I agree with you there should be more alternatives for pregnant women to get financial help.
But that has fuck all to do with destroying a self sustaining viable life as a cheaper alternative.
It’s not “self-sustaining” if it’s completely, wholly and 100% dependent on the pregnant woman’s body for its very existence. Pretty much the opposite of self-sustaining, I’d wager.
So someone on life support is not a person then?
This is an old post in a fast-moving thread, but it stuck out. You’d really prefer that they wouldn’t donate to Planned Parenthood in your name. You find it… objectionable, I’d argue.
And therefore, with an equal measure of the sympathy you’ve shown for women who are treated deplorably while trying to get medical care, I have to say, tough shit, Bricker.
My next monthly donation to PP will also be in your name. I may also put your name & URL to your SDMB profile on my vest next time I can take on an escorting shift.
Also an older post, but I think this goes to the heart of the problem: we’re accepted this framing of pregnancy wholesale and used it as a starting point for the discussion. But that framing is exceedingly problematic.
That the physical state of pregnancy only lasts for 40 weeks (that’s ten months, not nine) of a woman’s life, the effects of that pregnancy are permanent. Whether she parents the child or surrenders it for adoption, the physical and emotional ramifications of having gone through those 40 weeks will carry through her entire lifetime. The financial ramifications of having done so may also have a lifelong effect.
By dismissing the physical term of pregnancy as a discrete circumstance, and ignoring the follow-on effects, we carry on the fiction that needing not to be pregnant is just a frivolous and selfish response to brief detour, and that women’s lives will ultimately reach the same destination after that detour, just perhaps at a delay.
By acting like ten months is a brief window of time (ignoring necessary recovery time after birth) we can posit a woman who cannot suspend her normal life for what is actually going to be a year, if not longer, is not just frivolous and selfish, but lazy.
By ignoring that the “interference” of a continued pregnancy can have an immediate cascade effect on job security, and all that follows (housing, bills being paid, sufficient food intake) and that the majority of women who seek abortion already are mothers who have to consider the wellbeing of their existing children, we can maintain the idea that women end pregnancies solely because they don’t want their lives (carefree, single and unencumbered, by implication) interrupted.
We need to drop these fictions.
We must start seeing women who seek abortions as whole people, whose lives, however they are lived, are as meaningful as anyone else’s. We must recognize that they are as capable of making important decisions without the input of strangers (on the street, at a CPC or in a state legislature) as anyone else. We must constantly remember that their lives include families and responsibilities that inform and run central to their decision making. And most importantly, stop pretending that they are not capable, in fact we must recognize that they are uniquely capable of determining whether or not the far reaching “interference” of pregnancy is something they are capable of withstanding at any given moment.
Bringing the topic full circle to the issue of anti-abortion protesters, I ask this: would anyone be okay if every woman entering a standard OB/GYN office was approached by a stranger on the sidewalk who presumed that the woman was pregnant and then “counseled” that woman that abortion was an option, and tried to get her to skip her OB appointment to come with them to their facility, where they had financial breakdowns of what it cost to raise a child, and counselors who could talk to them about why abortion might be the more reasonable decision for them to make at that time?
I guess a newborn baby can feed itself?
[quote=“Zeriel, post:1036, topic:580935”]
I don’t believe that it’s relevant. No human has the right, in my opinion, to demand the flesh and blood of another human, even if that’s the only thing that can save their life.Effectively, I liken abortion to an eviction. It is not the mother’s fault that a fetus is not capable of surviving outside the womb
My kidneys are failing. I will die without them. You have two functioning kidneys and match my blood type. **Should I be legally allowed to demand one of your kidneys?[/**QUOTE]
1.It’s not the baby’s fault that it got implanted in the womb.
2.Only if I was the one who caused your kidneys to fail.
So why don’t you explain why it is irrelevant:dubious:
Science does.
No ,science does not say a clump of cells that is genetically human, constitutes a human being. You are clearly wrong.
At a fetus, it is not self sustaining. At 23 weeks it may have a chance of surviving outside the woman, but that doesn’t make the fetus a baby or a person due the same legal protections as anyone else. I’m suggesting that those who believe that to be true ought to step up and take positive steps to offer an alternative and really prevent abortions, rather than try to make their emotional, philosophical and religious beliefs on the subject the law.
Let’s say you make it the law that terminations that kill the fetus cannot be preformed at or after 23 weeks. Does the woman still get to choose to not be pregnant and pass the expense and care onto someone else. Who would that be?
Or do we just say, too bad , it’s too late, and good luck. That’s not considering birth defects or the mother’s health.
The thread’s moving a tad too quick for me, but I figure that the hypothetical uterus simulator will create more problems than it solves if its use ever became mandatory. The option to terminate a fetus and render moot all possible parental responsibility issues will, I hope, continue to exist, and a uterus simulator could only be used if there was someone on hand to voluntarily sign a form accepting parental responsibility at the time of, well… decanting. I can still see significant potential problems, though.
I choose to believe that it is. I have every right to believe this.
I respect that, but I don’t know many people receiving that care that do so without the necessary assistance of other human beings.
Beginning of life and end of life are similar in that you tend to need other people to intervene to keep going.
A neglectful/abusive parent will lose their child to state custody, paid for by tax payers. Why should this be different? If it can survive without the mother that doesn’t want it a fetus ought to have the rights of any child. Morality doesn’t have a price tag or we’d be sending seniors off on ice floes.
You do? You mean the baby forced it’s mother to have sex, grabbed the egg from the ovary and launched it into the fallopian tube? It also helped the sperm swim up the uterus to meet the egg?
AMAZING!!!
Prove it.
You’re dumb, and axiomatically wrong by default.
You made the “science does” assertion. It’s up to you to prove it. And you can’t.
I’ve learned that it doesn’t have to make sense and follow along with actual medical facts , in order for me to assert something is true and then defend my right to believe it. Isn’t it great?
Well for one thing taking a child away from an neglectful or abusive parent doesn’t force the parent to have a surgical procedure.
That’s where the morality in this issue gets difficult and unclear. A person’s right to make choices about their own body, versus the possible rights of the a potential person. As you say, we have systems in place for infants and children already. If society wants to put those in place for 23 week fetuses it can. Are pro choice folks trying to do that?
Then we’d still have the issue of legally compelling a woman to surrender to a C section, rather than termination.
And realistically, morality does have a price tag. We have finite resources and choose how to use them.