NationStates Jolt Archive

in the debate last night mr obama stated that he would support a ban on late term abortions as long as they included exceptions for the life and health of the mother. mr mccain derided the idea of a health exception as being an open door for ALL late term abortions no matter how "unnecessary" they really are.

im interested to know how many of our anti-abortion posters would agree with mccain and deny women the option of an abortion in order to save their health (supposing that their life is not at serious risk).

do any of you think that unnecessary late term abortions are a big problem? do you think that there are women who decide to abort a healthy 8th month pregnancy that has a 99% chance of delivering a healthy infant ?

as a pro-choice woman i feel that abortion must always be the decision of a woman and her doctor. the boogeyman of on demand late term abortion is just that--a boogeyman that is so rare as to be irrelevant to the problems that pregnant women face when something goes wrong in their pregnancies.

Although I respect a woman's right to do with her body whatever she wants, I don't see that murdering an unborn child is necessarily the right thing to do either; although it may be the easiest thing at the time.

I'm more in favor of putting the innocent child up for adoption, and giving him a fighting chance, especially during a difficult time for the mother.

This is easy.

Canada has no law on abortion. You can legally abort a 'fetus' 15 minutes after going into labour if you want. There is absolutely no barrier, legal or otherwise, preventing Canadian women from having late term abortions.

In all my years of following the abortion debate in Canada, I have never heard of a single woman doing it except in the direct medical emergency.

If anyone has any link to something that would prove me wrong, I would like to see it, but as far as I can tell, history indicates that leaving it entirely up to the woman will not result in any unnecessary late term abortions.

Although I respect a woman's right to do with her body whatever she wants, I don't see that murdering an unborn child is necessarily the right thing to do either; although it may be the easiest thing at the time.

I'm more in favor of putting the innocent child up for adoption, and giving him a fighting chance, especially during a difficult time for the mother.
what exceptions would you allow?

Explain the difference between options 2 and 3 please.

considering that limited infanticide is not just obviously ok, but sometimes the morally correct thing to do, i don't see the problem with late term abortions.

besides, anyone who already carried the thing for months and months must have some reason to quit now, even if it isn't a specifically medical reason. who are we to second guess those reasons?

The late-term abortion discussion is really a red herring. Women who have them are almost invariably women who had all intentions of carrying to term, but who have - for medical reasons - been faced with the decision to abort. Abortion is rarely an easy decision - and even less so for a woman who has been looking forward to holding her baby for several months and is now faced with it. To demonize these women is cruel.

as a pro-choice woman i feel that abortion must always be the decision of a woman and her doctor. the boogeyman of on demand late term abortion is just that--a boogeyman that is so rare as to be irrelevant to the problems that pregnant women face when something goes wrong in their pregnancies.

Even if it were as common as sparrows, why would it be the business of anyone but the woman in question and her doctor?

I clicked on the wrong button. It should be option 1, not 2. It should always be between her doctor and her. Her doctor isn't going to do anything unethical. Also, despite the fear that all of a sudden women are going to start vaccuming out fetuses 24 hours before they go into labor, I highly doeubt that's going to manifest. I'm sure if there was data from other countries with no restriction at all that supported this fear, the pro-life movement would be parading it out every chance it got.

Explain the difference between options 2 and 3 please.
option 2 allows abortions when a mother might have serious health complications from continuing a pregnancy as well as when continuing it will kill her

option 3 only allows late term abortions when continuing will kill her.

I clicked on the wrong button. It should be option 1, not 2. It should always be between her doctor and her. Her doctor isn't going to do anything unethical. Also, despite the fear that all of a sudden women are going to start vaccuming out fetuses 24 hours before they go into labor, I highly doeubt that's going to manifest. I'm sure if there was data from other countries with no restriction at all that supported this fear, the pro-life movement would be parading it out every chance it got.

Were I a betting man, I'd say the vast majority of abortions occur before the woman starts "showing". Easier to deny ever being pregnant.

The late-term abortion discussion is really a red herring. Women who have them are almost invariably women who had all intentions of carrying to term, but who have - for medical reasons - been faced with the decision to abort. Abortion is rarely an easy decision - and even less so for a woman who has been looking forward to holding her baby for several months and is now faced with it. To demonize these women is cruel.
^^ This. But then, it should be obvious to non-newbies that this would be my stance. I really just posted to grab a seat at this party.

Even if it were as common as sparrows, why would it be the business of anyone but the woman in question and her doctor?
because of the fear that women are killing babies the day before they would be naturally born.

because of the fear that women are killing babies the day before they would be naturally born.
A "fear" that says more about anti-choicers than it does about women, in my opinion.

A "fear" that says more about anti-choicers than it does about women, in my opinion.
me too.

but isnt that what mr mccain meant when he put air quotes around "health of the mother"?

because of the fear that women are killing babies the day before they would be naturally born.

Leaving aside the hyperbole of "killing" something that hasn't been born yet . . .

So what?

Leaving aside the hyperbole of "killing" something that hasn't been born yet . . .

So what?
well....

no one wants to be part of a society that murders babies!

by focusing on the strawman of the perfect fetus that is aborted instead of the tragedy of a woman who is forced to terminate a very much wanted pregnancy, the anti-abortion forces whip up support for their side.

I think abortion should be banned, wether or not the mother does not want to have the baby. I mean, if this pregnancy haven't been planned you don't go the easy way out of the ''problem''. In some cases, in my country (not USA) it is legal (a judge decides it) to have an abortion, that is when a girl or woman has been sexually abused, or any girl/woman with disabilities (such as down syndrome)-I guess it is considered she won't understand what's happening to her body and may represent a risk to her health/psyche.

what exceptions would you allow?

I don't think I'd allow for any exceptions. A precious life is at stake. It isn't mine, or anybody's for that matter, to take that life away. I know many will disagree with me, but that is my truest feeling on the matter.

I don't think I'd allow for any exceptions. A precious life is at stake. It isn't mine, or anybody's for that matter, to take that life away. I know many will disagree with me, but that is my truest feeling on the matter.
now think this through for a second...

if the mother will die without an abortion would you have her die?

I think abortion should be banned, wether or not the mother does not want to have the baby. I mean, if this pregnancy haven't been planned you don't go the easy way out of the ''problem''. In some cases, in my country (not USA) it is legal (a judge decides it) to have an abortion, that is when a girl or woman has been sexually abused, or any girl/woman with disabilities (such as down syndrome)-I guess it is considered she won't understand what's happening to her body and may represent a risk to her health/psyche.
Which I suppose means that your country disagrees with John McCain. He seems to think that the woman's health is not a good reason to abort a pregnancy, that it is just a myth made up so women can willy-nilly abort whenever they want to (because we all know how much we want to /sarcasm/).

It seems your country takes the issue of a woman's health more seriously.

What is YOUR view on the issue? Is your country's law right or wrong, in your view?

now think this through for a second...

if the mother will die without an abortion would you have her die?

It isn't for you and I to decide who dies. That decision belongs to God alone.

I don't think I'd allow for any exceptions. A precious life is at stake. It isn't mine, or anybody's for that matter, to take that life away. I know many will disagree with me, but that is my truest feeling on the matter.
I second Ash's question, adding that there are two lives at risk -- the fetus's and the woman's. Which is the "precious" one and which would you be willing to throw away?

It isn't for you and I to decide who dies. That decision belongs to God alone.
I see.

Tell me, do you refuse all medical treatment for yourself?

It isn't for you and I to decide who dies. That decision belongs to God alone.
why is abortion the exception to action rather than cancer?

why is abortion the exception to action rather than cancer?

It isn't.

I think abortion should be banned, wether or not the mother does not want to have the baby. I mean, if this pregnancy haven't been planned you don't go the easy way out of the ''problem''. In some cases, in my country (not USA) it is legal (a judge decides it) to have an abortion, that is when a girl or woman has been sexually abused, or any girl/woman with disabilities (such as down syndrome)-I guess it is considered she won't understand what's happening to her body and may represent a risk to her health/psyche.
do you support those exceptions or do you think that they are wrong and should be discontinued?

It isn't.
so you dont believe in cancer treatments either?

I see.

Tell me, do you refuse all medical treatment for yourself?

Of course not. Not all medical conditions are life threatening either. I know if If I had a choice in an abortion situation, I'd choose to save the baby, even at the risk of my own life. I don't know many mothers who wouldn't.

The bigger issue is this. How often is a baby aborted when the mother's life is at stake? Is it really a majority of the time? I doubt that it is. I strongly doubt that it is.

Thank you all for your time. I'll sign off now.

I don't agree with abortion, and I think it's morally wrong. However, I won't push my personal views on someone else. What they do with their own body is their business, not mine.

now think this through for a second...

if the mother will die without an abortion would you have her die?

Exactly this. How could one require that a mother(or anyone else for that matter) give their life for anyone else?

Of course not. Not all medical conditions are life threatening either. I know if If I had a choice in an abortion situation, I'd choose to save the baby, even at the risk of my own life. I don't know many mothers who wouldn't.

The bigger issue is this. How often is a baby aborted when the mother's life is at stake? Is it really a majority of the time? I doubt that it is. I strongly doubt that it is.

Thank you all for your time. I'll sign off now.
in late term abortions, its frequently the case.

or that there is a devastating problem with the fetus.

or both.

so you dont believe in cancer treatments either?

What's there to believe in? Cancer treatments exist. Ideas are to be believed or disbelieved, not established facts or such.

What's there to believe in? Cancer treatments exist. Ideas are to be believed or disbelieved, not established facts or such.
you wouldnt TAKE a cancer treatment because the course of the disease is up to god?

Which I suppose means that your country disagrees with John McCain. He seems to think that the woman's health is not a good reason to abort a pregnancy, that it is just a myth made up so women can willy-nilly abort whenever they want to (because we all know how much we want to /sarcasm/).

It seems your country takes the issue of a woman's health more seriously.

What is YOUR view on the issue? Is your country's law right or wrong, in your view?

My country's law is right, because if we punish murder why we would not punish abortion? That would be a contradiction. Obviously as you point out, I guess women does not want to abort all the time, but we should not give the right to neither. It may be her body but first she had to have sex, and that was her choice, her decision. Abortion should be an option just in those cases I wrote before. What's your view on this issue?

you wouldnt TAKE a cancer treatment because the course of the disease is up to god?

I think I'd save the life God entrusted to me. It's not mine to decide in whatever case. It His alone.

Exactly this. How could one require that a mother(or anyone else for that matter) give their life for anyone else?
i can see choosing it for yourself (not that id agree with it but id respect the choice) but to force it on someone else is every kind of wrong.

My country's law is right, because if we punish murder why we would not punish abortion? That would be a contradiction. If and only if your country's (Argentina?) murder laws are vague enough to include abortion.

Of course not. Not all medical conditions are life threatening either. I know if If I had a choice in an abortion situation, I'd choose to save the baby, even at the risk of my own life. I don't know many mothers who wouldn't.

What if the likely outcome was that the mother would die and there would be no live birth?

The bigger issue is this. How often is a baby aborted when the mother's life is at stake? Is it really a majority of the time? I doubt that it is. I strongly doubt that it is.

When discussing late-term abortion, there are two major reasons. One is danger to the mother. The other is gross chromosomal or physical defects in the fetus.

I think I'd save the life God entrusted to me. It's not mine to decide in whatever case. It His alone.
so abortion is the exception to the right to choose to save your own life?

keep in mind that im not asking what YOU would to in such a situation but what you you mandate for someone else facing death if she continues her pregnancy.

I think I'd save the life God entrusted to me. It's not mine to decide in whatever case. It His alone.This only applies to people who believe in God in a manner akin to yours. It is not relevant to the rest of society.

I recommend legalizing any desires Barbara Bush has for a 250th-trimester abortion. *hides*

Of course not.
Then you are a hypocrite.

Not all medical conditions are life threatening either. I know if If I had a choice in an abortion situation, I'd choose to save the baby, even at the risk of my own life. I don't know many mothers who wouldn't.
Then why fear to let women make their choice, if you are so confident they will make one you approve of?

The bigger issue is this. How often is a baby aborted when the mother's life is at stake? Is it really a majority of the time? I doubt that it is. I strongly doubt that it is.

Thank you all for your time. I'll sign off now.
Dodge the question and then run from it. Typical.

Were I a betting man, I'd say the vast majority of abortions occur before the woman starts "showing". Easier to deny ever being pregnant.

I'm not sure when a woman starts "showing" exactly, but the numbers reported consistently by the Centers for Disease Control (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5609a1.htm) say aobut 90% of abortions occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy:

In 2004, for women from areas where weeks of gestation at the time of abortion were adequately reported (44 reporting areas), 61% of reported legal induced abortions were known to have been obtained at <8 weeks' gestation and 87% at <12 weeks (Table 6). Overall (41 reporting areas), 28% of abortions were known to have been performed at <6 weeks' gestation, 18% at 7 weeks, and 15% at 8 weeks (Table 7). Few reported abortions were known to have occurred after 15 weeks' gestation: 3.7% at 16--20 weeks and 1.3% at >21 weeks.

See, e.g., 2003 (http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5511a1.htm) ("Of all abortions for which gestational age was reported, 61% were performed at <8 weeks' gestation and 88% at <13 weeks. "), 2002 (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5407a1.htm) ("Of all abortions for which gestational age was reported, 60% were performed at <8 weeks' gestation and 88% at <13 weeks. "), 2001 (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5309a1.htm) ("Of all abortions for which gestational age was reported, 59% were performed at <8 weeks' gestation and 88% at <13 weeks."), 2000 (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5212a1.htm) ("Fifty-eight percent of all abortions for which gestational age was reported were performed at <8 weeks of gestation, and 88% were performed before 13 weeks.").

As you can see, late-term abortions are exceedingly rare. Estimates are the number of abortions in the U.S. past 24 weeks in the pregnancy to be 0.08% of abortions in the U.S.

As Dem said, these abortions are almost exclusively due to medical necessity. In fact, they generally aren't legal unless medically necessary.

Not surprisingly, McCain is full of shit.

EDIT: For the record, I waffle a bit between #1 and #2 in the poll. I trust women and their doctors to make the right decision, so I voted for #1, but I am not overly upset by the current laws that restrict late-term abortions to medical necessity.

I think I'd save the life God entrusted to me. It's not mine to decide in whatever case. It His alone.

you know, that cancer tumor is alive too. You're saying you wouldn't have it removed?

Then you are a hypocrite.


Then why fear to let women make their choice, if you are so confident they will make one you approve of?


Dodge the question and then run from it. Typical.

Why would you go out of your way to intentionally provoke me? This kind of diatribe has no place in an inteligent discussion.

My country's law is right, because if we punish murder why we would not punish abortion? That would be a contradiction. Obviously as you point out, I guess women does not want to abort all the time, but we should not give the right to neither. It may be her body but first she had to have sex, and that was her choice, her decision. Abortion should be an option just in those cases I wrote before. What's your view on this issue?
That is not what I asked you.

I want to know if you support or oppose your country's views concerning exceptions that allow abortion in cases that would harm the woman's health/psyche. Please answer that one.

I stated my view in my first post here. I'll do it again for the thread record: I am pro-choice. I believe the matter is a medical one that should be decided solely by the pregnant woman and her doctor.

My country's law is right, because if we punish murder why we would not punish abortion? That would be a contradiction.

How so?

Obviously as you point out, I guess women does not want to abort all the time, but we should not give the right to neither. It may be her body but first she had to have sex, and that was her choice, her decision. Abortion should be an option just in those cases I wrote before. What's your view on this issue?

So having sex amounts to giving up the right to determine the use of one's own body? Can the same be said of men? If a man has sex, can we use his body against his will for another person?

So having sex amounts to giving up the right to determine the use of one's own body? Can the same be said of men? If a man has sex, can we use his body against his will for another person?

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a205/ulteriormotives/WeightShow.png

My country's law is right, because if we punish murder why we would not punish abortion? That would be a contradiction. Obviously as you point out, I guess women does not want to abort all the time, but we should not give the right to neither. It may be her body but first she had to have sex, and that was her choice, her decision. Abortion should be an option just in those cases I wrote before. What's your view on this issue?

1. Murder involves killing a person. Abortion does not. QED.

2. Consent to sex is not consent to give up control of one's body for nine months to carry a baby to birth anymore than riding in a car is consent to have one's body smashed in an accident.

3. If you really believe abortion is murder, why do support exceptions for sexual abuse or disability?

I think I'd save the life God entrusted to me. It's not mine to decide in whatever case. It His alone.

Why would you go out of your way to intentionally provoke me? This kind of diatribe has no place in an inteligent discussion.
Back so soon?

I called you a hypocrite on the basis of your statements. I meant that word, and I stand by it, reinforced by your subsequent statement (quoted above).

You would take action to save your own life, but you would deny that power to pregnant women. You claim that "a life" is precious, but clearly you do not mean all lives. Women's lives can be sacrificed according to the presumed will of your god, but not yours, not a fetus's. You assume the will of your god is wise enough to decide a woman's fate, but not yours, not a fetus's.

I despise arguments such as yours.

Why would you go out of your way to intentionally provoke me? This kind of diatribe has no place in an inteligent discussion.*ahem*

Back so soon?

I called you a hypocrite on the basis of your statements. I meant that word, and I stand by it, reinforced by your subsequent statement.

You would take action to save your own life, but you would deny that power to pregnant women. You claim that "a life" is precious, but clearly you do not mean all lives. Women's lives can be sacrificed according to the presumed will of your god, but not yours, not a fetus's. You assume the will of your god is wise enough to decide a woman's fate, but not yours, not a fetus's.

I despise arguments such as yours.

Yikes! I feel the hatred.
God Bless you!

Muravyets, I support my country's views. I voted ''pro-life but i reluctantly support some legal abortions''. What I tried to say about that 'sex thing' is that a woman knows what happens after unprotected sex (or failed protection); there are many methods not to get an unplanned (¿?) pregnancy, abortion is not the solution.
Dempublicents1, if and only murder law is vague to include abortion (lareod said it hehe)

Yikes! I feel the hatred.
God Bless you!

Perhaps what you are mistaking for hatred is absolute disgust and frustration at your view that women are little more than baby-oven chattel whose lives are worth less than embryos.

Yikes! I feel the hatred.
God Bless you!
This is only an internet forum. Do you think my words will reach through your monitor and slap you? Don't run. Defend yourself.

And if you insist on bringing your god into it, be advised that I see no god here. I see only you.

Muravyets, I support my country's views. I voted ''pro-life but i reluctantly support some legal abortions''. What I tried to say about that 'sex thing' is that a woman knows what happens after unprotected sex (or failed protection); there are many methods not to get an unplanned (¿?) pregnancy, abortion is not the solution.
Dempublicents1, if and only murder law is vague to include abortion (lareod said it hehe)

And if those methods (often used by those who end up needing an abortion) fail, then women are just shit out of luck and have no rights?

Moreover, as discussed here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13394148&postcount=88), making abortion illegal doesn't make abortion less common, but does make it vastly more dangerous for women.

Muravyets, I support my country's views. I voted ''pro-life but i reluctantly support some legal abortions''. What I tried to say about that 'sex thing' is that a woman knows what happens after unprotected sex (or failed protection); there are many methods not to get an unplanned (¿?) pregnancy, abortion is not the solution.
Dempublicents1, if and only murder law is vague to include abortion (lareod said it hehe)
Then fine. You are entitled to your opinion. I happen to disagree with it very strongly, but that is not the point I was trying to make with you.

My point was that, by agreeing that a woman's health is a real concern and that it matters enough to warrant aborting a pregnancy -- even though that is very unfortunate -- you are already disagreeing with US presidential candidate John McCain, who claims that concerns about women's health are false and nothing but a ruse to justify unnecessary late-term abortions.

Muravyets, I support my country's views. I voted ''pro-life but i reluctantly support some legal abortions''. What I tried to say about that 'sex thing' is that a woman knows what happens after unprotected sex (or failed protection); there are many methods not to get an unplanned (¿?) pregnancy, abortion is not the solution.
Dempublicents1, if and only murder law is vague to include abortion (lareod said it hehe)
what if a woman uses such methods but gets pregnant anyway?

what if a woman uses such methods but gets pregnant anyway?
He says it in his post where he mentions "failed protection." A woman is supposed to agree to carry a pregnancy if contraception fails.

Obviously, I disagree with that, and if Argentinien wants to pursue it, I'll be happy to, but I find it telling in re the topic that both he and the nation of Argentina, as objetionable as I may find their position, are still better than McCain. At least they don't scoff at the idea of a woman's health being a serious concern.

I'm firmly in favour of the choice to abort being available at all stages. Indeed, the question I must ask this: why stop when the child is born? Would it not be kinder to society to retroactively abort all the right wing fundies? Its what Jesus would have wanted :p

He says it in his post where he mentions "failed protection." A woman is supposed to agree to carry a pregnancy if contraception fails.

Obviously, I disagree with that, and if Argentinien wants to pursue it, I'll be happy to, but I find it telling in re the topic that both he and the nation of Argentina, as objetionable as I may find their position, are still better than McCain. At least they don't scoff at the idea of a woman's health being a serious concern.
yeah

its scary that mccain considers obama extreme for wanting laws that would preserve a woman's life and health. whats so extreme about that?

It isn't for you and I to decide who dies. That decision belongs to God alone.
You're in favor of outlawing the whole practice of medicine???
Shouldn't we also outlaw grocery stores: I mean, if God doesn't want us to starve, won't ravens bring us pieces of bread?

yeah

its scary that mccain considers obama extreme for wanting laws that would preserve a woman's life and health. whats so extreme about that?
Well, duh. It assumes that women are sentient beings worthy of concern, instead of the needing-to-be-controlled whores who only get pregnant so we'll have something to kill that so many of McCain's base know us to be.

Any idea that would ignore that traditional wisdom and let baby-blood-thirsty women run loose MUST be considered extreme.

The late-term abortion discussion is really a red herring. Women who have them are almost invariably women who had all intentions of carrying to term, but who have - for medical reasons - been faced with the decision to abort. Abortion is rarely an easy decision - and even less so for a woman who has been looking forward to holding her baby for several months and is now faced with it. To demonize these women is cruel.



This is true. However, if there is no health risk, I am going to make myself unpopular and be against late term abortions, because by month 8 (the example in the OP) the fetus has become self aware.


However, I agree that a healthy woman does not tend to have late term abortions.

I voted option 2.

What I tried to say about that 'sex thing' is that a woman knows what happens after unprotected sex (or failed protection); there are many methods not to get an unplanned (¿?) pregnancy, abortion is not the solution.
Dempublicents1

There are many methods to try and avoid unplanned pregnancy, even if one is sexually active. Unfortunately, they are not 100% effective. I think we can all agree that, in a perfect world, all pregnancies would be planned and wanted.

But we don't live in a perfect world. And once there is an unplanned pregnancy, there are two possible options: attempt to carry to term, or abort. If we restrict the legal choices to the former, we have removed a woman's right to determine what happens to her own body on the basis that she had sex.

I'm just wondering if you think the same should happen to men. If a man voluntarily has sex, should the government be able to decide whether or not his body is used for others?

This is true. However, if there is no health risk, I am going to make myself unpopular and be against late term abortions, because by month 8 (the example in the OP) the fetus has become self aware.


However, I agree that a healthy woman does not tend to have late term abortions.

I voted option 2.
I voted option 1 precisely because healthy women whose pregnancies are going properly do not choose to abort late. The experience of Canada bears this out. Even without any restriction on it at all, late term abortions will not be done unless they are medically necessary.

I'm in favor of abortions at any time, in any stage, when the mother's life is at risk. I'm in favor of abortions at any time, in any state, when the fetus appears to not be viable in the long term. I'll even go so far as to say that not fatal health concerns justify an abortion at any time.

I'm not 100% sure I support abortion on demand for third trimester though. That's cutting it a bit close for me. Maybe a bit too close for comfort.

I voted option 1 precisely because healthy women whose pregnancies are going properly do not choose to abort late. The experience of Canada bears this out. Even without any restriction on it at all, late term abortions will not be done unless they are medically necessary.

which makes them essentially the same thing. Sure, fair enough. Though I still say that I'm against the idea in principle, even if such a thing doesn't exist in practice.

This is true. However, if there is no health risk, I am going to make myself unpopular and be against late term abortions, because by month 8 (the example in the OP) the fetus has become self aware.

However, I agree that a healthy woman does not tend to have late term abortions.

I voted option 2.

Just to clarify, the state of the law throughout the U.S. is that late-term abortions are illegal except in extreme cases--often just in cases of threat to the life or health of the mother, but in some states also in cases of incest and/or severe fetal deformity.

Roe v. Wade expressly held that states could ban late-term abortions except in cases of a threat to the life and health of the mother. The vast majority of states have enacted such laws and all states restrict late-term abortions to extreme cases.

which makes them essentially the same thing. Sure, fair enough. Though I still say that I'm against the idea in principle, even if such a thing doesn't exist in practice.

Exactly. Im voting on principle. I know the whole "Mothers want to kill their babyz!!!1!" late term abortion thing is a hoax that really doesnt exist.


However, I voted option 2 soley because of the scenerio (that doesnt exist very often) that ash mentioned in the OP.

which makes them essentially the same thing. Sure, fair enough. Though I still say that I'm against the idea in principle, even if such a thing doesn't exist in practice.
I think we see pretty clearly in the US political wrangling on this issue that having words in the law that just express opposition to some mythical event that does not really happen accomplishes nothing but to open the door to ideologically driven arguments about more mythical bugbears.

Look how the anti-choice faction routinely -- in fact, determinedly -- takes the myth of late-term abortion on demand and conflates it with earlier term abortion, which they would also like to ban. How many times have we argued against people who, in one breath, proclaim that embryos have rights from conception AND paint pictures of women "choosing" to abort their pregnancies in the 8th or 9th month? First they paint lurid pictures of bloody baby corpses, and then they use that to attack abortion even in the first week.

Just to clarify, the state of the law throughout the U.S. is that late-term abortions are illegal except in extreme cases--often just in cases of threat to the life or health of the mother, but in some states also in cases of incest and/or severe fetal deformity.

Roe v. Wade expressly held that states could ban late-term abortions except in cases of a threat to the life and health of the mother. The vast majority of states have enacted such laws and all states restrict late-term abortions to extreme cases.

Yep. Thats why Im 100% ok with our current abortion laws.

I voted option 2, although I would bring health to include mental health. Frankly I don't think it's at all likely for a woman to carry a pregency to late term without wanting the baby. And I know that pretty much all late-term abortions at that stage will be for the health of the mother or because of defects in the child meaning that they will not survive long after birth.

However, there is also significant evidence that by that stage in the pregnancy the feotus does have significant awareness. Therefore I believe the mother's health and well-being comes before anything else, but should there be no risk to the mother, such abortions should not be legal. However, prior to the third trimester, the decision to abort should be entirely between the mother and her doctor.

I'm in favor of abortions at any time, in any stage, when the mother's life is at risk. I'm in favor of abortions at any time, in any state, when the fetus appears to not be viable in the long term. I'll even go so far as to say that not fatal health concerns justify an abortion at any time.

I'm not 100% sure I support abortion on demand for third trimester though. That's cutting it a bit close for me. Maybe a bit too close for comfort.
few people are in favor of aborting healthy viable fetuses.

but what legal hoops would a woman NEEDING an abortion at that stage have to go through in order to make sure that she is not cavalierly deciding to kill her unborn baby? and how many needless abortions would that prevent?

it seems to me to be too much of a burden to impose in order to prevent essentially NO needless late term abortions.

but i think that most states have some kind of mandated medical review before a doctor is allowed to perform a late term abortion anyway.

Just to clarify, the state of the law throughout the U.S. is that late-term abortions are illegal except in extreme cases--often just in cases of threat to the life or health of the mother, but in some states also in cases of incest and/or severe fetal deformity.

Roe v. Wade expressly held that states could ban late-term abortions except in cases of a threat to the life and health of the mother. The vast majority of states have enacted such laws and all states restrict late-term abortions to extreme cases.
More proof of the falsity of the entire late-term abortion "controversy." If the anti-choice faction was being honest about it's concerns, they would realize they already have their way (according to what they claim they want).

I think we see pretty clearly in the US political wrangling on this issue that having words in the law that just express opposition to some mythical event that does not really happen accomplishes nothing but to open the door to ideologically driven arguments about more mythical bugbears.

Here's where we disagree. You see, I like the law to be clear. I'm a fan of the law. Comes with the JD. I think the law NEEDS these clear languages, even if, yes, you're right, it can be used as a wedge, to try t take away rights drop by drop.

But the law has to consider eventualities, it has to think about possibilities. If it doesn't, you end up with parents abandoning teenagers in hospitals in Nebraska, without reprocussion, because their safe haven child abandonment statutes doesn't give an age limit, and only says "child".

Who the fuck thought THAT would happen?

Here's where we disagree. You see, I like the law to be clear. I'm a fan of the law. Comes with the JD. I think the law NEEDS these clear languages, even if, yes, you're right, it can be used as a wedge, to try t take away rights drop by drop.

But the law has to consider eventualities, it has to think about possibilities. If it doesn't, you end up with parents abandoning teenagers in hospitals in Nebraska, without reprocussion, because their safe haven child abandonment statutes doesn't give an age limit, and only says "child".

Who the fuck thought THAT would happen?

Yep. Legal loopholes are the bane of my existance, even when they work out in my favor.

More proof of the falsity of the entire late-term abortion "controversy." If the anti-choice faction was being honest about it's concerns, they would realize they already have their way (according to what they claim they want).

That is why, despite their claims to the contrary, it is McCain and Palin that are really extreme on the issue of abortion.

I'm glad the question was asked last night, because I think it really exposed McCain's disdain for women.

This is true. However, if there is no health risk, I am going to make myself unpopular and be against late term abortions, because by month 8 (the example in the OP) the fetus has become self aware.

Given my reasons for supporting abortion rights, I have trouble logically arguing that a woman should not be able to legally terminate a pregnancy at any time she pleases.

However, I see no problem with the argument that the way in which she does so can be heavily regulated once the fetus can survive outside the womb. In the case where there are health issues, I feel that the woman can terminate her pregnancy in the way she and her doctor determine to be the most optimal for her. In the unlikely case of a woman who wishes to electively terminate her pregnancy after the fetus is viable (anything can happen, right?), I think it would be permissible to restrict her options to induced birth.

So I guess I fall somewhere between option 1 and 2.

That is why, despite their claims to the contrary, it is McCain and Palin that are really extreme on the issue of abortion.

I'm glad the question was asked last night, because I think it really exposed McCain's disdain for women.

if you were watching on CNN, when he said that "health of the mother" was just a buzz word, the line showing women's reactions just divebombed.

if you were watching on CNN, when he said that "health of the mother" was just a buzz word, the line showing women's reactions just divebombed.

And the men's line stayed pretty consistant. I was rather upset.

Given my reasons for supporting abortion rights, I have trouble arguing that a woman should not be able to legally terminate a pregnancy at any time she pleases.

However, I see no problem with the argument that the way in which she does so can be heavily regulated once the fetus can survive outside the womb. In the case where there are health issues, I feel that the woman can terminate her pregnancy in the way she and her doctor determine to be the most optimal for her. In the unlikely case of a woman who wishes to electively terminate her pregnancy after the fetus is viable (anything can happen, right?), I think it would be permissible to restrict her options to induced birth.

So I guess I fall somewhere between option 1 and 2.
it is sort of confusing as to when abortion is the way to go instead of induced labor.

but thats why we have doctors to decide these things. its certainly well beyond MY ability to decide.

if you were watching on CNN, when he said that "health of the mother" was just a buzz word, the line showing women's reactions just divebombed.

I wasn't watching on CNN, and I am glad to hear that. The man's answer bordered on misogyny.

Add that to his answers regarding equal pay legislation and you have a real piece of work.

And the men's line stayed pretty consistant. I was rather upset.

ehh, upsetting but not surprising. It's the standard result of "not my problem"ism

I wasn't watching on CNN, and I am glad to hear that. The man's answer bordered on misogyny.

Add that to his answers regarding equal pay legislation and you have a real piece of work.

But he picked a feminist as his running mate!!!111!

Here's where we disagree. You see, I like the law to be clear. I'm a fan of the law. Comes with the JD. I think the law NEEDS these clear languages, even if, yes, you're right, it can be used as a wedge, to try t take away rights drop by drop.

But the law has to consider eventualities, it has to think about possibilities. If it doesn't, you end up with parents abandoning teenagers in hospitals in Nebraska, without reprocussion, because their safe haven child abandonment statutes doesn't give an age limit, and only says "child".

Who the fuck thought THAT would happen?
I am not one of those who universally dismiss all "slippery slope" arguments, but I happen to believe that THIS slippery slope does not exist. There is ample evidence from countries that do not have such explicit bans written into their laws (most popular and convenient example: Canada) where no such abuses-with-abandon occur. Ever.

To be flippant about it, I suspect there is a desire curve when it comes to children, where a woman might be eager to get rid of one in the first trimester of pregnancy, see that desire wane down to nothing as birth approaches, and then see it slowly climb again as the born child ages. In other words, you want them a shitload more when they are about to be born than you do 15 years later.

But snidery aside, I have never seen any evidence to suggest that a woman in her 8th or 9th month is at risk of suddenly deciding she doesn't want to give birth and demanding an abortion, unless she develops some form of psychosis, in which case, it is very unlikely that a doctor will simply fulfill such a request from a deranged patient.

However, I have seen lots of evidence to suggest that an explicit ban on late term abortions is nothing but a tool used by anti-choicers to try to expand restrictions on abortion to more and more circumstances.

For the above reasons, I believe it is not only unnecessary but a bad idea to write laws so as to state the obvious for no particular purpose.

But he picked a feminist as his running mate!!!111!

Don't get me started on that. :wink:

Let us make a few things clear:
1. many of the doctors who DO perform abortions wish they didn't have to, but realize that for some women it might be medically necessary and that it is much safer in a legal, medical situation than other situations.
2. As far as pro-life is concerned, let us expand your moral outrage to be more encompassing. Where are you when there is a war? War takes away human life, often in an unjust, violent manner. Why do some of you bomb abortion clinics? That is murder on a larger scale, because not only do the fetuses die but so do the women carrying them, the doctors, the nurses, the counselors, the receptionists, and janitors. Many families as a result are left without husbands, wives, mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, sons , and daughters. Why do many of you not support gun control? Why do many of you not support regulating the violent content in video games? Why are you not protesting the fact that an insurance company refused to pay for a much needed kidney transplant saying it was an "experimental procedure", when the doctor had performed several with success and the treatment had been approved by the FDA, and the patient died waiting? Does this not anger you? Or am I right in that religious conservatives who ally themselves with the Right have a perverse fixation on sexual health? That is why I do not have respect for the pro life arguments.

But he picked a feminist as his running mate!!!111!

she MUST be a feminist, she's a woman after all!

I am not one of those who universally dismiss all "slippery slope" arguments, but I happen to believe that THIS slippery slope does not exist. There is ample evidence from countries that do not have such explicit bans written into their laws (most popular and convenient example: Canada) where no such abuses-with-abandon occur. Ever.

To be flippant about it, I suspect there is a desire curve when it comes to children, where a woman might be eager to get rid of one in the first trimester of pregnancy, see that desire wane down to nothing as birth approaches, and then see it slowly climb again as the born child ages. In other words, you want them a shitload more when they are about to be born than you do 15 years later.

But snidery aside, I have never seen any evidence to suggest that a woman in her 8th or 9th month is at risk of suddenly deciding she doesn't want to give birth and demanding an abortion, unless she develops some form of psychosis, in which case, it is very unlikely that a doctor will simply fulfill such a request from a deranged patient.

However, I have seen lots of evidence to suggest that an explicit ban on late term abortions is nothing but a tool used by anti-choicers to try to expand restrictions on abortion to more and more circumstances.

For the above reasons, I believe it is not only unnecessary but a bad idea to write laws so as to state the obvious for no particular purpose.

I generally agree, but there is a flip-side: if late-term abortions are only for extreme cases, what harm does a law that restricts late-term abortion to extreme cases do?

That said, I'll partially answer my own question: a particular state's laws may not provide for the same extreme cases as other states and may well restrict cases where an abortion should be allowed.

Note: This is a distinct question from things like the ban on partial-birth abortion, which is an across-the-board ban on a certain procedure regardless of the circumstances. Although a majority of the Supreme Court says that is OK, I disagree.

2. As far as pro-life is concerned, let us expand your moral outrage to be more encompassing. Where are you when there is a war? War takes away human life, often in an unjust, violent manner.

Because in war we are killing darkies who hate merika, and they dont count as human.

Plus babies are cute.

*nods*

I am not one of those who universally dismiss all "slippery slope" arguments, but I happen to believe that THIS slippery slope does not exist. There is ample evidence from countries that do not have such explicit bans written into their laws (most popular and convenient example: Canada) where no such abuses-with-abandon occur. Ever.

To be flippant about it, I suspect there is a desire curve when it comes to children, where a woman might be eager to get rid of one in the first trimester of pregnancy, see that desire wane down to nothing as birth approaches, and then see it slowly climb again as the born child ages. In other words, you want them a shitload more when they are about to be born than you do 15 years later.

But snidery aside, I have never seen any evidence to suggest that a woman in her 8th or 9th month is at risk of suddenly deciding she doesn't want to give birth and demanding an abortion, unless she develops some form of psychosis, in which case, it is very unlikely that a doctor will simply fulfill such a request from a deranged patient.

However, I have seen lots of evidence to suggest that an explicit ban on late term abortions is nothing but a tool used by anti-choicers to try to expand restrictions on abortion to more and more circumstances.

For the above reasons, I believe it is not only unnecessary but a bad idea to write laws so as to state the obvious for no particular purpose.

the counter argument is, however, if late term abortions just don't happen, except in the case of the exceptions ot the restrictions, what's the harm of putting those restrictions in?

What's the harm in saying "only in case of emergency" when people just don't do it in case of emergency to begin with?

I generally agree, but there is a flip-side: if late-term abortions are only for extreme cases, what harm does a law that restricts late-term abortion to extreme cases do?

That said, I'll partially answer my own question: a particular state's laws may not provide for the same extreme cases as other states and may well restrict cases where an abortion should be allowed.
In that case, a mere "statement of principle" in federal law is not enough, because we see how readily states and private groups will ignore such principles or insist upon them, changing with the wind to advance their agendas in any given situation. If you want to create a national standard that will govern the states, then you must be more specific not only as to what you are saying but WHY you are saying it.

That is what I meant by "state the obvious to no particular purpose."

Note: This is a distinct question from things like the ban on partial-birth abortion, which is an across-the-board ban on a certain procedure regardless of the circumstances. Although a majority of the Supreme Court says that is OK, I disagree.
Don't even get me started on THAT piece of crap.

Note: This is a distinct question from things like the ban on partial-birth abortion, which is an across-the-board ban on a certain procedure regardless of the circumstances. Although a majority of the Supreme Court says that is OK, I disagree.

I am...on the fence with this one. I personally haven't seen enough evidence to suggest that intact dilation and extraction is in any way or time medically or financially superior to non-intact dilation and extraction techniques.

But again, that's just me.

the counter argument is, however, if late term abortions just don't happen, except in the case of the exceptions ot the restrictions, what's the harm of putting those restrictions in?

What's the harm in saying "only in case of emergency" when people just don't do it in case of emergency to begin with?

And here I was, about to make the same argument when I noticed the other parts of my hive mind had already dealt with it.

Hive mind says still not a good reason to put the restrictions in, yes?

you know, that cancer tumor is alive too. You're saying you wouldn't have it removed?
But tumors are ugly and babies are cute.

And if those methods (often used by those who end up needing an abortion) fail, then women are just shit out of luck and have no rights?

Moreover, as discussed here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13394148&postcount=88), making abortion illegal doesn't make abortion less common, but does make it vastly more dangerous for women.
Naturally these women need to be punished for being dirty, fithly whores! In fact, just having their body hijacked for 9 months is letting them off to easy, they should be branded as well!

the counter argument is, however, if late term abortions just don't happen, except in the case of the exceptions ot the restrictions, what's the harm of putting those restrictions in?

What's the harm in saying "only in case of emergency" when people just don't do it in case of emergency to begin with?
I think I stated in my post what I think the harm is.

i can see choosing it for yourself (not that id agree with it but id respect the choice) but to force it on someone else is every kind of wrong.
Exactly. How anyone could claim to respect the basic right to life, but still refuse to let women exercise that right and choose their life over that of their child is beyond me. Hopefully such people exclusively occupy the lunatic fringe of society.
1. Murder involves killing a person. Abortion does not. QED.
Further, murder is illegal killing of a person(IMS). If abortion is legal it isn't murder.
I'm firmly in favour of the choice to abort being available at all stages. Indeed, the question I must ask this: why stop when the child is born? Would it not be kinder to society to retroactively abort all the right wing fundies? Its what Jesus would have wanted :p
Post natal abortions is the proper term, I believe.
You're in favor of outlawing the whole practice of medicine???
Shouldn't we also outlaw grocery stores: I mean, if God doesn't want us to starve, won't ravens bring us pieces of bread?
Doves.
Here's where we disagree. You see, I like the law to be clear. I'm a fan of the law. Comes with the JD. I think the law NEEDS these clear languages, even if, yes, you're right, it can be used as a wedge, to try t take away rights drop by drop.

But the law has to consider eventualities, it has to think about possibilities. If it doesn't, you end up with parents abandoning teenagers in hospitals in Nebraska, without reprocussion, because their safe haven child abandonment statutes doesn't give an age limit, and only says "child".

Who the fuck thought THAT would happen?
Indeed. Vague laws only lead to creative "criminals" getting off scot free.

I am...on the fence with this one. I personally haven't seen enough evidence to suggest that intact dilation and extraction is in any way or time medically or financially superior to non-intact dilation and extraction techniques.

But again, that's just me.
Well, you're not a doctor, so I wouldn't expect you to be fully up to speed on that. Just like I wouldn't expect the US Congress to be, either, but they seem to think they are and are competent to make judgments in advance on behalf of the doctors who actually understand the procedures as well as the cases before them.

And here I was, about to make the same argument when I noticed the other parts of my hive mind had already dealt with it.

Hive mind says still not a good reason to put the restrictions in, yes?
Hive Mind sez: Yes.

I'm generally pro-choice, however:

- As a choice, abortion is a silly choice. Contracpetives, morning after pills, etc.. are more than preferable solution. Having second thoughts about being able to raise a child or deciding to abort to spite a ex-boyfriend should not be viable or necessary reasons for abortion.

- When having an abortion, the father should be consulted - if applicable - even though ultimately it's an unilateral decision of the mother.

- Late term abortions should only come into question when you can't save the life of the baby and life of the mother at the same time.

Well, you're not a doctor, so I wouldn't expect you to be fully up to speed on that. Just like I wouldn't expect the US Congress to be, either, but they seem to think they are and are competent to make judgments in advance on behalf of the doctors who actually understand the procedures as well as the cases before them.

You mean politicians dont always know whats best for us?

I am...on the fence with this one. I personally haven't seen enough evidence to suggest that intact dilation and extraction is in any way or time medically or financially superior to non-intact dilation and extraction techniques.

But again, that's just me.
as i understand it the difference is that you carry a baby for 8months and either end up with a dead baby that you can hold for a while before giving it to the nurses to prepare for burial or pieces of a baby that they have to do -- i dont know what with.

when youve come so far having that little body to hold for a few minutes can be very important to you.

You mean politicians dont always know whats best for us?
Almost unimaginable, I know, and yet...

However, I have seen lots of evidence to suggest that an explicit ban on late term abortions is nothing but a tool used by anti-choicers to try to expand restrictions on abortion to more and more circumstances.


Do you feel the same applies to a ban on late term abortions, except for medical emergency?

I'm generally pro-choice, however:

- As a choice, abortion is a silly choice. Contracpetives, morning after pills, etc.. are more than preferable solution. Having second thoughts about being able to raise a child or deciding to abort to spite a ex-boyfriend should not be viable or necessary reasons for abortion.

- When having an abortion, the father should be consulted - if applicable - even though ultimately it's an unilateral decision of the mother.

- Late term abortions should only come into question when you can't save the life of the baby and life of the mother at the same time.

Why should any of this be true? Especially the second part. When we've reached the point that the fetus can be removed from the womb and transplanted into the father until it comes to term THEN the father can have a say.

Why should any of this be true? Especially the second part. When we've reached the point that the fetus can be removed from the womb and transplanted into the father until it comes to term THEN the father can have a say.

I think G3N13 was saying that ideally the woman should consult the father in making her decision and was not arguing their should be any legal obligation to do so.

Do you feel the same applies to a ban on late term abortions, except for medical emergency?
*blood pressure instantly spikes at mere sight of H*

What...do...you...think...we've...been...TALKING ABOUT??!!

Right out of the gate -- Read The Thread! And if you give me back chat, I'll ignore you.

I'm generally pro-choice, however:

- As a choice, abortion is a silly choice. Contracpetives, morning after pills, etc.. are more than preferable solution. Having second thoughts about being able to raise a child or deciding to abort to spite a ex-boyfriend should not be viable or necessary reasons for abortion.

- When having an abortion, the father should be consulted - if applicable - even though ultimately it's an unilateral decision of the mother.

- Late term abortions should only come into question when you can't save the life of the baby and life of the mother at the same time.

What if there's a good reason the mother isn't telling the father? What if she's afraid for her safety if she does? What if she's in an otherwise happy marriage, already has kids, knows that they just can't take care of another, yet the father would be for keeping it? What if this would destory the family? Don't those already existing kids have a right to grow up in a stable home? What if she's had several sex partners and she's not sure who the father is? Does she have to inform all of them? What if one convinces her to have it and then he finds out it's not really his? And if you make an exception for those instances, who decides?

Isn't it better to trust the woman's judgement about telling the father?

Edit: Saw Cat-Tribe's statement. He's probably right on G3N13's intent. I'll leave the post as I'm sure the "telling the father should be mandated" folks will be around sooner or later.

Do you feel the same applies to a ban on late term abortions, except for medical emergency?

So have you even read the thread, or do you now just troll Mur and try to pick fights?

I think G3N13 was saying that ideally the woman should consult the father in making her decision and was not arguing their should be any legal obligation to do so.

Even so, I fail to see why there should be a need to do so.

*blood pressure instantly spikes at mere sight of H*

What...do...you...think...we've...been...TALKING ABOUT??!!

Right out of the gate -- Read The Thread! And if you give me back chat, I'll ignore you.

Neo Art asked you what the harm was on that kind of law is, you said the answer was in that post. I looked in that post, and the only reference to harm I could find was referring to "an explicit ban on late term abortions", I'm asking you to clarify what this means, does it mean a ban no exceptions, or does that include a ban with exceptions to health risks?

So have you even read the thread, or do you now just troll Mur and try to pick fights?

More circle jerking bandwagon jumping useless rhetoric I see? Nice.

So have you even read the thread, or do you now just troll Mur and try to pick fights?
The joke's on him this time because I mean it. If he comes back with anything but an appropriately responsive answer that is up to speed with the overall discussion, I'll just put him on ignore. I'm so done dancing around with him.

Neo Art asked you what the harm was on that kind of law is, you said the answer was in that post. I looked in that post, and the only reference to harm I could find was referring to "an explicit ban on late term abortions", I'm asking you to clarify what this means, does it mean a ban no exceptions, or does that include a ban with exceptions to health risks?
Did I say read the post, or did I say read the thread?

Doesn't matter now. Your answer is BS. /ignore. Go be a pest to someone else. The change will do you good.

More circle jerking bandwagon jumping useless rhetoric I see? Nice.

Aaaaand not only is what I said NOT "circle jerking bandwagon jumping useless rhetoric", but you failed to really contribute to the thread....3 times now.


I call em as I see em. You didnt really contribute, and the "question" you asked Mur has already been answered by her, Neo Art, TCT, myself, and well, everyone else in this thread. Its essentially what this thread is about. Therefore, I assume you are just trolling.

Interesting how an extremely simple yes or no question can get someone on ignore. Jesus fucking Christ.

Neo Art asked you what the harm was on that kind of law is, you said the answer was in that post. I looked in that post, and the only reference to harm I could find was referring to "an explicit ban on late term abortions", I'm asking you to clarify what this means, does it mean a ban no exceptions, or does that include a ban with exceptions to health risks?

Come now, either your reading skills are hopeless myopic or you are being disingenuous.

Mur made very clear that late term abortion bans even with exceptions have little purpose other than to be used to restrict women's right to choose. Mur explained at length why such laws aren't necessary and only cause harm.

Interesting how an extremely simple yes or no question can get someone on ignore. Jesus fucking Christ.

As Mur made clear, it your past history of arguments that Mur has found pointless and annoying that has earned you the ignore. You so-called "simple question" was just the straw that broke the camel's back.

Even so, I fail to see why there should be a need to do so.

"Need"? I don't know and think probably not.

"Ideal situation"? Yes, probably.

See the difference?

Aaaaand not only is what I said NOT "circle jerking bandwagon jumping useless rhetoric", but you failed to really contribute to the thread....3 times now.


I could have easily fucking contributed if Mura didn't act so pissy and actually simply said yes or no, then I would have actually known what her position is. The problem is, Mura writes in such an overly long winded, and overly ambiguous way, that it's very hard to actually know what her position is.


I call em as I see em. You didnt really contribute, and the "question" you asked Mur has already been answered by her, Neo Art, TCT, myself, and well, everyone else in this thread. Its essentially what this thread is about. Therefore, I assume you are just trolling.

Bullshit, I'm asking for Mura's position, Neo Art and TCT's position is actually slightly different. She specifically said to Neo Art that the answer to that question was in her post, there was only an extremely vague answer to that question and I'm not sure if it applied to the thing he was talking about, so I asked her to clarify, rather than to assume to know exactly what she means.

I could have easily fucking contributed if Mura didn't act so pissy and actually simply said yes or no, then I would have actually known what her position is.

Wow, deja vu. Sounds just like John McCain last night. "If he just did what I told him to I wouldn't have had to call him a terrorist! It's his fault, really"

What if there's a good reason the mother isn't telling the father? What if she's afraid for her safety if she does?
That would be the if applicable part.

In case of abusive relationship, rape, etc.. there naturally should be no need or desire to consult the father, well aside from criminal inquiry.
What if she's in an otherwise happy marriage, already has kids, knows that they just can't take care of another, yet the father would be for keeping it?
In this case I'd see the doctor recommending a joint consultation before abortion, nothing more nothing less.

Because if the father somehow found out, like a bill left on the table or maybe wife's best friend coming clean, then the relationship could - and if that man in that situation would be me would - be over.

The goal behind my proposition is to improve the quality of society, not to diminish the rights of the woman - Who would STILL have the ultimate say.
Isn't it better to trust the woman's judgement about telling the father?
In my opinion, no. Having a child is an important decision, so is terminating a well progressing pregnancy.

You're forgetting that there already IS consultation between the doctor and the mother, adding father - if applicable - in to that would IMO improve the situation further.

Your milage and thoughts may vary.

That would be the if applicable part.

In case of abusive relationship, rape, etc.. there naturally should be no need or desire to consult the father, well aside from criminal inquiry.

In this case I'd see the doctor recommending a joint consultation before abortion, nothing more nothing less.

Because if the father somehow found out, like a bill left on the table or maybe wife's best friend coming clean, then the relationship could - and if that man in that situation would be me would - be over.

The goal behind my proposition is to improve the quality of society, not to diminish the rights of the woman - Who would STILL have the ultimate say.

In my opinion, no. Having a child is an important decision, so is terminating a well progressing pregnancy.

You're forgetting that there already IS consultation between the doctor and the mother, adding father - if applicable - in to that would IMO improve the situation further.

Your milage and thoughts may vary.

Apparently I misunderstood you in defending what I thought you were saying.

Are you really thinking there should be some requirement that, unless certain circumstances apply, the father must be consulted?

Also, just for the record, 90% of abortions occur in the first 12 weeks. They do not involve a "well progressing pregnancy."

Why should any of this be true?
The third part should be obvious: If you can save two humans instead of one, why shouldn't you do it?

First part has more to do about responsible choices, complete and mandatory sex education and freely accessible contraceptives/morning-after-pills.

Perhaps the viewpoint that describes me best, after all, would be pro-life, but banning or generally speaking restricting abortion is not the way to go.

Wow, deja vu. Sounds just like John McCain last night. "If he just did what I told him to I wouldn't have had to call him a terrorist! It's his fault, really"

But you don't understand how unbelievably frustrating it is, especially when it's so god damn predictable what her response was going to be. Originally that post was slightly more to the point, but I knew she would just respond with the useless "read the damn thread crap" she always does, to everything. You know, it may just be that her stance is confusing, not that I just haven't read her posts (which I have). So I changed the post slightly, trying to be as polite as I possibly can, and trying to limit it to a purely yes or no answer which means she would have no hassle at all answering it, it only takes half a second to type a yes and click reply. Yet, despite this, she still replied with that same old pissy crap, arrgghh!

Are you really thinking there should be some requirement that, unless certain circumstances apply, the father must be consulted?
I'd rather see the doctor mandatorily suggesting a joint consultation - and talking the points of involving father through - Not mandatory consultation per se.

edit: And I repeat, having an abortion would still be solely the choice of the mother. Even though leaving the father out in stable relationship is in my opinion only cowardice and selfishness.
Also, just for the record, 90% of abortions occur in the first 12 weeks. They do not involve a "well progressing pregnancy."
This is irrelevant, as laws apply to those 10% as well.

trying to limit it to a purely yes or no answer
Isn't #101 short enough for you?
it only takes half a second to type a yes and click reply.
It takes considerably longer, if you have to keep doing it over and over and over and over and over again.

I am...on the fence with this one. I personally haven't seen enough evidence to suggest that intact dilation and extraction is in any way or time medically or financially superior to non-intact dilation and extraction techniques.

But again, that's just me.

Shouldn't that determination be left to a woman and her doctor, though? There are certainly different concerns with different procedures. A non-intact procedure, for instance, requires many more passes into the uterus, and can thus increase the chances of perforation. It also has an increased chance of tissue being left behind. And then there's the psychological benefit of actually having a body to hold and mourn.

These are issues that a doctor and patient might take into account when determining what procedure to use.

To me, the argument that intact dilation and extraction is never medically necessary because there are other possible options is akin to arguing that vicodin is never medically necessary because other painkillers exist.

I personally haven't seen enough evidence to suggest that intact dilation and extraction is in any way or time medically or financially superior to non-intact dilation and extraction techniques.

The cases which call for non-intact procedures involve grotesquely swollen heads. Induced labor in such cases results in severe tearing, usually making it impossible for the woman to have another child.

"Need"? I don't know and think probably not.

"Ideal situation"? Yes, probably.

See the difference?

Why is it in anyway relevant let alone ideal? What business is it of the father?

Isn't #101 short enough for you?


a) I didn't see that post when I made mine.
b) It's not actually answering the question I asked her.


It takes considerably longer, if you have to keep doing it over and over and over and over and over again.

Even if I do keep asking her to clarify her position, which I don't, that only speaks of how poorly she presents her ideas.

Why is it in anyway relevant let alone ideal? What business is it of the father?

First, let me apologize for misunderstanding G3N13's position and defending it erroneously.

Second, ideally the father would help the woman make a decision she is comfortable with and would support her in carrying out that decision. That's all I was thinking. G3N13 has some very different ideas, apparently.

The third part should be obvious: If you can save two humans instead of one, why shouldn't you do it?


Because until it's born there ISN'T a second human involved?

Because until it's born there ISN'T a second human involved?
Why not? If it's capable of living and breathing outside the womb how is it not a human being?

I'm generally pro-choice, however:

- As a choice, abortion is a silly choice. Contracpetives, morning after pills, etc.. are more than preferable solution.

Presenting this as a dichotomy doesn't really make sense. Contraceptives are used to prevent pregnancy. Abortion is used to terminate a pregnancy that has already begun.

They are solutions for different problems. I think we can all agree that, in a perfect world, unplanned pregnancies simply wouldn't occur. But we don't live in a perfect world. Contraceptive measures fail and some women are uneducated about their use and/or unable to obtain them.

- When having an abortion, the father should be consulted - if applicable - even though ultimately it's an unilateral decision of the mother.

I agree with this in principle, but I don't think that it could be effectively legislated - or that it should be if it could.

- Late term abortions should only come into question when you can't save the life of the baby and life of the mother at the same time.

This gets a little fuzzy, because it isn't black and white like that. Medical determinations quite often aren't about what will happen - they are about risk factors.

There might be severe complications that could kill the mother. Maybe it would even be very likely. But, if she's that rare case, maybe she manages live birth and they both survive.

This is why the determination must be left up to the doctor and patient. They're the only ones in a position to weigh those risks and figure out what action is best.

a) I didn't see that post when I made mine.
b) It's not actually answering the question I asked her.



Even if I do keep asking her to clarify her position, which I don't, that only speaks of how poorly she presents her ideas.
Or how poorly you present your question? I don't see how it is that you don't think the "answer" to your "question" is not already glaringly obvious from everything that has been said already.

The third part should be obvious: If you can save two humans instead of one, why shouldn't you do it?

What about late-term abortions that involve one of the following (and are actually typical of that very small percentage of abortions that occur later in the pregnancy):

The fetus is dead.
The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would place the woman's life in severe danger or greviously damage her health.
The fetus is so malformed that it will never gain consciouness and will die shortly after birth - this is most common due to a severe form of hydrocephalus
The pregnant woman is very young (much more rare)
The pregnancy resulted from rape or incest (much more rare).

Because until it's born there ISN'T a second human involved?

now that's just nonsense. What, biologically, is the difference between a fetus one minute from being born, and a child one minute after being born?

Sorry, this topic is getting to a place that is too painful for serious consideration.

I'll step out and wish you the best in your forum .

Or how poorly you present your question? I don't see how it is that you don't think the "answer" to your "question" is not already glaringly obvious from everything that has been said already.

Ugh, I'm not having this debate. Look, this is what happened: I read her posts, I got confused by one of her stances, I asked her to clarify, she got all pissy and arrogantly assumed that I just didn't read her posts rather than got confused by one of them, I pointed out one of the sources of confusion that I wanted her to clarify, she declared it as a non answer and blocked me. Fuck that.

Sorry, this topic is getting to a place that is too painful for serious consideration.

I'll step out and wish you the best in your forum .

um....and this is your first post?

Me being Male I keep my mouth shut about abortion.

now that's just nonsense. What, biologically, is the difference between a fetus one minute from being born, and a child one minute after being born?

One is breathing through a umbilical cord and the mother's body, and the other is breathing on his or her own.

What about late-term abortions that involve one of the following (and are actually typical of that very small percentage of abortions that occur later in the pregnancy):

The fetus is dead.
The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would place the woman's life in severe danger or greviously damage her health.
The fetus is so malformed that it will never gain consciouness and will die shortly after birth - this is most common due to a severe form of hydrocephalus
These would be covered by 'both alive' clause.
The pregnant woman is very young (much more rare)
The pregnancy resulted from rape or incest (much more rare).
If the pregnancy is allowed to continue to late term then these should not apply.

One is breathing through a umbilical cord and the mother's body, and the other is breathing on his or her own.

But if that's the defining difference of "person" does it mean that those on respirators aren't people?

These would be covered by 'both alive' clause.

Um. The first one, yes, because the fetus is dead. The second one, no, because grevious bodily harm to the mother doesn't mean she dies. The third one, no, because the fetus would be "born alive" but not live long.

If the pregnancy is allowed to continue to late term then these should not apply.

Okey, dokey, I guess. So a 13-year-old incest victim had better know when and how to seek appropriate medical treatment?

Presenting this as a dichotomy doesn't really make sense. Contraceptives are used to prevent pregnancy. Abortion is used to terminate a pregnancy that has already begun.

They are solutions for different problems. I think we can all agree that, in a perfect world, unplanned pregnancies simply wouldn't occur. But we don't live in a perfect world. Contraceptive measures fail and some women are uneducated about their use and/or unable to obtain them.
Yes, and I'm all in favour of early term abortions.

Erm, I mean, that the choice of abortion should be available to a woman during early-mid term of pregnancy, regardless of other factors.

However, I whemenently disapprove the use of abortion as birth control - And this is something we should tackle first through education and freely/easily available alternatives.

This gets a little fuzzy, because it isn't black and white like that. Medical determinations quite often aren't about what will happen - they are about risk factors.

There might be severe complications that could kill the mother. Maybe it would even be very likely. But, if she's that rare case, maybe she manages live birth and they both survive.

This is why the determination must be left up to the doctor and patient. They're the only ones in a position to weigh those risks and figure out what action is best.
I agree with this - I'm merely suggesting that if saving both would represent a low risk scenario it should be the one taken.

Um. The first one, yes, because the fetus is dead. The second one, no, because grevious bodily harm to the mother doesn't mean she dies. The third one, no, because the fetus would be "born alive" but not live long.
The third example is semantics, because if the baby is not capable of living without the support of his or her mother and is incapable of ever having meaningful brain functions then he or she is not alive in my eyes. Not a human being, so to speak, a mass of cells.

In the second one you said: Grievous danger - which to me implies a good chance of dying. In this case the mother has the decision whether to risk it, and if she's not in a situation to make that decision then the close family (IF the mother has left her wish known to them) and/or the doctors. However, by default, you would naturally save the mother.
Okey, dokey, I guess. So a 13-year-old incest victim had better know when and how to seek appropriate medical treatment?
Umm, what? If she doesn't want the child then wating one month extra or having a cesarian right now and giving the baby away for adoption hurts her more how?

What if she later wants to remember "something positive" that came out of her cruel fate?

I don't like abortions, but I am in favor of allowing it until the 16th week. After that, only if the mother's life is in danger.

But if that's the defining difference of "person" does it mean that those on respirators aren't people?

You were asking for the biological difference. Whether or not it's a person is a legal distinction. Not a biological one. Mind you, in Canada, you're not a person until you're born.

Also people on respirators are using machines to breath. Not other people. If they were using other people instead of machines....

Okey, dokey, I guess. So a 13-year-old incest victim had better know when and how to seek appropriate medical treatment?

And be able to do so, of course.

Umm, what? If she doesn't want the child then wating one month extra or having a cesarian right now and giving the baby away for adoption hurts her more how?

Umm, what? At how many weeks are you calling an abortion "late-term" and advocating banning it?


What if she later wants to remember "something positive" that came out of her cruel fate?

I'm not talking about forcing her to get an abortion. We are talking about whether she is allowed to get one if she wants one.

Umm, what? At how many weeks are you calling an abortion "late-term" and advocating banning it?
In this thread it seems to be 7-8 months which is what I was going by when replying.

However, my idea would be valid if the baby is capable of surviving outside the womb with moderate medical help. Which btw. would roughly be my definition of human being in this situation and might go some lengths to explain my viewpoint.

Assuming the baby hasn't reached that stage - which would be around 5-6 months - then abortion is a valid option.
I'm not talking about forcing her to get an abortion. We are talking about whether she is allowed to get one if she wants one.
But you're also putting her into a position to kill the spawn of evil which she, being merely 13 year old, might live to regret later.

Really, there's only a window of ~2 months - from week 20 to 28-30 - where choosing to terminate pregnancy of incest or rape victim would not be an option in my view.

In this thread it seems to be 7-8 months which is what I was going by when replying.

However, my idea would be valid if the baby is capable of surviving outside the womb with moderate medical help. Which btw. would roughly be my definition of human being in this situation and might go some lengths to explain my viewpoint.

Assuming the baby hasn't reached that stage - which would be around 5-6 months - then abortion is a valid option.

But you're also putting her into a position to kill the spawn of evil which she, being merely 13 year old, might live to regret later.

Really, there's only a window of ~2 months - from week 21-22 to 28-30 - where choosing to terminate pregnancy of incest or rape victim would not be an option in my view.

Just for some perspective, as the weeks go by in a pregnancy, the rate of abortions drops exponentially, with only 0.08% of abortions occurring after 24 weeks (which is 6 months).

So banning abortion at 7-8 months (28 weeks to 32 weeks) wouldn't really change much of anything -- and those cases are the type of extreme circumstances we've been talking about.

I'm a little confused as to where you get your 21 weeks to 30 weeks number. Regardless, forcing a child victim of incest to be pregnant with her rapists baby for 15 weeks (almost 4 months) seems unnecessarily cruel punishment for not knowing how or when to get earlier medical treatment.

G3N13, I do not understand one thing about your argument:

If you believe that the decision must be left to the woman and the woman alone, then why do you believe a consultation with the man should be MANDATORY?

Just for some perspective, as the weeks go by in a pregnancy, the rate of abortions drops exponentially, with only 0.08% of abortions occurring after 24 weeks (which is 6 months).

So banning abortion at 7-8 months (28 weeks to 32 weeks) wouldn't really change much of anything -- and those cases are the type of extreme circumstances we've been talking about.
I see it as a socially minded policy, a government cares type of rule making.

Laissez faire works too as long as people care about consequences.

However, look at the banking crisis and where it has lead to when people start taking liberties that while being legal can lead to unforeseen consequences. Now consider if completely unregulated abortion would be abused as a tool for extortion or revenge. Now, I know this is not happening in foreseeable future...On the other hand, did we see the banking crisis beforehand?

Society continues to evolve towards ONLY-I-MATTER way of life so an insignificant - by your very own numbers - law here, another there might go some way helping to turn the tide.

I'm a cynic though, so it's really only a matter of time when child making is equated to profit making.... :p
I'm a little confused as to where you get your 21 weeks to 30 weeks number.
Viability statistics: Sub-20 weeks survability is near zero, 20-22 weeks survivability is extremely rare but has happened, after 30 weeks the rate of survivability is probably high enough for c-section in case of extreme duress.

Now, I'm not a doctor or an expert in pregnancy so feel free to disagree and give me better numbers.
Regardless, forcing a child victim of incest to be pregnant with her rapists baby for 15 weeks (almost 4 months) seems unnecessarily cruel punishment for not knowing how or when to get earlier medical treatment.
That might be, but consider how I feel about human life. To me that would be somewhat akin to advocating murder for comfortability's sake. And like I said, it might turn out to be a blessing after all.

Luckily for all parties, I'm not looking to be in a position of law making nor is stance on abortion really a voting issue to me so my opinions are only my own :tongue:
G3N13, I do not understand one thing about your argument:

If you believe that the decision must be left to the woman and the woman alone, then why do you believe a consultation with the man should be MANDATORY?
After some thought, because legislating and controlling it would be impossible, I revised it to a mandatory suggestion by the doctor who would go through the points about why notifiying the father is not a bad idea even if he would appear to be against abortion.

Personally I consider not telling the father, if he's more than a random acquaintance, form of both extreme cowardice and selfishness and extremely unhealthy for a relationship: Consider whether living in such a relationship would be worthwhile even for the woman after all, when she can't trust him in one of the most important aspects of being a couple - Offspring?

Ultimately, I promote it because I think notifying father would lead to a healthier situation overall.

Why not? If it's capable of living and breathing outside the womb how is it not a human being?

It hasn't been born. Just as an unhatched egg is not yet a chicken an unborn homosapiens (may have misspelled that, Firefox is not being helpful) is not yet a person.

But if that's the defining difference of "person" does it mean that those on respirators aren't people?

People on respirators have already been born. One has to decide at what point one feels personhood begins. Some say fertilization, some say at some point thereafter but while still in the womb, I say at birth. It's that simple.

People on respirators have already been born. One has to decide at what point one feels personhood begins. Some say fertilization, some say at some point thereafter but while still in the womb, I say at birth. It's that simple.

Except at least those positions create some rationale as to WHY that personhood begins then. "birth" is purely an arbitrary one, which you seem incapable of defending as a good point.

And the fact that "already born" doesn't mean it's a person, unless corpses are people too.

It hasn't been born.

So what?

Abortion, late or early, to me, remains a woman´s right regardless.

Except at least those positions create some rationale as to WHY that personhood begins then. "birth" is purely an arbitrary one, which you seem incapable of defending as a good point.

And the fact that "already born" doesn't mean it's a person, unless corpses are people too.

You can ask sinuhue to explain the legal rationale for Canada using birth as the point at which someone gets defined as a person.

Personally, I don't think personhhod matters at all. Even if someone is recognised as a person by law and the authorities, it still does not give that person the right to use another person's body for their own use.

a defense of abortion (http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm)

so, yeah.

It's a medical decision. It's down to the personal wishes of the mother concerning her body and the expert opinion of her Dr. End of.

Personally, I don't think personhhod matters at all. Even if someone is recognised as a person by law and the authorities, it still does not give that person the right to use another person's body for their own use.
So, which one of the siamese twins must die, eh?

So, which one of the siamese twins must die, eh?

Wow. I've seen some really bad comparisons, but that takes the cake. Please explain to me how a set of conjoined twins who share a single body are in any way comparable to a mother and fetus who have two separate bodies.

After some thought, because legislating and controlling it would be impossible, I revised it to a mandatory suggestion by the doctor who would go through the points about why notifiying the father is not a bad idea even if he would appear to be against abortion.
It still doesn't make any sense. Why force the doctor to do something so pointless?

Personally I consider not telling the father, if he's more than a random acquaintance, form of both extreme cowardice and selfishness and extremely unhealthy for a relationship: Consider whether living in such a relationship would be worthwhile even for the woman after all, when she can't trust him in one of the most important aspects of being a couple - Offspring?
Is that really any of your business, though? I don't think it is.

And if you think it is the business of the government to meddle in the quality of private citizens' personal relationships, what other circumstances do you feel should be meddled in?

Ultimately, I promote it because I think notifying father would lead to a healthier situation overall.
For whom?

For the man who may yet see his opinion ignored?

For the woman who still has to make the decision all by herself, and bear the responsibility of it all by herself, but still is not permitted to just go ahead and decide?

For the doctor who has been dragged into the private, nonmedical affairs of people he/she does not know personally, one of whom is not even his/her patient?

For the as-yet-unconsidered bureaucrats whose job it will be to see to it somehow that doctors comply with your requirement that they do this pointless thing?

Wow. I've seen some really bad comparisons, but that takes the cake. Please explain to me how a set of conjoined twins who share a single body are in any way comparable to a mother and fetus who have two separate bodies.

r. Actually a mother and a fetus don't have seperate bodies. . .or rather the fetus depends on the mother for life as does one conjoined twin on another. . . .

I don't like abortions, but I am in favor of allowing it until the 16th week. After that, only if the mother's life is in danger.

just curious . . .why 16th week?

just curious . . .why 16th week?

If I remember right, that's when the brain starts to develop. And, in my opinion, if it has a brain, it's a living creature, a human in this case.

If I remember right, that's when the brain starts to develop. And, in my opinion, if it has a brain, it's a living creature, a human in this case.

Why does the beginning of development of a brain equal personhood?

My cats are living creatures with fully-functioning brains. Are they people?

Regardless, allowing abortion up to 16 weeks pretty much allows abortion as it is practiced in the U.S. As I explained earlier, over 50% of abortions occur in the first 9 weeks of pregnancy and about 90% occur within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. Only 3.7% of abortions occur at 16 weeks or more and these are almost always medically necessary.

Add an exception for an abortion that is necessary to preserve the health of the mother as well as a life-threating situation, and you've pretty much endorsed Roe v. Wade.

As for when a fetus has a functioning brain:

Development of the fetal neocortex begins at 8 weeks gestation, and by 20 weeks each cortex has a full complement of 109 neurons.34 The dendritic processes of the cortical neurons undergo profuse arborizations and develop synaptic targets for the incoming thalamocortical fibers and intracortical connections.35,36 The timing of the thalamocortical connection is of crucial importance for cortical perception, since most sensory pathways to the neocortex have synapses in the thalamus. Studies of primate and human fetuses have shown that afferent neurons in the thalamus produce axons that arrive in the cerebrum before mid-gestation. These fibers then "wait" just below the neocortex until migration and dendritic arborization of cortical neurons are complete and finally establish synaptic connections between 20 and 24 weeks of gestation (Fig. 1).36-38

Functional maturity of the cerebral cortex is suggested by fetal and a neonatal electroencephalographic patterns, studies of cerebral metabolism, and the behavioral development of neonates. First, intermittent electroencephalograpic bursts in both cerebral hemispheres are first seen at 20 weeks gestation; they become sustained at 22 weeks and bilaterally synchronous at 26 to 27 weeks.39 By 30 weeks, the distinction between wakefulness and sleep can be made on the basis of electroencephalo- graphic patterns.39,40 Cortical components of visual and auditory evoked potentials have been recorded in preterm babies (born earlier than 30 weeks of gestation),40,41 whereas olfactory and tactile stimuli may also cause detectable changes in electroencephalograms of neonates.40,42 Second, in vivo measurements of cerebral glucose utilization have shown that maximal metabolic activity in located in sensory areas of the brain in neonates (the sensorimotor cortex, thalamus, and mid brain- brain-stem regions), further suggesting the functional maturity of these regions.43 Third, several forms of behavior imply cortical function during fetal life. Well-defined periods of quiet sleep, active sleep, and wakefulness occur in utero beginning at 28 weeks of gestation.44 In addition to the specific behavioral responses to pain described below, preterm and full-term babies have various cognitive, coordinative, and associative capabilities in response to visual and auditory stimuli, leaving no doubt about the presence of cortical function.45

--K.J.S. Anand and P.R. Hickey, Pain and its effects on the human neonate and fetus (http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/anand/), THE NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, Volume 317, Number 21: Pages 1321-1329, 19 November 1987 (emphasis added)

I see it as a socially minded policy, a government cares type of rule making.

Laissez faire works too as long as people care about consequences.

However, look at the banking crisis and where it has lead to when people start taking liberties that while being legal can lead to unforeseen consequences. Now consider if completely unregulated abortion would be abused as a tool for extortion or revenge. Now, I know this is not happening in foreseeable future...On the other hand, did we see the banking crisis beforehand?

Society continues to evolve towards ONLY-I-MATTER way of life so an insignificant - by your very own numbers - law here, another there might go some way helping to turn the tide.

I'm a cynic though, so it's really only a matter of time when child making is equated to profit making.... :p

Viability statistics: Sub-20 weeks survability is near zero, 20-22 weeks survivability is extremely rare but has happened, after 30 weeks the rate of survivability is probably high enough for c-section in case of extreme duress.

Now, I'm not a doctor or an expert in pregnancy so feel free to disagree and give me better numbers.

That might be, but consider how I feel about human life. To me that would be somewhat akin to advocating murder for comfortability's sake. And like I said, it might turn out to be a blessing after all.

Luckily for all parties, I'm not looking to be in a position of law making nor is stance on abortion really a voting issue to me so my opinions are only my own :tongue:

After some thought, because legislating and controlling it would be impossible, I revised it to a mandatory suggestion by the doctor who would go through the points about why notifiying the father is not a bad idea even if he would appear to be against abortion.

Personally I consider not telling the father, if he's more than a random acquaintance, form of both extreme cowardice and selfishness and extremely unhealthy for a relationship: Consider whether living in such a relationship would be worthwhile even for the woman after all, when she can't trust him in one of the most important aspects of being a couple - Offspring?

Ultimately, I promote it because I think notifying father would lead to a healthier situation overall.

First, you seem to be saying that you have no major quibble with the state of the law in the United States which allows states to ban abortion after the point of viability except in cases of a threat to the life or health of the mother.

Second, you nonetheless seem to feel there is a need for government intervention not just into the lives of ordinary people, but into their very bodies. Sorry, but I place a higher value on liberty than on your social engineering goals.

Third, the quality (or lack thereof) of the mother's relationship of the father is (1) none of the government's frickin' business and (2) not going to be improved by unwanted outside intervention.

Explain the difference between options 2 and 3 please.
I read it as option 2 takes into account adverse health effects, and three as "only if the woman's life is in danger."

If I remember right, that's when the brain starts to develop. And, in my opinion, if it has a brain, it's a living creature, a human in this case.

Fair enough thank you (and sorry I think I may have inadvertently brought some grief with that comment)

r. Actually a mother and a fetus don't have seperate bodies. . .

This is simply wrong.

or rather the fetus depends on the mother for life

Oh, wait. You might be correct about something...

as does one conjoined twin on another. . . .

...or not.

Yes. The fetus depends on the mother's body for life One unique enitity existing off the energy of another. This is different than the case of conjoined twins where we have two people with one body ( or parts thereof ) and both people share it.

the counter argument is, however, if late term abortions just don't happen, except in the case of the exceptions ot the restrictions, what's the harm of putting those restrictions in?

What's the harm in saying "only in case of emergency" when people just don't do it in case of emergency to begin with?

For me, the issue is the humiliation of having to 'prove' that it is necessary, on top of the already devastating situation itself. And that the groups that would have influence in setting these restrictions are not necessarily after the best interests of the living person.

I voted for option 2 in the poll, but have after some thought about the matter in depth, changed my response to option 1. This is because option 2 offers no recourse where the child is dead or unable to survive outside the womb, which is extremely traumatic, and also there are many other, non-medical reasons for a late term abortion.

I am reluctantly pro-choice. I don't think that abortion is an acceptable form of birth control, but I can't and won't make that decision for someone else, not even my own daughter. I do, however, believe that late-term (third trimester) abortions present more danger than they prevent.

Isn't it already not allowed except when there's a serious health problem?

I always really resented the Republicans for using that as a campaign shtick. Late term abortions are already extremely rare. And IIRC, they're already because of an issue with how dangerous it would be to the mother to continue the pregnancy. So basically, my understanding is that the women getting late term abortions mostly were trying to have a baby but it became too risky for them. I hate that the Republicans demonize people who probably already feel terrible.

Isn't it already not allowed except when there's a serious health problem?

I always really resented the Republicans for using that as a campaign shtick. Late term abortions are already extremely rare. And IIRC, they're already because of an issue with how dangerous it would be to the mother to continue the pregnancy. So basically, my understanding is that the women getting late term abortions mostly were trying to have a baby but it became too risky for them. I hate that the Republicans demonize people who probably already feel terrible.
yes, exactly

but judging from mccains air quotes last night it seems to be the republican position that the exception for the health of the mother is just a way of letting whores kill their babies at the last minute.

yes, exactly

but judging from mccains air quotes last night it seems to be the republican position that the exception for the health of the mother is just a way of letting whores kill their babies at the last minute.

That position makes no sense. If one was going to have an abortion from the get go, why wait until then? From what I've seen/heard, pregnancy is a bitch. Why go through that much of it just to get an abortion if aborting the pregnancy was your plan all along?

That position makes no sense. If one was going to have an abortion from the get go, why wait until then? From what I've seen/heard, pregnancy is a bitch. Why go through that much of it just to get an abortion if aborting the pregnancy was your plan all along?
its beyond me to understand those who demonize women over the worst thing that ever happened to them--the need for a late term abortion when they obviously wanted the child they were creating. its a terrible heartache that takes a long time to get past. making them out to be monsters is extremely cruel.

That position makes no sense. If one was going to have an abortion from the get go, why wait until then? From what I've seen/heard, pregnancy is a bitch. Why go through that much of it just to get an abortion if aborting the pregnancy was your plan all along?

Because something is wrong with the fetus or the mother that would result in the painful death of one or both?

I believe abortion should be an option for every woman up to the time of viability, when the fetus can survive outside of the womb. I don't think abortions should be performed after this time if the fetus can be safely removed without causing any undue stress to the mother.

The logic behind this is that if a woman's health is at risk in, say, the 8th month, the "abortion" performed then will essentially be the same as a simple removal of the fetus from the uterus to an incubator. Since it's the woman's freedom and health that is central to the issue, whether or not the fetus is destroyed is of no particular concern. The mother should obviously not have to pay for this procedure or any measures taken to keep the fetus alive.

If it is the fetus's health that is at risk, or if it is likely that the fetus will come to term and be delivered with a major problem that could not be detected earlier in the pregnancy, I think, as a "mother", the woman carrying it should be able to make the decision of whether or not to terminate the pregnancy.

The first scenario, as has been mentioned here, is mostly stuffed with straw.

few people are in favor of aborting healthy viable fetuses.

but what legal hoops would a woman NEEDING an abortion at that stage have to go through in order to make sure that she is not cavalierly deciding to kill her unborn baby? and how many needless abortions would that prevent?

it seems to me to be too much of a burden to impose in order to prevent essentially NO needless late term abortions.

but i think that most states have some kind of mandated medical review before a doctor is allowed to perform a late term abortion anyway.

Good point. I amend my view.

Because something is wrong with the fetus or the mother that would result in the painful death of one or both?

Read better. That's exactly the point I was making. If you were planning to have an abortion from the start, you wouldn't wait until the last trimester to do it. Only people who weren't planning on getting an abortion would get a late term one.

So, my stance is numero 2.

I've browsed through this thread, and it seems like the common argument against this stance is that a late-term abortion is extremely rare, when you factor out those that were done for the mother's health/life.

This doesn't seem to address the actual reason for holding this stance though. Extremely rare doesn't equal none at all. After 6+ months, the fetus can survive out of the womb, so it's not so parasitey anymore: it can live on its own, and thus, (to me) is a person. So, those very few cases of late-term abortion that do occur-- with no relation to the mother's health-- are essentially killing something that could live outside the womb. Why not just deliver it? You can induce labor or deliver it cesaerean, then put it up for adoption. Since these cases are so extremely rare, it's not like you would overwhelm the system.

Also, I don't think it's infringing on a woman's rights that much, since she had like 5 months before then to make the decision.

So, my stance is numero 2.

I've browsed through this thread, and it seems like the common argument against this stance is that a late-term abortion is extremely rare, when you factor out those that were done for the mother's health/life.

This doesn't seem to address the actual reason for holding this stance though. Extremely rare doesn't equal none at all. After 6+ months, the fetus can survive out of the womb, so it's not so parasitey anymore: it can live on its own, and thus, (to me) is a person. So, those very few cases of late-term abortion that do occur-- with no relation to the mother's health-- are essentially killing something that could live outside the womb. Why not just deliver it? You can induce labor or deliver it cesaerean, then put it up for adoption. Since these cases are so extremely rare, it's not like you would overwhelm the system.

Also, I don't think it's infringing on a woman's rights that much, since she had like 5 months before then to make the decision.
so you are contrasting that stance with the abortion on demand at any time that is implied in option #1?

as you can tell from the thread, #2 is pretty much the law of the land--differing slightly from state to state.

*I* come down on option #1 because i trust women to make their own decisions. but as you point out, a ban on late term abortions except for the health and life of the mother isnt a real burden since that is pretty much the only reason they are ever done.

Read better. That's exactly the point I was making. If you were planning to have an abortion from the start, you wouldn't wait until the last trimester to do it. Only people who weren't planning on getting an abortion would get a late term one.

Sorry, I've also seen what I quoted used as the battle cry of those who WANT to ban late term abortions.

I am pro choice. But I feel the supreme court should not be the deciding factor on how abortion is regulated. that should 100% be tied to the states.

Pro-life. But I don't support banning early abortions, or late term ones if they are necissary for the mother's survival.

I am pro choice. But I feel the supreme court should not be the deciding factor on how abortion is regulated. that should 100% be tied to the states.
Why? Why can't it be regulated the same way other medical procedures are?

I am pro choice. But I feel the supreme court should not be the deciding factor on how abortion is regulated. that should 100% be tied to the states.

Why should the states get a say in someones medical decisions?

Why should the states get a say in someones medical decisions?

why should the government regulate prescription drugs ?
why should the government prosecute doctors performing unnecessary surgery ?
why regulate anything medical?

I hate to break it to you but medical procedures are regulated.

why should the government regulate prescription drugs ?
why should the government prosecute doctors performing unnecessary surgery ?
why regulate anything medical?

I hate to break it to you but medical procedures are regulated.
But why should abortion be regulated at the state level rather than the fed level, as the poster was suggesting?

why should the government regulate prescription drugs ?
why should the government prosecute doctors performing unnecessary surgery ?


Both of those have clear and valid reasons for being regulated. Also as far as I know both are regulated by the feds NOT the states.

Now, do you have a clear and valid reason WHY abortion should be any more regulated than it already is and/or a reason it should be done by the states rather than the feds?

Both of those have clear and valid reasons for being regulated. Also as far as I know both are regulated by the feds NOT the states.
actually they are both regulated by both the feds and the states. try to buy some Pseudoephedrine in Texas you have to show your ID to the pharmacist.

Now, do you have a clear and valid reason WHY abortion should be any more regulated than it already is and/or a reason it should be done by the states rather than the feds?
Should be done by both. though I generally tend to favor giving the states more latitude in these decisions. (i am not a fan of current federal drug classification). The will of the people should generally be taken into account when regulating medical procedures.

actually they are both regulated by both the feds and the states. try to buy some Pseudoephedrine in Texas you have to show your ID to the pharmacist.

Federal law. IIRC part of the Patriot act. You have to do that everywhere.

I don't know which one to vote for. I'm pro-life and pro-choice. I didn't think it should have been legalized the way it was, but now that it's a legal right, I don't think it should be taken away by the religious Right.

That would be the if applicable part.

In case of abusive relationship, rape, etc.. there naturally should be no need or desire to consult the father, well aside from criminal inquiry.
Again, who decides this? Who decides if the mother's safety is in jeopardy?

In this case I'd see the doctor recommending a joint consultation before abortion, nothing more nothing less.
Shouldn't that be up to the clinical judgement of the doctor. He or she knows their patient afterall.

Because if the father somehow found out, like a bill left on the table or maybe wife's best friend coming clean, then the relationship could - and if that man in that situation would be me would - be over.
Possibly vs definately. And why do you assume that the wife would tell anyone. Or maybe, crazily, she has a good relationship with her family and consults them?

The goal behind my proposition is to improve the quality of society, not to diminish the rights of the woman - Who would STILL have the ultimate say.
By taking away a woman's right to make a medical decision, your undermining her autonomy. And if you are going to legislate one medical decision, you'd have to legislate others as well to avoid hypocracy.

What if a woman is in desperate need of psychological counseling and/or medication but refuses to go? What if she's making her husband and her children miserable? Should she be mandated to seek treatment?

What if she's diagnosed with a curable cancer but refuses treatment? Should she be mandated to undergo treatment? Even if her death is going to profoundly affect the family?

In my opinion, no. Having a child is an important decision, so is terminating a well progressing pregnancy.
But the reverse isn't true. A woman can become pregnant without consent or consult from the man. She can even choose to keep that pregnancy all on her own. Why should one thing be legislated and another not?

You're forgetting that there already IS consultation between the doctor and the mother, adding father - if applicable - in to that would IMO improve the situation further.
Then to be fair, her husband would have to be with her for all medical decisions.


I see it as a socially minded policy, a government cares type of rule making.

Laissez faire works too as long as people care about consequences.

However, look at the banking crisis and where it has lead to when people start taking liberties that while being legal can lead to unforeseen consequences. Now consider if completely unregulated abortion would be abused as a tool for extortion or revenge. Now, I know this is not happening in foreseeable future...On the other hand, did we see the banking crisis beforehand?

Society continues to evolve towards ONLY-I-MATTER way of life so an insignificant - by your very own numbers - law here, another there might go some way helping to turn the tide.

I'm a cynic though, so it's really only a matter of time when child making is equated to profit making.... :p

Viability statistics: Sub-20 weeks survability is near zero, 20-22 weeks survivability is extremely rare but has happened, after 30 weeks the rate of survivability is probably high enough for c-section in case of extreme duress.

Now, I'm not a doctor or an expert in pregnancy so feel free to disagree and give me better numbers.

That might be, but consider how I feel about human life. To me that would be somewhat akin to advocating murder for comfortability's sake. And like I said, it might turn out to be a blessing after all.

Luckily for all parties, I'm not looking to be in a position of law making nor is stance on abortion really a voting issue to me so my opinions are only my own :tongue:

After some thought, because legislating and controlling it would be impossible, I revised it to a mandatory suggestion by the doctor who would go through the points about why notifiying the father is not a bad idea even if he would appear to be against abortion.

Personally I consider not telling the father, if he's more than a random acquaintance, form of both extreme cowardice and selfishness and extremely unhealthy for a relationship: Consider whether living in such a relationship would be worthwhile even for the woman after all, when she can't trust him in one of the most important aspects of being a couple - Offspring?

Ultimately, I promote it because I think notifying father would lead to a healthier situation overall.
It's not laissez faire at all. It's letting a doctor use his or her clinical judgement to decide what's right for the patient. You assume that doctors never suggest such a thing. In the US, we've already arbitrarily legislated enough doctor/patient interaction, why do we have to continue. Why not let the experts do their job? A doctor's job is to care for his or her patient. They've had 12+ years of training to learn how to do that. I think it's best we step aside and let them do their job.

I am pro choice. But I feel the supreme court should not be the deciding factor on how abortion is regulated. that should 100% be tied to the states.

why should the government regulate prescription drugs ?
why should the government prosecute doctors performing unnecessary surgery ?
why regulate anything medical?

I hate to break it to you but medical procedures are regulated.

actually they are both regulated by both the feds and the states. try to buy some Pseudoephedrine in Texas you have to show your ID to the pharmacist.

Should be done by both. though I generally tend to favor giving the states more latitude in these decisions. (i am not a fan of current federal drug classification). The will of the people should generally be taken into account when regulating medical procedures.

Ah, but there is a fundamental right to abortion (a liberty interest that involves a wide range of rights including self-ownership, privacy, etc) that is protected by the 14th Amendment from infringement by the states. See, e.g., Planned Parenthood v. Casey (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=505&invol=833), 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

That makes abortion different than buying pseudoephedrine. We have a Bill of Rights and 14th Amendment precisely to protect our liberties from infringement by the federal OR state government. Arguing that such infringement should be allowed at either level is equally wrong.

Although almost no women would carry the baby for 9 months and then have it aborted, there is always the chance that a woman will, for no reason. I think that late term abortions should be legal only if it will seriously harm the mother.

Abortion after the first trimester is bad enough. If you get pregnant and don't want it, abort it before it's heart is beating please.

I'm sick and tired of hearing about the womans right to choose. People think it's naive to suggest the baby (fetus) has rights, but why shouldn't it? At some point it has a beating heart, it has a brain, it moves and responds to the mothers voice and to music it hears. It's just as much alive as you and I and I don't think it's the "womans choice" to end it.

If you get far enough into a pregnancy and decide you don't want it, tough luck. Follow through with the pregnancy you helped to create, give the baby to a loving family who can't have babies, and move on with your life.

On a side not, I will once again say I support abortions at ANY TIME if the mother will be seriously harmed. I also reluctantly agree to abortions given to victims of rape (although I'm sure they would have an abortion quick rather than wait.)

So, my stance is numero 2.

I've browsed through this thread, and it seems like the common argument against this stance is that a late-term abortion is extremely rare, when you factor out those that were done for the mother's health/life.

This doesn't seem to address the actual reason for holding this stance though. Extremely rare doesn't equal none at all. After 6+ months, the fetus can survive out of the womb, so it's not so parasitey anymore: it can live on its own, and thus, (to me) is a person. So, those very few cases of late-term abortion that do occur-- with no relation to the mother's health-- are essentially killing something that could live outside the womb. Why not just deliver it? You can induce labor or deliver it cesaerean, then put it up for adoption. Since these cases are so extremely rare, it's not like you would overwhelm the system.

Also, I don't think it's infringing on a woman's rights that much, since she had like 5 months before then to make the decision.

You misunderstand. The argument is (1) late-term abortions are extremely rare AND (2) those that do exist are medically necessary (with the exception of a few states that allow such abortions in other extreme circumstances like incest or severe fetal deformity.)

In other words, there aren't essentially any (let alone a significant number) of abortions that are late in the pregnancy and are not necessary to save the life or health of the mother.

By all means, if the fetus can be safely removed from the mother and survive, that is fine. But that is usually not the situation.

Thus, your objection is to a scenario that is so extremely unlikely and so already covered by strict laws that talking about it is essentially burning a strawman.

Although almost no women would carry the baby for 9 months and then have it aborted, there is always the chance that a woman will, for no reason. I think that late term abortions should be legal only if it will seriously harm the mother.

Abortion after the first trimester is bad enough. If you get pregnant and don't want it, abort it before it's heart is beating please.

I'm sick and tired of hearing about the womans right to choose. People think it's naive to suggest the baby (fetus) has rights, but why shouldn't it? At some point it has a beating heart, it has a brain, it moves and responds to the mothers voice and to music it hears. It's just as much alive as you and I and I don't think it's the "womans choice" to end it.

If you get far enough into a pregnancy and decide you don't want it, tough luck. Follow through with the pregnancy you helped to create, give the baby to a loving family who can't have babies, and move on with your life.

On a side not, I will once again say I support abortions at ANY TIME if the mother will be seriously harmed. I also reluctantly agree to abortions given to victims of rape (although I'm sure they would have an abortion quick rather than wait.)

The issue is not about whether abortion is good or evil, but whether you, or anyone else, has the right to impose their morality on someone else. I think that fundamentalist Christianity is evil, but I would not attempt to impose my own agnosticism on fundamentalists as the ultimate in morality. My mother had a second trimester abortion when she was 23 (this was in 1938), I would never question her morality or her right to choose. What I would question would be the laws and culture that made her feel she had to choose this option.

Although almost no women would carry the baby for 9 months and then have it aborted, there is always the chance that a woman will, for no reason. I think that late term abortions should be legal only if it will seriously harm the mother.

Abortion after the first trimester is bad enough. If you get pregnant and don't want it, abort it before it's heart is beating please.

I'm sick and tired of hearing about the womans right to choose. People think it's naive to suggest the baby (fetus) has rights, but why shouldn't it? At some point it has a beating heart, it has a brain, it moves and responds to the mothers voice and to music it hears. It's just as much alive as you and I and I don't think it's the "womans choice" to end it.

If you get far enough into a pregnancy and decide you don't want it, tough luck. Follow through with the pregnancy you helped to create, give the baby to a loving family who can't have babies, and move on with your life.

On a side not, I will once again say I support abortions at ANY TIME if the mother will be seriously harmed. I also reluctantly agree to abortions given to victims of rape (although I'm sure they would have an abortion quick rather than wait.)

I am always glad to be able to reassure those that feel the way you do that your feelings are already the law of the land in the United States.

Abortion past the point of viability (established by many states at a conservative 20 months) is illegal except in cases of a threat to the life or health of the mother. (There are a few states that also allow such abortions in other extreme cases such as severe fetal deformity or incest).

Thus, 61% of abortions in the U.S. occur in the first 8 weeks of pregnancy and 90% occur in the first 12 weeks. 3.7% occur at 16--20 weeks and 1.3% at >21 weeks--and all of the latter are due to extreme circumstances.

As for the argument about the rights of the unborn, it should comfort you that almost all abortion occur early in the pregnancy before the unborn develops any real characteristics of personhood.

I am reluctantly pro-choice. I don't think that abortion is an acceptable form of birth control, but I can't and won't make that decision for someone else, not even my own daughter. I do, however, believe that late-term (third trimester) abortions present more danger than they prevent.

I sympathize with your position that abortion shouldn't simply be a primary form of birth control. IIRC, the evidence suggests that few (if any) women treat it that way.

I am curious about your statement that late-term abortions present more danger than they prevent, because such abortions are almost all due to medical necessity. They usually involve a wanted pregnancy that has to be terminated to preserve the life or health of the mother. Pretty much by definition, such abortion prevent more danger than they present.

I sympathize with your position that abortion shouldn't simply be a primary form of birth control. IIRC, the evidence suggests that few (if any) women treat it that way.

I am curious about your statement that late-term abortions present more danger than they prevent, because such abortions are almost all due to medical necessity. They usually involve a wanted pregnancy that has to be terminated to preserve the life or health of the mother. Pretty much by definition, such abortion prevent more danger than they present.

It's an opinion based on information from my daughter who's a Public Health Officer. I consider late term abortions questionable at best but, as I said previously, I would never consider forcing another person to conform to my opinions concerning the morality of abortion at any stage or for any reason.

Federal law. IIRC part of the Patriot act. You have to do that everywhere.

but the state laws existed before and and specifically require it be sold behind the counter of a pharmacy. and the state of Oregon has outlawed it's self without prescription.

So, my stance is numero 2.

I've browsed through this thread, and it seems like the common argument against this stance is that a late-term abortion is extremely rare, when you factor out those that were done for the mother's health/life.

This doesn't seem to address the actual reason for holding this stance though. Extremely rare doesn't equal none at all. After 6+ months, the fetus can survive out of the womb, so it's not so parasitey anymore: it can live on its own, and thus, (to me) is a person. So, those very few cases of late-term abortion that do occur-- with no relation to the mother's health-- are essentially killing something that could live outside the womb. Why not just deliver it? You can induce labor or deliver it cesaerean, then put it up for adoption. Since these cases are so extremely rare, it's not like you would overwhelm the system.

Also, I don't think it's infringing on a woman's rights that much, since she had like 5 months before then to make the decision.

As I pointed out before, the stakeholders who make that determination may not be value-neutral, which is the problem that I have with forcing women to prove the risk level in any way.

Also there are other considerations which may lead to a woman requiring termination of pregnancy in a later stage, which may not be evident. Furthermore, it doesn't allow for issues such as the baby having severe birth defects which prevent it surviving outside the womb or being severely impaired, things that may not show up initially until the foetus is progressed to a point where late-term abortion is necessary.

Again, who decides this? Who decides if the mother's safety is in jeopardy?
The mother and doctor together, naturally. Who did you think?

There's absolutely nothing mystifying about it, the discussion might go something like this:
P: I want to have an abortion
D: Why?
P: ~wail~ because my husband wants this child but he abuses me!
D: Ok, let's start by calling the police...?
Shouldn't that be up to the clinical judgement of the doctor. He or she knows their patient afterall.
Have I promoted something else?
Possibly vs definately. And why do you assume that the wife would tell anyone. Or maybe, crazily, she has a good relationship with her family and consults them?
Your point being?

I'm merely suggesting that in case the doctor should suggest the patient about telling the father about the abortion. I hardly see this as infraction of her rights, merely an improvement to the rights of the father.

I'm probably not feminist enough to see the improvement of the rights of men as removal of rights from women...?
By taking away a woman's right to make a medical decision, your undermining her autonomy.
What I'm proposing is no different from any other legislation: You're not allowed to do whatever you please with your body if it would directly lead into another human's death.

What if a woman is in desperate need of psychological counseling and/or medication but refuses to go? What if she's making her husband and her children miserable? Should she be mandated to seek treatment?
Are you saying there isn't - genderless - legislation for this kind of situation already in your country? :eek:

But the reverse isn't true. A woman can become pregnant without consent or consult from the man. She can even choose to keep that pregnancy all on her own. Why should one thing be legislated and another not?
In this case, the only legislation necessary would be to liberate father from all the responsibilities, namely child support, he might have towards the child.

You assume that doctors never suggest such a thing.
Suggest what kind of thing? Late term abortion for non-medical reason?

Although almost no women would carry the baby for 9 months and then have it aborted, there is always the chance that a woman will, for no reason. I think that late term abortions should be legal only if it will seriously harm the mother.

Abortion after the first trimester is bad enough. If you get pregnant and don't want it, abort it before it's heart is beating please.

I'm sick and tired of hearing about the womans right to choose. People think it's naive to suggest the baby (fetus) has rights, but why shouldn't it? At some point it has a beating heart, it has a brain, it moves and responds to the mothers voice and to music it hears. It's just as much alive as you and I and I don't think it's the "womans choice" to end it.

If you get far enough into a pregnancy and decide you don't want it, tough luck. Follow through with the pregnancy you helped to create, give the baby to a loving family who can't have babies, and move on with your life.

On a side not, I will once again say I support abortions at ANY TIME if the mother will be seriously harmed. I also reluctantly agree to abortions given to victims of rape (although I'm sure they would have an abortion quick rather than wait.)
so what youre saying is that you support current abortion laws as mandated by roe v wade.

if you look at the statistics provided by the cat tribes in this thread you will see that what you most devoutly desire is what is happening. a majority of abortions occur before 8 weeks and the vast majority occur before 16 weeks. those that happen after 16 weeks are due to a devastating diagnosis that requires abortion.

Most late term abortions in the USA are not what people think they are.
Most late term abortions are simply this..
The dr induces labor, delivers the baby's feet, torso and hands but leads the head inside. He then drills a hole in the babies head (YES BABIES FEEL PAIN AT THIS POINT) after the hole he sucks the brains out colapsing the skull..

This should be banned.. for several reasons. 1 its barbaric. 2, at this point the baby can be delivered 100% with no risk to the mothers health.

the second most comon abortion in late term is using tongs they rip the "fetus" apart bit by bit. *yes the babies feel this pain *

The third most comon late term abortion is done by using acid that eats away the flesh of the baby..


folks. all three of those are barbaric. I dont care if your pro choice, pro life or pro migit football there are some things that are just wrong.

if you dont want the baby and want to abort why wait so long to do the most painful and horrific abortions? you get prego, off your child today if you dont like the thought of kids.. waiting for these late terms is abuse.

Most late term abortions in the USA are not what people think they are.
Most late term abortions are simply this..
The dr induces labor, delivers the baby's feet, torso and hands but leads the head inside. He then drills a hole in the babies head (YES BABIES FEEL PAIN AT THIS POINT) after the hole he sucks the brains out colapsing the skull..

This should be banned.. for several reasons. 1 its barbaric. 2, at this point the baby can be delivered 100% with no risk to the mothers health.

the second most comon abortion in late term is using tongs they rip the "fetus" apart bit by bit. *yes the babies feel this pain *

The third most comon late term abortion is done by using acid that eats away the flesh of the baby..


folks. all three of those are barbaric. I dont care if your pro choice, pro life or pro migit football there are some things that are just wrong.

if you dont want the baby and want to abort why wait so long to do the most painful and horrific abortions? you get prego, off your child today if you dont like the thought of kids.. waiting for these late terms is abuse.
so you feel that any suggestion of the health or life of the mother is a scam and that all late term abortions should be banned with no exceptions allowed?

in an overpopulated world, there is no such thing as an "unneccesary" abortion.

fertility prevention, is however, extremely preferable.

(if all marrages were gay marrages, there wouldn't be any abortions, now would there?

er well, except for teenagers playing arround, the way god and nature intended)

Most late term abortions in the USA are not what people think they are.
Most late term abortions are simply this..
The dr induces labor, delivers the baby's feet, torso and hands but leads the head inside. He then drills a hole in the babies head (YES BABIES FEEL PAIN AT THIS POINT) after the hole he sucks the brains out colapsing the skull..

This should be banned.. for several reasons. 1 its barbaric. 2, at this point the baby can be delivered 100% with no risk to the mothers health.

the second most comon abortion in late term is using tongs they rip the "fetus" apart bit by bit. *yes the babies feel this pain *

The third most comon late term abortion is done by using acid that eats away the flesh of the baby..


folks. all three of those are barbaric. I dont care if your pro choice, pro life or pro migit football there are some things that are just wrong.

if you dont want the baby and want to abort why wait so long to do the most painful and horrific abortions? you get prego, off your child today if you dont like the thought of kids.. waiting for these late terms is abuse.

...and?

Who gives a rats ass about the procedure's gory details, when it is only performed in rare instances and only to preserve the health and life of the mother.

I mean it's nice that you went through the trouble to wiki late-term abortions, but really, you probably should've read a bit further into who typically obtains these abortions: women who had every intention of carrying to term and are now faced with the pain of an abortion in order to stay healthy or stay alive.

Federal law. IIRC part of the Patriot act. You have to do that everywhere.
I think it actually predates the Patriot Act. I think the requirement is connected to the drug trade because those OTC drugs are used in making meth and "designer" drugs.

I have a friend with strong allergies who hates government intrusions of all kinds, so she made an effort to know why she has to sign the big black book every time she buys her decongestants, and she bitches about it every time we stop at a CVS -- in every state we've happened to stop at drug store in.

but the state laws existed before and and specifically require it be sold behind the counter of a pharmacy. and the state of Oregon has outlawed it's self without prescription.
What you are saying is not really true. Many OTC products containing that drug used to be or still are sold from store shelves in many places, not just behind a counter, yet ALL, regardless of where in the store they are, require the purchaser to sign the form and give their ID.

States can have their own standards that exceed the federal standard, but they must at least meet the federal standard, and the federal standard is what tells them to control drugs that they did not used to control.

Likewise, the federal standard tells them they are not allowed to make abortion illegal within their state borders, even though several governors and state legislatures would like to.

...and?

Who gives a rats ass about the procedure's gory details, when it is only performed in rare instances and only to preserve the health and life of the mother.

I mean it's nice that you went through the trouble to wiki late-term abortions, but really, you probably should've read a bit further into who typically obtains these abortions: women who had every intention of carrying to term and are now faced with the pain of an abortion in order to stay healthy or stay alive.
Yeah, but it's icky. Icky = bad, so it should be banned.

Why does the beginning of development of a brain equal personhood?

My cats are living creatures with fully-functioning brains. Are they people?

Regardless, allowing abortion up to 16 weeks pretty much allows abortion as it is practiced in the U.S. As I explained earlier, over 50% of abortions occur in the first 9 weeks of pregnancy and about 90% occur within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. Only 3.7% of abortions occur at 16 weeks or more and these are almost always medically necessary.

Add an exception for an abortion that is necessary to preserve the health of the mother as well as a life-threating situation, and you've pretty much endorsed Roe v. Wade.

As for when a fetus has a functioning brain:
*snipity*

Hmm, very interesting. I view a cat as a living, thinking creature that should not be killed without a reason. Chickens die to feed millions, I say that's a good cause. However, a baby can just as easily be put up for adoption, thus allowing a couple who wants to adopt a child, adopt one.

Hmm, very interesting. I view a cat as a living, thinking creature that should not be killed without a reason. Chickens die to feed millions, I say that's a good cause. However, a baby can just as easily be put up for adoption, thus allowing a couple who wants to adopt a child, adopt one.
People seem to have a lot of trouble understanding why adoption is not a substitute for abortion.

Abortion ends a pregnancy.

If you opt for adoption, you still have the pregnancy.

If being pregnant is the problem, then you still have the problem, don't you?

Therefore, adoption does not address the need that abortion does.

Therefore, insisting that babies can be put up for adoption is in no way relevant to the issue of abortion.

I am pro choice. But I feel the supreme court should not be the deciding factor on how abortion is regulated. that should 100% be tied to the states.

Luckily, we have a Constitution that restricts government power - including state government power.

In my opinion, that's a big part of the reason to have a Constitution.

I think it actually predates the Patriot Act. I think the requirement is connected to the drug trade because those OTC drugs are used in making meth and "designer" drugs.

I was basing that off the fact that I never encountered this requirement until the Patriot act was passed and the fact that a local store has a sign declaring that the Patriot act is the reason for the requirement. Guess I was wrong.

I was basing that off the fact that I never encountered this requirement until the Patriot act was passed and the fact that a local store has a sign declaring that the Patriot act is the reason for the requirement. Guess I was wrong.
I could just as easily be wrong about it. Another pharmacist told me, while my friend was filling out the book (I don't use those products) that it was because of anti-illegal-drug laws.

Should be done by both. though I generally tend to favor giving the states more latitude in these decisions. (i am not a fan of current federal drug classification). The will of the people should generally be taken into account when regulating medical procedures.

I don't think the "will of the people" should determine my medical decisions any more than it should determine what sexual positions I engage in with my husband. My medical decisions are none of the "people's" business.

The government should regulate medicine in so far as protection of patients is concerned. That's really about it.

Then to be fair, her husband would have to be with her for all medical decisions.

When my mother-in-law had her tubes tied, she had to have her husband sign the paperwork as well. Of course, this was almost 30 years ago, but still...

I could just as easily be wrong about it. Another pharmacist told me, while my friend was filling out the book (I don't use those products) that it was because of anti-illegal-drug laws.
when those laws were passed in new mexico the patriot act was never mentioned. they made it seem like a good idea that they had thought up all on their own.

now in order to get cold medicine i have to put my name on the "meth list" so they can keep track of me. i hate that shit.

Although almost no women would carry the baby for 9 months and then have it aborted, there is always the chance that a woman will, for no reason.

It could happen that a woman would, for no reason, suddenly decide to seek an abortion at the very last moment. It's so unlikely as to be ridiculous, but just about anything is possible.

Of course, then she'd have to find a doctor who was actually willing to perform the procedure. And she'd have to do so before she went into natural labor.

So it would take not one, but at least two people willing to perform an abortion procedure rather than just induce birth. If even one person wanting to do it is astronomically unlikely, what do you think the likelihood that you'd get two people in collusion on it is?

Abortion after the first trimester is bad enough. If you get pregnant and don't want it, abort it before it's heart is beating please.

Be fair. The heartbeat begins at, IIRC, 5 or 6 weeks. Many women aren't even aware that they're pregnant at that point.

I agree that, if women are going to abort, they should do it as early as possible. But trying to restrict it to "before the heartbeat" is unrealistic.

I'm sick and tired of hearing about the womans right to choose. People think it's naive to suggest the baby (fetus) has rights, but why shouldn't it?

It really doesn't matter if the embryo/fetus has rights. Unless it has rights that no other entity has, it still doesn't have the right to use the mother's body against her will.

Discussion of the point at which the embryo/fetus gains rights is an interesting academic discussion, but it really doesn't provide answers when the topic is abortion rights.

At some point it has a beating heart, it has a brain, it moves and responds to the mothers voice and to music it hears. It's just as much alive as you and I and I don't think it's the "womans choice" to end it.

It is the woman's choice to decide how her body will be used. If her decision necessarily ends the development of an embryo/fetus, that's unfortunately just the way it is.

I don't think the "will of the people" should determine my medical decisions any more than it should determine what sexual positions I engage in with my husband. My medical decisions are none of the "people's" business.

The government should regulate medicine in so far as protection of patients is concerned. That's really about it.
^^ This!


When my mother-in-law had her tubes tied, she had to have her husband sign the paperwork as well. Of course, this was almost 30 years ago, but still...
Well, apparently, some people think that women should have the right to make their own decisions, just as long as they have men around to "help" them do it, just like in the good old days.

when those laws were passed in new mexico the patriot act was never mentioned. they made it seem like a good idea that they had thought up all on their own.

now in order to get cold medicine i have to put my name on the "meth list" so they can keep track of me. i hate that shit.
It strikes me as just another useless boondoggle. I may be wrong, but as far as I know, it has not made a significant dent in the illegal drug trade.

I'm merely suggesting that in case the doctor should suggest the patient about telling the father about the abortion. I hardly see this as infraction of her rights, merely an improvement to the rights of the father.

I'm probably not feminist enough to see the improvement of the rights of men as removal of rights from women...?

What rights exactly, though?

Are there any medical decisions that a doctor should be required to encourage a man to discuss with his female partner?

What I'm proposing is no different from any other legislation: You're not allowed to do whatever you please with your body if it would directly lead into another human's death.


Most late term abortions in the USA are not what people think they are.

They certainly aren't what you think they are, either.

Most late term abortions are simply this..
The dr induces labor, delivers the baby's feet, torso and hands but leads the head inside. He then drills a hole in the babies head (YES BABIES FEEL PAIN AT THIS POINT) after the hole he sucks the brains out colapsing the skull..

This is nominally a description of intact dilation and extraction. However, it is not an accurate description.

What actually happens is that the cervix is dilated to a certain point. The doctor grabs the feet of the fetus with forceps and begins to pull. When resistance is met (ie. the head has reached the cervix, which is not dilated enough for the head to pass through), he snaps the spine - providing an instant and relatively painless death. Suction is then used to shrink the head so that it can fit through the cervix.

This procedure allows the mother and other family to actually have an intact body to mourn, as well as involving less chance of fetal tissue being left behind and less chance of uterine puncture.

This should be banned.. for several reasons. 1 its barbaric. 2, at this point the baby can be delivered 100% with no risk to the mothers health.

1. The other possible procedure used at this point is arguably much more barbaric-sounding. (In fact, a description of just about any surgical procedure can sound pretty barbaric) In the non-intact procedure, the doctor starts in roughly the same way as described above. However, when resistance is met, he keeps pulling, generally severing the limb. He does this multiple times (sometimes as many as 15), until he most likely has all the parts.

2. This is patently incorrect.

the second most comon abortion in late term is using tongs they rip the "fetus" apart bit by bit. *yes the babies feel this pain *

Actually, this is the most "common" (in quotation since late term abortions can hardly be described as "common"). Intact dilation and extraction is not the most "common", although it does become relatively more "common" as the abortion gets later.

The third most comon late term abortion is done by using acid that eats away the flesh of the baby..

This isn't even nominally true.

if you dont want the baby and want to abort why wait so long to do the most painful and horrific abortions? you get prego, off your child today if you dont like the thought of kids.. waiting for these late terms is abuse.

Maybe it's because nobody sits around waiting for a late-term abortion. These abortions are medically indicated. In other words, these are women who are planning to carry to term, but have developed complications for which their doctor recommends aborting the pregnancy or who have found that the fetus is dead, dying, or has gross chromosomal or physical defects.

These are not women who just decided not to have children.

It strikes me as just another useless boondoggle. I may be wrong, but as far as I know, it has not made a significant dent in the illegal drug trade.

Of course not. Do you know how many boxes of decongestant you would have to buy to make a significant amount of meth?

People don't buy the OTC drugs they use to make meth. Those things "fall off the back of the truck" by the case.

Of course not. Do you know how many boxes of decongestant you would have to buy to make a significant amount of meth?

People don't buy the OTC drugs they use to make meth. Those things "fall off the back of the truck" by the case.
i have wondered how much sudafed id have to buy to make an amount of meth that would be good for even personal use. i assumed it would be more than would be easy to pick up in town here if i had to buy it one or 2 boxes at a time.

Yeah, but it's icky. Icky = bad, so it should be banned.

Well there goes pretty much every invasive medical procedure ever. So much for open heart surgery or kidney transplants. It's icky, people. We should ban it.

It strikes me as just another useless boondoggle. I may be wrong, but as far as I know, it has not made a significant dent in the illegal drug trade.

To sidetrack for a moment, what the restrictions on pseudoephedrine have done is to significantly reduce the domestic production of meth. It hasn't reduced the overall meth trade because we're now importing our meth, mostly from Mexico.

The argument in favor of restricting access to ephedrine and pseudoephedrine is that unlike, say, opium, coca, or marijuana, ephedrine isn't harvested from giant widespread ma huang plantings but is instead made in factories. Further, it's made in a relatively small number of factories. If one can control the supply and distribution networks of ephedrine, it's theoretically possible to raise the price of producing meth so high that few people can afford to buy it.

i have wondered how much sudafed id have to buy to make an amount of meth that would be good for even personal use. i assumed it would be more than would be easy to pick up in town here if i had to buy it one or 2 boxes at a time.

In my experience you can duplicate the effect by taking Dayquil for two weeks straight and then drinking too much Mountain Dew.

In my experience you can duplicate the effect by taking Dayquil for two weeks straight and then drinking too much Mountain Dew.

No pseudoephedrine in DayQuil anymore. You'll just be tripping on the dextromethorphan. I suppose both meth and dex will make you want to jump out the window, but for different reasons.

No pseudoephedrine in DayQuil anymore. You'll just be tripping on the dextromethorphan. I suppose both meth and dex will make you want to jump out the window, but for different reasons.

This was old school Dayquil.

To sidetrack for a moment, what the restrictions on pseudoephedrine have done is to significantly reduce the domestic production of meth. It hasn't reduced the overall meth trade because we're now importing our meth, mostly from Mexico.

The argument in favor of restricting access to ephedrine and pseudoephedrine is that unlike, say, opium, coca, or marijuana, ephedrine isn't harvested from giant widespread ma huang plantings but is instead made in factories. Further, it's made in a relatively small number of factories. If one can control the supply and distribution networks of ephedrine, it's theoretically possible to raise the price of producing meth so high that few people can afford to buy it.
i dont have a problem with restricting the sales of meth ingredients in some ways. id like to be sure that making me get in the pharmacy line and wait forever in order to put my name on a registry so i can buy enough otc meds to deal with my cold (but not enough to get some for the rest of the family too) is NEEDED to reach this goal.

i dont have a problem with restricting the sales of meth ingredients in some ways. id like to be sure that making me get in the pharmacy line and wait forever in order to put my name on a registry so i can buy enough otc meds to deal with my cold (but not enough to get some for the rest of the family too) is NEEDED to reach this goal.
There is a hard and fast limit here, and at this point of the year, I'm over the limit, I've used hubby's limit and unless I want to further break the law and get someone else to buy me some cold meds....I'm shit out of luck.

I made it almost all the way through spring......but if I get another cold this fall or winter....I have no way to seek relief.

The meth problem is unchanged in my area.

What rights exactly, though?

Are there any medical decisions that a doctor should be required to encourage a man to discuss with his female partner?

I'd say that with every contagious disease, disease that is caused by the partner or disease that affects the partner too, like impotence or mental disease.

Encouraging someone to talk to his or her partner is NOT away from the patient but can be GOOD for the partner and the relationship.

The mother and doctor together, naturally. Who did you think?

There's absolutely nothing mystifying about it, the discussion might go something like this:
P: I want to have an abortion
D: Why?
P: ~wail~ because my husband wants this child but he abuses me!
D: Ok, let's start by calling the police...?
Yeah, because that's a likely scenario. Firstly, when the abused are ready to go to the police, they go to the police. But they generally don't go to the police, they're more likely to go to a women's shelter (if it's a woman) than the cops unless it's in the moment. They don't want to get the abuser in trouble. That's why the abused will often rescind when the cops arrive, or even in court. Heck, sometimes the abused will attack the cops to prevent them from hauling the person off.

But I digress, the point remains, that's a very unlikely scenario.

Have I promoted something else?
You're promoting legistlating the doctor patient relationship.

Your point being?

I'm merely suggesting that in case the doctor should suggest the patient about telling the father about the abortion. I hardly see this as infraction of her rights, merely an improvement to the rights of the father.

I'm probably not feminist enough to see the improvement of the rights of men as removal of rights from women...?
Of course the woman gets more rights in this situation. It's her body. If men were the ones to get pregnant, the exact same thing would apply. The man would have more rights in that situation.

The day an embryo can be trasplanted into a man's body is the day they get an equal say in this.

What I'm proposing is no different from any other legislation: You're not allowed to do whatever you please with your body if it would directly lead into another human's death.
There's no human dying here. There's the removal of an embryo that could potentially become a person. Just like every egg that's released every month during a woman's fertile years.

Although I didn't think you were arguing against abortion, this is a strange turn indeed.

Are you saying there isn't - genderless - legislation for this kind of situation already in your country? :eek:
No, in my former country we actually believe that everyone's body is their own and they are free to make medical decisions as they see fit up to, but not including doctor assisted suicide. Actually, in some states that's even a right people have.

Edit: Not sure about my current country, but I think they allow you to make medical decisions for yourself here also. After consulting a Norwegian attorney, I feel reasonably certain my answer is correct.

In this case, the only legislation necessary would be to liberate father from all the responsibilities, namely child support, he might have towards the child.

That, paired with informing the father before an abortion, ends up being a complete double screw for the woman.

Besides, child support works both ways. If I have a child and dump it off on the father, I pay child support. Doesn't matter if I wanted the kid or not.

Suggest what kind of thing? Late term abortion for non-medical reason?
Firstly, why on earth would a doctor just randomly suggest a late term abortion. I can't even imagine a scenario where that would come up. "So your 8th month check went well, do you want an abortion?" Wat. And as has been pointed out by the Canadians in this thread, late- term abortions for non-medical reasons don't really happen.

No, I was referring to doctors asking the woman if the father knows and if she plans on telling him. There's a patient/doctor relationship that should be respected. Let the doctor care for his or her patient and use the judgement they spent 12+ years aquiring.

You're promoting legistlating the doctor patient relationship.
..based on medical judgement of the doctor.
The day an embryo can be trasplanted into a man's body is the day they get an equal say in this.
Who exactly here is promoting equal say?

Woman has the ultimate say on abortion regardless of what the doctor or husband would say.
Although I didn't think you were arguing against abortion, this is a strange turn indeed.
You're confusing two issues I've been talking about:
- Right to abortion in general
- Late term abortion that is not performed due to a medical condition

I consider late term abortion akin to killing a viable human being, because that is exactly what a late term fetus is - It's not a mass of cells anymore, but a living, feeling human being just living in a very special environment.
No, in my former country we actually believe that everyone's body is their own and they are free to make medical decisions as they see fit up to, but not including doctor assisted suicide.
So someone who is clearly not capable of taking care of him or herself or is dangerous to environment cannot be forcibly taken under treatment? Interesting.
Edit: Not sure about my current country, but I think they allow you to make medical decisions for yourself here also.
That's the general policy, however when one is deemed incapable of such decisions due to eg. mental disorder or unconciousness the decision is left to other authorities or relatives, unless the patient has written a specific paper prohibiting treatment.

That's how it works in our country...and most likely in Norway as well, being a scandinavian country an' all that.
That, paired with informing the father before an abortion, ends up being a complete double screw for the woman.
So, in a situation where a woman who knowingly gets pregnant with a man without informing the man about her intentions, the man should be forced to pay child support? This does open up a horrible risk for abuse...


As for the informing part, I see it as a feature that would improve the health of a relationship. Your view may be fundamentally different, and in that case let's agree to disagree: I completely fail to see the harm in requiring doctors to encourage spouses to talk about important family life affecting medical decisions with each other (if applicable).

..based on medical judgement of the doctor.
Then don't legislate it and let the doctor do his or her job.

Who exactly here is promoting equal say?

Woman has the ultimate say on abortion regardless of what the doctor or husband would say.
Equal say, yes I mispoke. Yet again, her husband/ signifigant other/ child/ parents past a certain age don't have a say in the rest of her medical care without her express and specific written consent. Why should this medical decision be any different.

You're confusing two issues I've been talking about:
- Right to abortion in general
- Late term abortion that is not performed due to a medical condition
You're confusing me with another poster apparently. We aren't debating that at all.

I consider late term abortion akin to killing a viable human being, because that is exactly what a late term fetus is - It's not a mass of cells anymore, but a living, feeling human being just living in a very special environment.
This isn't what we're debating. And the day it can survive on it's own, it can go live outside the mother. She doesn't have to be forced to continue to have it live in her body. If you do your research, late term abortions these days are done in the way least likely to harm the foetus.

So someone who is clearly not capable of taking care of him or herself or is dangerous to environment cannot be forcibly taken under treatment? Interesting.
Wow, that's a leap into a completely different situation entirely. And I suppose abortion is murder because if you leave a baby in the forest it will die, eh? Fine, show me how the woman isn't capable of making a rational and concious decision in this case.

That's the general policy, however when one is deemed incapable of such decisions due to eg. mental disorder or unconciousness the decision is left to other authorities or relatives, unless the patient has written a specific paper prohibiting treatment.
Relatives don't get to make that decision in the US unless the patient has given prior consent in the form of a power of attorney or advance directive.

That's how it works in our country...and most likely in Norway as well, being a scandinavian country an' all that.
Actually in Norway, the final decision lies with the doctor only if the patient is incapable of making a medical decision for themselves. No advance directives or powers of attorney here.

But we've strayed so far off any intelligently applicable debate, unless you can show how a pregnant woman is incapable of making said decision.

Being Scandinavian? Yes, we believe in human rights in this area of the world.

So, in a situation where a woman who knowingly gets pregnant with a man without informing the man about her intentions, the man should be forced to pay child support? This does open up a horrible risk for abuse...
Oh that can work both ways. What if a man gets cold feet six months in or finds a bird he'd rather be with? All he has to do is say, "but I didn't know she was pregnant??" And again, this is an equally applied law. Women have to pay child support if they dump the kid on the man.


As for the informing part, I see it as a feature that would improve the health of a relationship. Your view may be fundamentally different, and in that case let's agree to disagree.
In some cases it may be. But that's not your choice to make. That's the doctor's choice. And her doctor should continue to have the freedom to decide if she or he will broach the subject with the mother or not.

So, in a situation where a woman who knowingly gets pregnant with a man without informing the man about her intentions, the man should be forced to pay child support? This does open up a horrible risk for abuse...

There's responsibility on both sides here. Both partners in any sexual relationship should be up front and clear from the start on whether or not they want children and what would be done in the even of a pregnancy. And both should take steps to get the outcome they want.

The only way I could see this being a legal issue is if a woman actively lies - for instance, telling a man she has been medically diagnosed as infertile or that she is using a birth control method she actually doesn't. But, even then, the man could be taking additional steps of his own, like wearing a condom.

As for the informing part, I see it as a feature that would improve the health of a relationship. Your view may be fundamentally different, and in that case let's agree to disagree: I completely fail to see the harm in requiring doctors to encourage spouses to talk about important family life affecting medical decisions with each other (if applicable).

How do you think it would improve the relationship? I understand the idea that, in a healthy relationship, a woman would discuss these matters with her partner. But that's a measurement of the current health of a relationship.

If the relationship is not healthy and she feels reluctant to discuss it with him, how will telling her she should do so make the relationship itself more healthy?

There is a hard and fast limit here, and at this point of the year, I'm over the limit, I've used hubby's limit and unless I want to further break the law and get someone else to buy me some cold meds....I'm shit out of luck.

I made it almost all the way through spring......but if I get another cold this fall or winter....I have no way to seek relief.

The meth problem is unchanged in my area.
it pisses me off to be inconvenienced so that politicians can say they have DONE SOMETHING about meth. especially when it does nothing.

You're confusing two issues I've been talking about:
- Right to abortion in general
- Late term abortion that is not performed due to a medical condition

I consider late term abortion akin to killing a viable human being, because that is exactly what a late term fetus is - It's not a mass of cells anymore, but a living, feeling human being just living in a very special environment.



And, as I tried to carefully explain to you, the abortion you object to--late term abortion that is not medically necessary--is essentially a figment of your imagination and is generally illegal in the U.S.

It is a little like saying you are against eating, because you are against the eating of small children. Sure, it could happen, but it is already illegal and it certainly isn't a major threat of eating.

People seem to have a lot of trouble understanding why adoption is not a substitute for abortion.

Abortion ends a pregnancy.

If you opt for adoption, you still have the pregnancy.

If being pregnant is the problem, then you still have the problem, don't you?

Therefore, adoption does not address the need that abortion does.

Therefore, insisting that babies can be put up for adoption is in no way relevant to the issue of abortion.
Not always. If the child is a problem, sometimes adoption is acceptable if you can't stand the idea of an abortion.

Even so, like I said, abortions before the 16th week (Maybe later, I need to do a bit more research), is fine by me.

Not always. If the child is a problem, sometimes adoption is acceptable if you can't stand the idea of an abortion.

Sure.

If you don't want an abortion and you don't want the child, adoption is a good solution.

But that isn't even close to relevant to whether a woman should be forced to remain pregnant even though she wants or needs an abortion.

Pregnancy itself has significant costs -- physical, emotional, financial, etc-- and one can rationally not want to suffer those harms needlessly.

I support abortion in cases of risk to the impregnated, rape, and incest, but no other times.

Sure.

If you don't want an abortion and you don't want the child, adoption is a good solution.

But that isn't even close to relevant to whether a woman should be forced to remain pregnant even though she wants or needs an abortion.

Pregnancy itself has significant costs -- physical, emotional, financial, etc-- and one can rationally not want to suffer those harms needlessly.

True. Bu as I said before, I'm not against early abortions, which, as you mentioned (I think) are virtually the only legal ones here in the states.