people too? What other rights can the government take from me to keep another alive if they can take my body to do so? What other things can they force me to do with my body, or my property?
Can we force men to get vasectomies in the interest of preventing abortions? Can we require every person at birth to have a full compatibility work up to determine if they would be a suitable donor for someone in need and harvest their bone marrow, blood, and organs?
We don't even require corpses to be harvested for donations without their consent. Why should women have less bodily autonomy than a corpse?

 

[year2late]

Please adhere to the clean discussion topic. I am not ranting. I am stating fact. A normal pregnancy is not a disease and never will be. A broken leg can also lead to all sort of life threatening complications but we don't tell people they have broken leg disease. Pregnancy is factually a condition not a disease.

Again, I have acknowledged it as a condition. I am saying this condition is the cause of many deadly diseases and disorders. So it is a distinction with little difference when it comes to the health of the woman.

Would a woman that ended up with the Hellp care whether it was caused by a disease or condition? Is the out come not the same.

You are playing a semantics game and avoiding the life and death issues that a woman faces with the condition known as pregnancy.

 

[wolfsgirl]

But even after an eviction, they are still alive.

It' isn't my problem if they live or die. I can evict someone in a sub zero blizzard even though they may die, because it is not their right to live in my house, just like it is not anyones right to live in my body.

 

[ocean515]

It' isn't my problem if they live or die. I can evict someone in a sub zero blizzard even though they may die, because it is not their right to live in my house, just like it is not anyones right to live in my body.

Maybe. Depends on how long they have been there.

Also, legal or not, it might be difficult to get law enforcement to help you throw someone out into a life threatening blizzard, especially if you gave them permission to be there in the first place.

Bottom line. Probably yes to eviction, but not a cut and dried as you think.

How to Evict a Roommate: 14 Steps (with Pictures) - wikiHow

Legal Removal of Unwelcome House Guests

 

[manofknowledge]

If life begins at conception then the unborn are parasites the first nine months of their life. Human beings are not parasites. Personhood begins when a host is not required for life.

 

[minnie616]

Wouldn't that fall under life threatening?

I would think so but many who have posted on this board hold the belief and have stated No abortion for her long term health only to save her life.

 

[minnie616]

And if they had your permission initially?

Even if a person had permission to live in my house I can legally evict them.

And Bodily autonomy means a person has control over whom or what uses their body, for what, and for how long.

 

[AlphaOmega]

Who determines that and by what criteria?

A panel of competent doctors.

 

[minnie616]

Maybe. Depends on how long they have been there.

Also, legal or not, it might be difficult to get law enforcement to help you throw someone out into a life threatening blizzard, especially if you gave them permission to be there in the first place.

Bottom line. Probably yes to eviction, but not a cut and dried as you think.

How to Evict a Roommate: 14 Steps (with Pictures) - wikiHow

Legal Removal of Unwelcome House Guests

Those articles are about renters.

 

[American]

It' isn't my problem if they live or die. I can evict someone in a sub zero blizzard even though they may die, because it is not their right to live in my house, just like it is not anyones right to live in my body.

Then keep you knees together.

 

[AlphaOmega]

What you fail to understand is waiting to abort until the woman's life is in danger is too late.

Waiting until a woman is already on the dying path is frequently too late. And who is to judge when is too late?

I had no symptoms and my kidney's were already in peril! How would I have known ahead of time to go to doctor? I am here because an experienced MD who knew me saw a subtle sign. A woman relegated to county clinics and making decisions to make or skip appointments because she did not want to go homeless would not have the "luxury" I did.

A woman knows what resources she has to support her pregnancy - access to medical care, social resources, housing security, etc. Having poor resources makes a pregnancy and living situation much more dangerous.
'

So you want to abort in case you might get sick? I totally disagree.

 

[Phys251]

Yup, you're definitely missing the point, and being a d&%k about it to boot.

And here come the dodges and personal insults. A classic sign that you are out of logical arguments.

Thanks for playing!

 

[year2late]

So you want to abort in case you might get sick? I totally disagree.

Not really what I said. If a woman lacks proper insurance and proper access to quality medical care and has poor social resources, she will be more at risk for a poor health outcome.

It makes pregnancy a greater risk for her. She is the only one who can judge what resources she has and what risks she is willing to take.

It would be the same reason that a person might put off major surgery to do so at a time when he is better resourced and less apt to succumb to complications.

Just because you may value an embryo or fetus as a full fledged person, does not mean she is required to do so and risk her life to continue a pregnancy. Pregnancy complications can be quite abrupt with little time to act.

Who is to judge what is life or death situation for a pregnant woman? You? A bureaucrat? Religious leaders? Look what happened to that Dentist in Ireland. She needed an abortion and signs pointed to a failing pregnancy, but those interpreting the law said they had to wait. By the time they agreed, she was in the throws of death and needlessly died as a result of folks valuing her fetus over her.
Woman dies after abortion request 'refused' at Galway hospital - BBC News