Because they don’t *need *to kill it to get it out. That’s my point. As I’ve mentioned repeatedly now, the point of abortion is to remove an unwanted object from my body. The death of the fetus is incidental.
Nobody on earth wants to ‘kill babies’. They just want to not be pregnant.
The state can bring charges on its own. People who are murdered are not around to bring charges yet the state manages just fine.
Better than your analogy and a fetus is not an automatic threat to life. I know this because there are 6+ billion people in the world, the vast majority of which have mothers who survived their birth.
Maybe you saw the kid playing with matches and figure he might burn your house down and kill you.
Yep…dumb but better than yours.
I refer you to the Abortion in Canada wiki page. I’ll be happy to dig up more authoritative cites further on but I’m running late at the moment.
And Whack-a-Mole’s accusation to me of evasiveness is specious and therefore dismissed.
Yet the woman made a choice when she first got pregnant to carry the baby (in the US). She had time to decide to terminate or continue. She chose to continue.
If no one wants to kill a baby that is probably because people are averse to killing another human. We are also averse to causing needless harm.
“Getting the baby out” can be damaging to very damaging to the baby depending on how premature it is. Yet you are ok with either killing a human or subjecting a human to any of a variety of debilitating conditions caused by being premature so you can “get it out”. This despite it being the woman’s choice to get the baby to that point in the first place rather than terminating when it was not an issue at all.
In short, in your view, the woman bears no responsibility for her decision and if others suffer for it so what? Getting it out is the only important thing. There are no other considerations.
Then I must have missed where you answered my question.
Please point me to it so I can read it and respond.
“In the US 16.9 women die from childbirth per 100,000 live births.”
“Globally, the number of deaths dropped from more than 500,000 a year in 1980 to 343,000 a year in 2008. In the last 20 years, deaths have been declining at a rate of about 1.4% a year.”[cite]
“Maternal death, or maternal mortality, also “obstetrical death” is the death of a woman during or shortly after a pregnancy. In 2000, the United Nations estimated global maternal mortality at 529,000, of which less than 1% occurred in the developed world.[1] However, most of these deaths have been medically preventable for decades, as treatments to avoid such deaths have been well-known since the 1950s” [cite]
So if you are okay with that many death each year?
Yes, please read the thread before replying, it would help us all out immensely.
Who are you to decide how fast she needs to make that decision? It’s extremely common for it to not be “she chose to continue” but rather, “she hadn’t chosen to not continue, yet.”
Also, please remember that many women don’t choose to get pregnant or even have unprotected sex in the first place, and that many of them don’t know right fucking away that they are pregnant in the first place. It’s not like there’s a little light bulb that blinks on.
Because at some point her choice affects another living being.
That’s why.
As opposed to the reality, where outlawing abortion leads to a devaluation of human life. A society full of unwanted children, and of people who force them into existence and deny them care. A society where the female half of the population is regarded as expendable subhuman breeders, as cattle.
Of course your real goal is to brutalize and oppress women, and outlawing abortion works just fine for that. The fact that children will suffer in the process; well, they are just so many expended weapons in the war against women. Acceptable losses.
Of course.
By that “logic” every women should be kept forcibly pregnant at all times, because every moment a woman isn’t producing a baby she’s “denying a potential innocent life existence”. And once we perfect human cloning we should start disassembling people for their cells, since every cell not grown into a clone is an innocent life being denied existence.
The “potential human life” argument swiftly leads to absurdity if taken seriously.
Fear of assassination. Threats to them, threats to their families. Or because they’ve *already been *assassinated and aren’t in a position to do anything.
People die from drinking too much water (really…a woman died of it during a marathon in Chicago a few years ago). What of it?
You are making a claim of danger to women from the fetus. Certainly a danger exists. A danger exists when she crosses the street. A danger exists while showering.
A 0.0169% chance of death is hardly in the realm of danger to support your claim.
That risk is something she should assess early in the pregnancy when deciding whether to terminate or not.
You mean the question of how many late term (if not last-day or even last-minute) abortions are acceptable? Fine, I’ll say… a million.
The reality, though, is that these situtations are rare (or at least I’ve never heard of one, despite it having been ostensibly legal in Canada for some 21 years) and punishing thousands of real people out of fear of what a handful of hypothetical persons do is bad policy and bad decision-making.
I wasn’t evading the question, just deciding it was pointless, like asking me how I felt about ghosts getting late-term abortions.
(killable)
( ) not killable
Any questions?
nm
Yes.
Are you clueless?
Here’s a thought experiment for you:
Working backwards from birth, and what point is a baby no longer worth protecting? If it’s wrong to kill it 10min after birth. And wrong to kill it 10 min birth. Why isn’t it also wrong to kill it 10 min before conception?
If a woman menstruates once every 28 days, there is the potential for her to be pregnant every 28 days. So ever cycle that she fails to get pregnant, there is a potential loss of life.
Or, you know, the question I have been asking all along:
When do you consider the unborn to be human? When is it a distinct entity?
As for Canada I really wonder if a woman could actually obtain an abortion 35 weeks into her pregnancy. It may be legal but perhaps you have not heard of it because no one will do it.
Why won’t doctors do it? Because it is unethical. Why is it unethical? Becausse they take an oath to do no harm and there is a human being there that would be harmed. Yet it is fine if the woman does?
I cited two women earlier who killed their newborn just after giving birth to it. If they could actually have gotten a doctor to do it (for the sake of argument) a few days earlier do you think they wouldn’t have taken that option? Or do you think they were looking forward to stabbing/flushing their newborn?
And you told me to read the thread?
I have lost count how many times I have been explicit that I think abortions early on are fine and it is the woman’s choice to make. A choice I have actively protected in the past.
I do not see it as a human being in the first trimester (or even a bit longer actually). It is not far enough along to have developed “personhood” (for lack of a better word). Clearly though personhood occurs somewhere along the line. I do not know where that is exactly and have said as much. I was trying to explore that but everyone decided I must hate women and want to torture them instead.
When it is no longer inside and connected to another human. Would you like a graphic?
Now answer my question: If a baby is born and needs the mother’s blood to live, can the government require her to donate it?
How about if the child needs a bone marrow donor to live, and the mother is the only match?
If you needed bone marrow, and I was the only match, I would feel morally responsible to provide it for you. But I’m under no legal requirement to do so. You died as a result of my choice, I am not a murderer.
You are far too enamored of that graphic.
By your graphic and this statement if I gut punch a pregnant woman and cause her to miscarry I am guilty of assault at the most. Baby? Hey, it’s “inside” so is “killable”. The reality is most (maybe all…have to check) states will prosecute me for murder (in addition to assault).
Interesting question and perhaps one for another thread to explore. In the past courts have forced parents to provide medical care for their child even though the parents did not believe in it. Can a court force something as simple as donating blood? I do not now. I guess they wouldn’t bother since there is no need for a specific person’s blood for a transfusion. There is plenty in the blood bank for the purpose.
In another case parents had another child specifically to be a donor for their sick child. I think the courts let that proceed. Not sure the younger child had much choice.
Would be an interesting topic to explore. I honestly do not know.
I have no responsibility for you and you have none for me. That is far different than a mother/child relationship.