The location of the twins aren’t relevant, be they in or out of the womb. Their status as ‘people’ isn’t relevant either. The woman has the right to refuse surgery on her body. In most cases she’d be in the wrong and a poor excuse for a mother, but that’s still her right.
Plus what Deva said. We don’t known all the facts.
I’m not sure how the whole “pro-choice” thing enters into this equation. Didn’t this occur in the third trimester? Doesn’t the mother then have a legal obligation to bring the child to term to the best of her ability?
I thought a pregnant womens’ right to choose life or death for the fetus ended when the second trimester did.
I think some states forbid abortions at that time except in life threatening (for the mom) situations. I’ve never heard that a mom must have surgery to save the fetus’s life.
cmkeller, I agree that 'pro-choice" shouldn’t enter into the debate, simply because she didn’t have an abortion. While you and/or I might disagree with her choice, it’s about the right of a person to weigh the pros and cons of a surgical procedure and decide if it’s the best thing for them. People die during c-sections. People die during liposuction. Any surgery has a risk.
To the people who advocate forcing her to have a c-section, if she had and her and/or the twin[s] had died, should the doctor be charged with murder?
Peace - DESK
If she’s been the one carrying it, isn’t it her decision to have or not have the surgery? This doesn’t make any sense to me.
The pro-choice position has basically nothing to do with the actual debate; the OP just chose to frame his argument that way to attack pro-choicers. :rolleyes:
My question in response would be “have you stopped beating your wife yet?”
Pro-choicers and the same bad, disingenous arguments.
Threads about this topic are pointless, as people’s hearts are totally hardened to both logical arguments and the raw data (photographs, movies, personal testimony) of the cases themselves.
I gave up a long time ago. Any kind of political change in the US is next to impossible. 1/4 of pregnancies ending in abortion. Evil victorious.
The OP may be hoping that a specific group, which whom s/he disagrees, can explain a foreign viewpoint. I’ve been tracking a couple of threads like this, this week.
No, they do not. According to this article, “The incidence of spontaneous abortion is estimated to be 50% of all pregnancies, based on the assumption that many pregnancies abort spontaneously with no clinical recognition.” Note that spontaneous abortion means miscarriage. According to the CDC there are about 246 abortions per 1000 live births. You can’t even say that evey aborted pregnancy would otherwise have resulted in a live birth.
What are your feelings about mothers engaging in activites likely to cause miscarriage? Amniocentesis, a diagnostic test during pregnancy allegedly carries a misscarriage rate of 1 in 200, but according to this article The rate is as high as 1 in 38 for some institutions. Should doing something that has a .5% chance of ending a desired pregnancy, cause for charges? 2%? 50%? How high do the chances need to be before the murder charges kick in? Does it only count as an offense if the doctor doesn’t agree with the course of action?
Interesting that “raw data” includes bloody pictures of fetuses and not scientific data, eh buddy?
I’ve been involved in those threads. But based on his phrasing, I really doubt it.
Wel, that’s all fine, but if 1/4 of pregnancies end in a surgical or drug-induced abortion, then so they end. What would have happened otherwise is not especially pertinent.
Or are you saying that, in fact, 1/4 of all pregnancies do NOT end in a surgical or drug-induced aborition?
Actually, Joel is not being very aggressive. He is not even posting a lot.
‘Yes, this will seem like a very stupid question, but I’m asking anyway.’
‘I must concede, that is a good point’
‘I guess I’d have to say if it endangered your own health, or even has a possibility of endangering your own health, I’d draw the line.’
Those are reasonable posts.
In the OP, the basic question is:
Valid question, and he has not damned anyone to eternal hell for saying, ‘Yes.’
so the issue is:
He is indicating his position clearly. Good.
This thread was inspired by a terrible event, sensationized first by prosecutors and then by the press, but Joel has been pretty respectful of the replies he has invited.
I don’t know what you mean. As to whether abortion is evil or not, what kind of “scientific data” could be relevent? (Fine, I suppose data relating to the stages of development, etc., could be meaningful to some people.)
As will all heinous and cruel acts (murder, rape, torture), it’s simply a matter of perceiving and feeling that the act is unnatural, disgusting, and heartless. Arguments as to “personhood” and whatnot are simply irrelevent.
What she is saying is that 1/2 of all pregnancies end in miscarriage. Are you contending that half of all non-miscarried pregnancies end in abortion?
Well, you mentioned logical arguments. If it’s purely a matter of good and evil, why waste your time with logic? You know you’re right to begin with.
Oh, I get it, you need to persuade people because it’s a matter of opinion no matter how loudly you want to protest that it’s not.
Ok, One half of all pregnacies end in miscarriage. The rest either end in abortion, stillbirth, or birth. Yes, it appears that there are one fourth as many abortions as live births, but there are also misscarriages and stillbirths to consider. I mentioned that we don’t know how many abortions would have miscarried, but since one half of all pregnancies end in misscarriage, that number is probably not zero. You can’t say that one quarter of all pregnancies end in abortion, they simply don’t.
Assume we have one thousand pregnancies. To find out the maximum possible number of abortions, let us assume that all abortions would have resulted in live births and there are no still births. Making those assumptions, of our one thousand pregnant women, half will misscarry, and of the rest there will be x abortions and 4x live births. Given that x+4x =500, so 5x=100, we find that x=100. The number of abortions per our one thousand pregancies is one hundred. So, at most, one tenth of pregancies end in abortion, not one quarter.
I’m surprised to hear a pro-lifer actually acknowledged this, although pics of chopped up fetuses are just as irrelevant. None of that addresses the reasons why people want the option to abort.
The “naturalness” of abortion is irrelevant to me. Lots of things are unnatural (cars, telephones, the internet, all manner of prescription drugs) but we nevertheless accept them as a part of modern day life.
I doubt you’d be amenable to abortion done by purely “natural” means such as taking herbal abortificants either. So the artificialness of the procedure is a red herring to the real reason you seem to object to it.
In this particular c-section case, the woman apparently wanted to give birth by natural means. Forcing her to have a C-Section would be decidedly unnatural. Naturalness is nothing more than a red herring.
You might be going somewhere by characterizing it as disgusting and heartless. But I believe it is disgusting and heartless to compel women to give up control of their bodies just because they become pregnant.
Yes, the personhood arguments are useless. A fetus/baby/X is what it is. To those who think X is of value, X is of value. To those who think otherwise, it is otherwise.
The photos are not irrelevent. They inform a person as to what is taking place in the procedure. Most people who see the photos will find them disgusting and disturbing–a natural human reaction. People who have trained their minds to think of what they are seeing as mere “products of pregnancy” (Orwelian doublespeak if ever there was any) may feel otherwise.
I understand why people want the option to abort. I am pro-life but not completely against this option. But in the US (and in China, where the population balance is being severly disturbed through sex selection), things are out of control.
You have a good point. My qualm is certainly not with the unnaturalness of the method, but the unnaturalness of the intention: a healthy female destroying healthy offspring for social (e.g., convenience, career, shame, etc.) reasons.
The “my body” argument is poor and naive, yet compelling on a certain level. I, personally, am not a control freak and get no kick out of telling people what to do. But we are not free to do whatever we want in society; we are not free to use our bodies as we please. Nowhere close. So to appeal to a certain level of “freedom,” as if only in abortion policy is such freedom compromised, is incorrect.
Further, although some people might not like the notion. in our use of reproduction we have a duty to society and to the species. In China and Korea, women exercising their “reproductive” freedom have skewed the population such that there is a big shortage of women. Tens of millions short in China. That’s not fair to the men who can’t find mates, and it’s not fair to those who will suffer the social disorder that this will cause (and is already causing).
We are not free. Get over it.
I don’t have an ax to grind either way; I’d rather that it be less than more. But I think the pertinent question is this: What percentage of US women, upon finding that they are pregment, go and get an abortion?