Abortion

22

for me it's not about the rights of the foetus > the rights of the woman. its the right to life > the right to choose.

Reply 1921

Kinkerz

15

PinkMobilePhone

for me it's not about the rights of the foetus > the rights of the woman. its the right to life > the right to choose.

They're essentially the same thing in the abortion context.

Reply 1922

22

Kinkerz

They're essentially the same thing in the abortion context.

no they're not, because if the woman's life was in danger if she continued with the pregnancy, I would say that an abortion was the more sensible option. I wouldn't think it wise to continue with a pregnancy in that sort of situation.

So in that sort of situation :

the life of the woman > the life of the foetus

why? surely both lives are equal? Because by continuing with the pregnancy both lives might be lost. By aborting, at least the life of the mother is saved.

Yes they both MIGHT live but it's not worth taking the chance.

See.....Pro LIFE, not pro-foetus.

You seem to think that people who aren't in favour of abortions make their decisions based on favouring foetuses over women, however that's not true. Pro-lifers believe that preserving human life is important.
Yes, the woman's right to decide what happens to her body is important, but the preservation of life just so happens to be more important in my opinion. The foetus shouldn't have to die just so the woman doesn't have to be inconvenienced.

Reply 1923

Kinkerz

15

PinkMobilePhone

no they're not, because if the woman's life was in danger if she continued with the pregnancy, I would say that an abortion was the more sensible option. I wouldn't think it wise to continue with a pregnancy in that sort of situation.

So in that sort of situation :

the life of the woman > the life of the foetus

why? surely both lives are equal? Because by continuing with the pregnancy both lives might be lost. By aborting, at least the life of the mother is saved.

Yes they both MIGHT live but it's not worth taking the chance.

See.....Pro LIFE, not pro-foetus.

You seem to think that people who aren't in favour of abortions make their decisions based on favouring foetuses over women, however that's not true. Pro-lifers believe that preserving human life is important.
Yes, the woman's right to decide what happens to her body is important, but the preservation of life just so happens to be more important in my opinion. The foetus shouldn't have to die just so the woman doesn't have to be inconvenienced.

Alright. But I wasn't talking about exceptional circumstances. I mean, ectopic pregnancies and a select few other conditions aside, I think pro-life generally means pro-foetus.

This debate focuses around what you deem to be a life. I don't consider the foetus to be a life. At least not until it can survive outside the uterus. Until it reaches that stage (and after aswell, it's just that before it can't survive outside the womb and is utterly reliant on the woman) it is basically a parasite that is biologically part of the woman. It isn't a separate entity. It is the woman's body, and therefore the woman has the right to terminate the pregancy if she wishes.

And that word you used: inconvenienced. I think it's a word many pro-life people like to use. I don't think it's anywhere near a strong enough word to use for a woman who doesn't want a child but is forced to have that child. Spending a large part of the rest of your life looking after a child, putting that child before everything isn't just an 'inconvenience' if you don't want to do that. It's considerably more. To some it would be life-destroying.

Reply 1924

22

Kinkerz

Alright. But I wasn't talking about exceptional circumstances. I mean, ectopic pregnancies and a select few other conditions aside, I think pro-life generally means pro-foetus.

This debate focuses around what you deem to be a life. I don't consider the foetus to be a life. At least not until it can survive outside the uterus. Until it reaches that stage (and after aswell, it's just that before it can't survive outside the womb and is utterly reliant on the woman) it is basically a parasite that is biologically part of the woman. It isn't a separate entity. It is the woman's body, and therefore the woman has the right to terminate the pregancy if she wishes.

And that word you used: inconvenienced. I think it's a word many pro-life people like to use. I don't think it's anywhere near a strong enough word to use for a woman who doesn't want a child but is forced to have that child. Spending a large part of the rest of your life looking after a child, putting that child before everything isn't just an 'inconvenience' if you don't want to do that. It's considerably more. To some it would be life-destroying.

Okay but the woman doesn't have to spend a large part of the rest of her life looking after a child, because she could give it up for adoption, therefore indeed she would have to go through 9 months of inconvenience and then that would be it. 9 months is really nothing in the grand scheme of things.

Also, aside from rape cases, nobody forced the woman to get pregnant in the first place. So saying the woman is 'forced to have that child' suggests that she had no say in the matter in the first place. Sure she did, nobody forced her to have sex.
And yes, of course some women fall pregnant as a result of rape, but I'm willing to bet that a very VERY large majority of women who have abortions have not conceived as a result of rape, but rather as a result of consensual sex.
And again, yes accidents with contraceptives can happen, so some women fall pregnant even though they have taken the necessary precautions, but again I'm willing to bet that a large majority didn't take contraceptives properly in the first place. I have no statistics at hand to support this, but I expect there is some data out there to confirm this. I would suggest that most abortions carried out are on women who have had consensual sex and have not used contraceptives either a) at all, or b) they were used but not properly (e.g. missing a pill).
So really, this being the case (or so I suspect), nobody forced them to do anything at all.

And yes I quite agree it is a matter of when life begins. Does life begin at conception or at birth? Personally I believe it begins at conception, but I agree it's a tad debatable. However when there are babies being born at less than the 24 week abortion cut off, and surviving, I should say that at the very least the abortion limit is far too high. Clearly from approximately 22 weeks the babies (yes babies) have a chance to survive outside of the womb, therefore no longer "parasites" of the mother......

....however you could take it in the opposite direction....my 8 month old baby still breastfeeds. Is he a parasite? Would it be acceptable to kill him? No certainly not, I doubt you could even argue the point, however you might say that he eats normal food as well. Yes, granted I'll give you that, past 6 months old (4 months sometimes, although it's not recommended), a baby can eat regular food as well as milk....

but younger than that then. Say a 2 week old baby, or a 2 day old baby, they rely on breastmilk to keep them alive. They cannot eat normal food. Are they a parasite?
You can debate that formula could be fed to them, but there again a 22 or 23 week old baby who has been born but is relying on life support to keep them alive, surely it is the same thing? In legal terms these babies are not really babies, they are simply foetuses, and can be aborted, yet you wouldn't say the same about a newborn.

To be honest I can't see the difference between a foetus and a newborn. Both rely on somebody else to feed them. Left to their own devices, both would die. In fact even an 8 month old, left to his/her own devices, would die. So surely all babies are parasites until they are self sufficient.

Henceforth, are disabled people who rely on other people to feed them, take care of them etc. Should we kill all disabled people?

A human being is a human being (a person is a person no matter how small....quoth Dr. Seuss....okay I'm rambling now). My point is that an adult is a younger version of an elderly person. A teenager is a younger version of an adult. A child is a younger version of a teenager. A baby is a younger version of a child. And a foetus is a younger version of a baby. All are stages in the life span of a human being. I can't understand why anybody can think it acceptable to end the life of a human being at ANY stage. Not unless you have a lack of regard for human life in the first place.

I'm waffling a great deal, you get my point, I've engaged myself in far more TSR abortion debates over the years and usually everybody just jumps on me and starts arguing so I might as well shush now and go to bed. I'm knackered.

Reply 1925

doloroushazy

10

kind of butting in, the thing i find with the whole difference between foetus/newborn thing is that a baby could be taken away from its mother and be breastfed by somebody else, or indeed be fed formula or whatever, and still survive, whereas science has no way (as of yet) of removing a foetus from an unwilling pregnant woman's uterus and implanting it into somebody else to continue growing.

Reply 1926

22

doloroushazy

kind of butting in, the thing i find with the whole difference between foetus/newborn thing is that a baby could be taken away from its mother and be breastfed by somebody else, or indeed be fed formula or whatever, and still survive, whereas science has no way (as of yet) of removing a foetus from an unwilling pregnant woman's uterus and implanting it into somebody else to continue growing.

But a baby born at 23 weeks could potentially survive, likely on life support, and be fed by somebody else, however at that age a foetus can still legally be aborted. So the lines blur a little don't you think?

Reply 1927

doloroushazy

10

oh, of course, i know they do. i don't personally agree with abortion beyond about 20 or so weeks, don't get me wrong, and i think the majority of abortions are performed before then, unless it's for health reasons.. i was just saying...that's quite a big distinction between a foetus and a newborn.

Reply 1928

22

doloroushazy

oh, of course, i know they do. i don't personally agree with abortion beyond about 20 or so weeks, don't get me wrong, and i think the majority of abortions are performed before then, unless it's for health reasons.. i was just saying...that's quite a big distinction between a foetus and a newborn.

It's only a matter of time before scientists do manage to crack the whole 'removing a foetus from one woman and implanting it in another woman/cow/large bubbly vat/man' thing if you ask me. Once upon a time many things now medically possible were not even dreamed of. I don't think the distinction is as great as you're making out. The Earth was once flat you know :wink:

Reply 1929

seniorlekedo

Abortion is not the problem—it is just a symptom. The ultimate problem is that the culture as a whole, including many church-goers and church leaders, has exalted man’s beliefs above the authority of God’s Word.

Reply 1930

NDGAARONDI

16

I'm a bit uneasy with, "It should be down to the pregnant woman to decide what's best for her body and her life". Reason being is that bodily sovereignty is selective and is often being bandied around because feminists have phrased it in such a way to escape other issues of bodily sovereignty, such as (unproblematic) illicit drug use, for example. I don't mind the argument per se, but very few who I come across who believe in bodily integrity often abandon the belief when social issues they do not like crop up.

Reply 1931

Kinkerz

15

PinkMobilePhone

Okay but the woman doesn't have to spend a large part of the rest of her life looking after a child, because she could give it up for adoption, therefore indeed she would have to go through 9 months of inconvenience and then that would be it. 9 months is really nothing in the grand scheme of things.

Adoption is an option, I agree. But in many cultures where abortion is frowned on, adoption isn’t seen as being noble either. Plus, the woman still has to go through pregnancy, which is a pretty traumatic, potentially life-changing thing in itself. Also, nine months may not be a long time to you, but to others it might be. It’s a subjective thing.

Also, aside from rape cases, nobody forced the woman to get pregnant in the first place. So saying the woman is 'forced to have that child' suggests that she had no say in the matter in the first place. Sure she did, nobody forced her to have sex.

And yes, of course some women fall pregnant as a result of rape, but I'm willing to bet that a very VERY large majority of women who have abortions have not conceived as a result of rape, but rather as a result of consensual sex.

And again, yes accidents with contraceptives can happen, so some women fall pregnant even though they have taken the necessary precautions, but again I'm willing to bet that a large majority didn't take contraceptives properly in the first place. I have no statistics at hand to support this, but I expect there is some data out there to confirm this. I would suggest that most abortions carried out are on women who have had consensual sex and have not used contraceptives either a) at all, or b) they were used but not properly (e.g. missing a pill).
So really, this being the case (or so I suspect), nobody forced them to do anything at all.

We have different definitions of ‘forced to’, I think. I’m saying, even if a woman does fall pregnant having not used contraception (if the ‘mood’ took over or whatever), it still isn’t for anyone to tell her to go through with that pregnancy. It’s still her body. The foetus is still going to be biologically part of her. It should still be her choice.

Abandoning abortion, it is still forcing her to go through with pregnancy. Of course it is.

And yes I quite agree it is a matter of when life begins. Does life begin at conception or at birth? Personally I believe it begins at conception, but I agree it's a tad debatable. However when there are babies being born at less than the 24 week abortion cut off, and surviving, I should say that at the very least the abortion limit is far too high. Clearly from approximately 22 weeks the babies (yes babies) have a chance to survive outside of the womb, therefore no longer "parasites" of the mother......

A tad debatable? I think it’s very debatable. Life begins, to me, when the human is born. Though I’m iffy with abortions done at circa 24 weeks and above.

OK, having studied this at university over the last few weeks, I can vouch: a 22-week-old foetus surviving outside the womb is highly unlikely. And even if it does, it’ll most likely be very mentally retarded and have potentially horrible conditions on top. I don’t see the quality of life there. There are, like, less than five cases of them surviving at this time. It’s exceedingly rare. Even at 23-weeks it’s very rare... 24-weeks isn’t common either. Most doctors agree on 28-weeks to be in with a decent chance with the technology we have now.
But the time limit’s not what I’m debating here, it’s the concept of abortion.

....however you could take it in the opposite direction....my 8 month old baby still breastfeeds. Is he a parasite? Would it be acceptable to kill him? No certainly not, I doubt you could even argue the point, however you might say that he eats normal food as well. Yes, granted I'll give you that, past 6 months old (4 months sometimes, although it's not recommended), a baby can eat regular food as well as milk....
but younger than that then. Say a 2 week old baby, or a 2 day old baby, they rely on breastmilk to keep them alive. They cannot eat normal food. Are they a parasite?

You can debate that formula could be fed to them, but there again a 22 or 23 week old baby who has been born but is relying on life support to keep them alive, surely it is the same thing? In legal terms these babies are not really babies, they are simply foetuses, and can be aborted, yet you wouldn't say the same about a newborn.

To be honest I can't see the difference between a foetus and a newborn. Both rely on somebody else to feed them. Left to their own devices, both would die. In fact even an 8 month old, left to his/her own devices, would die. So surely all babies are parasites until they are self sufficient.

If they’re born and currently alive, they are people. Of course they’re people. Even in the eyes of the law they’re people: if they’re born and currently alive.
Anyway, you seem to be fixated on food. A foetus in the uterus is reliant on the woman for everything. All elements that sustain life. That includes that wonderful gas called oxygen! A baby only relies on the mother for food (and that can be provided without the mother). It’s no longer directly part of her biology; it’s a separate entity at this point.
You’re comparing a born baby to a foetus, and it’s illogical.

Henceforth, are disabled people who rely on other people to feed them, take care of them etc. Should we kill all disabled people?

No, because:
1) They’re born and alive. They’re people! They’re not foetuses!
2) They aren’t directly part of another person’s body.

A human being is a human being (a person is a person no matter how small....quoth Dr. Seuss....okay I'm rambling now). My point is that an adult is a younger version of an elderly person. A teenager is a younger version of an adult. A child is a younger version of a teenager. A baby is a younger version of a child. And a foetus is a younger version of a baby. All are stages in the life span of a human being. I can't understand why anybody can think it acceptable to end the life of a human being at ANY stage. Not unless you have a lack of regard for human life in the first place.

That’s quite an unscientific approach, but if that’s what you think, fine.
To me, a foetus is like a caterpillar that’s gone into the chrysalis stage of development, waiting to break out as a butterfly (i.e. baby).

seniorlekedo

Abortion is not the problem—it is just a symptom. The ultimate problem is that the culture as a whole, including many church-goers and church leaders, has exalted man’s beliefs above the authority of God’s Word.

Quite right too.

Reply 1932

17

PinkMobilePhone

for me it's not about the rights of the foetus > the rights of the woman. its the right to life > the right to choose.

But in valuing the fetus' right to life over the woman's right to choose you are devaluing the woman.

Reply 1933

17

PinkMobilePhone

no they're not, because if the woman's life was in danger if she continued with the pregnancy, I would say that an abortion was the more sensible option. I wouldn't think it wise to continue with a pregnancy in that sort of situation.

Does that include a woman who would self-harm or attempt suicide if forced to continue growing a fetus inside her body that she does not want there? Because I could certainly see that happening on a grand scale if forced-pregnancies were to be made law. History shows us this.

Reply 1934

17

PinkMobilePhone

9 months of inconvenience

So pregnancy is just inconvenient and not uncomfortable at all? And giving birth is a doddle? :rolleyes:

Wow, I better tell the NHS that they've been wasting money giving me all these antenatal classes. I'll tell the midwife to get lost too.

Reply 1935

doloroushazy

10

PinkMobilePhone

It's only a matter of time before scientists do manage to crack the whole 'removing a foetus from one woman and implanting it in another woman/cow/large bubbly vat/man' thing if you ask me. Once upon a time many things now medically possible were not even dreamed of. I don't think the distinction is as great as you're making out. The Earth was once flat you know :wink:

well there's a canny big difference between a newborn and a foetus at the time at which most abortions are performed..
yeah, and women used to be property who were frowned upon if they had no kids and were burnt as witches if they were unmarried at 40. thankfully we now have control over what happens in our bodies.

Reply 1936

22

Tufts

But in valuing the fetus' right to life over the woman's right to choose you are devaluing the woman.

I disagree

Tufts

Does that include a woman who would self-harm or attempt suicide if forced to continue growing a fetus inside her body that she does not want there? Because I could certainly see that happening on a grand scale if forced-pregnancies were to be made law. History shows us this.

Yes I would class attempted suicide as a threat to the woman's life, in which case an abortion might be the more appropriate course of action.

Tufts

So pregnancy is just inconvenient and not uncomfortable at all? And giving birth is a doddle? :rolleyes:

Wow, I better tell the NHS that they've been wasting money giving me all these antenatal classes. I'll tell the midwife to get lost too.

Did I say pregnancy was a doddle? No. Nobody said it's not uncomfortable. I think you're forgetting who you're talking to....I've been through three, I think I'm fully aware of what pregnancy is like. Nobody is trying to belittle pregnancy, so don't start getting uppity about that just because you're now pregnant (and by the way you look great in your bump pictures, and I don't want to argue with you, so lets keep this civil shall we please?)
However I still say that it's worth going through for the sake of not having to kill a human being, because I still class a foetus as a human being (see my "stages of human development" explanation earlier.
It's only nine months of being uncomfortable, as opposed to the foetus/baby being denied a chance of life at all. Yes it's not a walk in the park being pregnant, and yes birth is painful and all the rest of it, but you're talking about taking away somebody's right to be alive as a result of sparing yourself going through that. I still say that the right to life should prevail.

I care about the preservation of life, I can't really apologise for that, it just makes sense to me.

Reply 1937

17

PinkMobilePhone

Did I say pregnancy was a doddle? No. Nobody said it's not uncomfortable. I think you're forgetting who you're talking to....I've been through three, I think I'm fully aware of what pregnancy is like. Nobody is trying to belittle pregnancy, so don't start getting uppity about that just because you're now pregnant (and by the way you look great in your bump pictures, and I don't want to argue with you, so lets keep this civil shall we please?)
However I still say that it's worth going through for the sake of not having to kill a human being, because I still class a foetus as a human being (see my "stages of human development" explanation earlier.
It's only nine months of being uncomfortable, as opposed to the foetus/baby being denied a chance of life at all. Yes it's not a walk in the park being pregnant, and yes birth is painful and all the rest of it, but you're talking about taking away somebody's right to be alive as a result of sparing yourself going through that. I still say that the right to life should prevail.

I care about the preservation of life, I can't really apologise for that, it just makes sense to me.

So you agree that pregnancy and giving birth are more than "inconvenient"?

I'm petrified of giving birth. Absolutely petrified, and I chose this. I dread to think how women who were forced to give birth against their will would feel :frown:

Reply 1938

Giggsy's Girl

8

You make a good debate PinkMobilePhone, you're easily the least nauseating pro-lifer on here. :smile:

So here's my response to some things you said...

PinkMobilePhone

9 months is really nothing in the grand scheme of things.

9 months is not 'nothing'. The thought of being pregnant makes me want to be violently sick, if someone forced me to go through with a pregnancy I didn't want, I think I'd have a mental breakdown. Even after the thing's born, you'll wake up every single day of your life knowing that you have a child wandering around somewhere. It's unthinkable. *shudder*

And yes I quite agree it is a matter of when life begins. Does life begin at conception or at birth? Personally I believe it begins at conception, but I agree it's a tad debatable. However when there are babies being born at less than the 24 week abortion cut off, and surviving, I should say that at the very least the abortion limit is far too high. Clearly from approximately 22 weeks the babies (yes babies) have a chance to survive outside of the womb, therefore no longer "parasites" of the mother......

Of course in the absolute technical sense 'life' begins at conception, but at this point, embryonic cells have no more life/DNA/viability to them than one of your hairs. And isn't it strange, that as SOON as conception takes place, it's deemed worthy of utmost protection as an individual life, yet a few moments earlier it was nothing more than a sperm and an egg? It baffles me. In this argument, when true 'life' starts is purely subjective and therefore must be up to the woman to decide how to proceed. An embryo/foetus, is afterall an extention of her body.

To be honest I can't see the difference between a foetus and a newborn. Both rely on somebody else to feed them. Left to their own devices, both would die. In fact even an 8 month old, left to his/her own devices, would die. So surely all babies are parasites until they are self sufficient.

A foetus' dependency is biological - it physically would not survive if removed from the host body. A full-born baby is only socially dependent.

I can't understand why anybody can think it acceptable to end the life of a human being at ANY stage. Not unless you have a lack of regard for human life in the first place.

Because not everyone agrees that foetus' deserve the same rights and protection as true, existing human beings. An embryo is only potential life, the mother is existing life, and existing life will always take precident. Hospitals will always try to save the life of the mother rather than the foetus for this very reason.

Reply 1939