All pregnancies threaten a mother’s life to some degree, of course – being pregnant significantly raises one’s risk of death. At what degree of risk of death do you believe abortion is acceptable?
That’s casuistry. At degree of risk significantly higher than the normal pregnancy risk. Am I to presume from your question that you agree? Or are you just asking for the hell of it?
I’m just curious about your view – I’ve made it pretty clear that we disagree. I don’t believe the risk to the mother’s life should matter at all with regards to her right to end the pregnancy, but I’m very curious to know specifically at what level you believe the risk of death is high enough. Or do you leave it purely up to her doctor?
Specifically when it is significantly higher than the normal pregnancy risk. As determined by her doctor (and, if there is some kind of legal objection, by second/third opinion doctors).
If we’re into this kind of casuistry, you answer the question: is it ok to kill the kid one minute before he is to be born? 10 minutes? 2 days? 10 days? etc…
Thank you.
Easy – the woman’s right to expel anything or anyone from her body is absolute. So she has the right to end her pregnancy, like BrightSunshine mentioned, using the minimum required harm. If she wants to end her pregnancy a day before it’s due, or a week, or 3 weeks, she has the right to end it – in most cases, the least harmful way to do this will be to induce labor. She has the right to induce labor at any time. Hopefully, she can get a doctor to assist her – but doctors have the right to refuse for various reasons.
No one has the right to kill a baby laying on a table. She does not have the right to kill her fetus if inducing labor is possible and does not introduce more risk of death to the mother.
So no, it is not ‘ok to kill the kid’. It’s okay to end the pregnancy. Not okay to kill the kid when there are other ways to end the pregnancy.
Again, quibbling. It is always less risk to kill the kid, then abort, then go through labor. So, distinction without a difference. Your criteria allows to kill the kid up to one minute before it being born.
No it doesn’t. Please don’t ascribe positions to me that I don’t hold.
How did you come up with this rule? And is OK for her to have someone induce labor 2 at 7 months, with significant risk of pre-mature birth problems to the baby?
It’s based on my understanding of ethics and morality.
I’m not sure what “labor 2 at 7 months” is, but if that’s a typo and you mean “labor at 7 months”, then yes, I believe a mother has the right to induce labor early if she desires. She has the right to end the pregnancy at any time, if she desires.
That is, she has the right to kill the kid at any time, if she desires. According to “ethics and morality”, no less.
No, she has the right to expel anything or anyone from her body, at any time, if she desires. That does not necessarily include killing the kid (though that will be the likely result in most cases of ending a pregnancy early).
And based on my understanding of ethics and morality, and the importance that is placed on the right to control one’s body, there’s no possible other conclusion I could come to.
I’ll note that my understanding of ethics and morality has changed over time, and it’s possible as I learn more it may continue to evolve.
What is significantly higher? The current maternal mortality rate is approximately 1 in 4000. Is 1 in 400 significantly high enough for you? I asked you this question above.
Right. Your ethics and morality require killing the kid. See, I reject that kind of “ethics and morality”. Right to live trumps right to not be inconvenienced in my “ethics and morality”. Not in yours, apparently.
Significantly higher is significantly higher. I am talking about the principle. If you agree on it, then (if I am the judge in the case) we can talk about percentages.
I think you are demonstrating the lack of nuance described above. Speaking as someone who is anti-gun, if there is a development that reduces accidental and intentional gun deaths by 97%+, I would jump up for joy, regardless of whether the letter of the law is against my principles.
If you actually do care about babies, then you’d notice that at that point abortions are far and away dwarfed by natural fetal loss and infant mortality and tackle the most urgent causes of those.
No they don’t. They require granting the woman (and everyone) the right to choose what goes and what remains inside their bodies. And the right to expel anything or anyone that they want out. Sometimes this might require killing something, but not always.
We have a different definition of “inconvenience”. Mine does not categorize pregnancy from rape as an ‘inconvenience’… yours does, based on what you posted earlier.
From the article: “But researchers caution that churchgoers are no more generous than secular Americans when donations to religious groups are excluded.
…
Indeed, when tithing is taken out of the equation, the list of most charitable states changes dramatically.”
Considering we already finance churches through tax-exemption, I don’t think that churches can realistically be called “charity”, nor should they be used as an example of the selflessness of conservatives.
Other research has found differently -
This doesn’t make any sense. We subsidize all non-profits thru tax exemption, therefore donations to secular non-profits cannot be used as examples of the selflessness of liberals.
Regards,
Shodan
And if (or, basically, when) it kills the kid - who cares, since your “ethics and morality” are fine with that.
Because, of course, all pregnancies are the result of rape.
I’ve been too busy to comment on this thread, but I’d like to just say “amen” to what Terr is saying here, and that I agree with him more or less 100% (on abortion).
To the OP: abortion isn’t particularly a right or left wing issue: about 30% of Democrats are pro-life and 30% of Republicans are pro-choice, as noted above. If you’re asking “why are pro-life people pro-life”, the answer is simple: because abortion is killing an innocent human person, and we generally think that, except in self-defence, that’s not the kind of thing society should allow.