I do not recall being told how to make those links but figured it out.
And, oddly, the board seems to think I did post #228 as well.
In the US, currently, a woman can choose to have an abortion in the first trimester.
If the woman is somehow prevented from making that choice then yeah…that is a big issue and terribly wrong.
In the vast majority of cases the woman makes the choice for herself. To the tune of over a million a year and that is not counting the ones who chose to carry the baby to term.
If you can cite the number of women denied a first trimester abortion because they were forced to carry the baby I’d like to see it. Would be an interesting number to know.
How very odd. Anyway, emack’s “228” is actually post 220. It appears as 228 in his single-post link because of the way the link is written:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13127250&postcount=228
If that last number (“postcount=”) is changed, the number in the single-post link changes as well.
The post you liked to gave no actual response to my post. A non sequitur about Texas, further misunderstanding of the issue, a stat disproving your point, and an admission you agree with us.
You deliberately misinterpreted my response to your question of why a woman should be allowed to have a later term abortion, then disregarded the reasons she might have one. And continue to fail to grasp that the fetus is inside the woman.
Thing is in this case there is only one party making decisions. The other party is beholden to those decisions.
When the woman decides to carry the baby the baby becomes reliant on the support of the mother. That is implicit in her choice.
Revoking that choice down the road results in death or injury to another who, through no fault or choice of their own, is reliant on the consent the woman initially gave.
I do not think this argument holds water because: 1) Yes, someone is responsible for a premie, or any infant for that matter. Neglect is legally punishable, which would be the equivalent of “forcing action” on someone’s part. 2) A fetus is not the same as sperm. Sperm left undisturbed does not create a fetus. A fetus left undisturbed, in the womb, will form into a human.
I was responding to someone who claimed that I basically equated masturbation to abortion. There’s no need for spermicidal contraceptive during masturbation.
And this differs from organ donation how?
When I decide to donate an organ, the recipient becomes reliant on my decision. So I’ll ask again, this differs from organ donation how?
When I revoke my consent to donate an organ, the other party will suffer death or injury through no fault or choice of their own, as they were reliant on the consent I initially gave. And so once again, say it with me, this differs from organ donation how?
Non sequitur about Texas? You said you could shoot people in your home. I noted that in most states you actually are not that free to do so. Nevermind that a woman deciding to carry a baby term would be equivalent to you agreeing to let someone stay in your house. Her termination of the baby at a later date would be akin to you shooting the person you invited to stay initially. Even if you asked that person to leave and they refused you cannot shoot them (legally).
The next part was not understanding the issue. It was defining the question I was exploring.
Stat disproving my point? You were noting how a woman needs more time than three months. I noted that the vast majority of abortions are sought in the first three months so apparently that is plenty of time. The other 10% of abortions we do not know if they are due to medical necessity or what. Considering late term abortions are currently illegal (aside from medical necessity) I think it is safe to assume that other 10% are not women who did not have enough time and sought an abortion late term because they would not be provided and abortion in that case.
Do you possess any reading comprehension? Sure doesn’t look like it from here.
And agreeing with you is a gotcha? Maybe you argue here to win “points” and never concede anything. I argue to come to refine the reasons for the things I believe. I can and will change my opinion of someone makes a good point. Besides, I have always said in this thread that abortion for medical necessity at any time I am fine with. As far as I am concerned you agree with me.
I know perfectly well the fetus is in the woman. It is there because the woman gave consent for it to be there. At some point revocation of the consent given cause injury or death. That is a big deal.
Not a perfect analogy but it’d kinda be like me agreeing to lower you down a 1000 foot cliff on a rope and 3/4 of the way down decide you are a burden to me that I don’t want and letting go of the rope.
It’d be a better analogy if the rope were tied to your neck.
The woman may not have given consent for it to be there, you have no way of knowing, it’s not as if there is a written contract. That’s pretty much the end of this part of the discussion.
The woman may not have given consent to become pregnant. And she may not have chosen to stay pregnant.
So what else do you have?
[1] Neglect is the act of maintaining control but failing to provide. Giving a child up [ie for adoption] is not neglect, it is relinquishing control. After giving birth, the mother has no legal obligation to the child, none what so ever. Also notice that in the US the hospital is under no legal obligation to care for it, since no one has the right to medical care. The point here, is that after giving birth, the mother is no longer in any way linked to the child. If she chooses to be responsible for it, she will be required to provide for it. If she doesn’t want to, she can choose to walk away. Now someone else has to provide life support for the child.
You’ll notice that we don’t have laws requiring a pregnant woman to do anything with respect to the fetus. We don’t require prenatal care of any sort, we don’t pushes those that do harm through alcohol or drugs. Why is that?
You also failed to address the person suffering from kidney failure. If left alone he will die, even though he has a right to life. You’ll notice that he does not have a right to medical care. Nor does he have a right to someone elses kidney. In fact, the law grants you protection should he try to take your kidney. Why is that?
[2] Sperm left to float around inside a woman’s reproductive system might create a fetus. A fetus left inside a woman’s reproductive system might become a human. Neither will do anything if left in some tissues next to your computer. Neither are 100% certain, and neither are relevant.
So, Whack-a-Mole, it is your view that it is *impossible *to withdraw consent once given?
That’ll make many a date rapist’s trial go swimmingly, I think.
(Color emphasis added to quote.)
Interesting.
People stating a position that allows exceptions telepathically broadcast their real motivations. :rolleyes:
The woman consents to allowing the unborn to grow in her womb. So, the unborn goes ahead and does that. At the beginning the woman could choose to deny that consent in which case it ends there. You do realize that contracts do not have to be written to exist don’t you? Not that it has much meaning here anyway but if you want to liken it to a contractual arrangement then I think a strong case can be made that the woman entered in to such an arrangement with the unborn and has responsibilities that come with that.
As for how the woman got pregnant it may indeed not have been her choice. She does however have the choice to terminate at the outset.
As for not choosing to stay pregnant are there cases you can cite where a woman, in the US since Roe, has been forced to carry a pregnancy? Seems anyone who forced a woman in such a matter is guilty of some crime.
speaking of organ donation: do you guys realize that after death, I am in more control of my body than a woman currently alive?
I can actually stipulate that I do not want my organs harvested, even though I’m dead. How fucked up is that? At least 8 people will die as a direct result of that decision, and 50-100 more people impacted [cite].
But a woman who may be pregnant can’t decide what she does with her body, because of the threat to a potential life.
No, she most certainly does not. What are you evoking now, squatter’s rights? It is entirely possible the woman does not know she is pregnant. How would she? Why would she?
What you are suggesting is that now women are required to verify that they aren’t pregnant every month in order to satisfy your perverse obsession with their body.
What ever date you pick to block late term abortions, there will be a woman that slips past that. Is it really on her to make sure she’s not pregnant? That fact is she doesn’t want to be pregnant, has no intentions of being pregnant, so why would she check? She may even still be taking birth control that blocks menstruation. She may have a history of missing periods, she may have had some spotting and thought she had her period. She may have felt sick for other reasons, gained weight for other reasons, be on other medications. You have no way of knowing. She may have thought she miscarried. Yet you want to suggest that she gave consent?
Forget consent. It does not apply here.
What makes you think you know her or her choices? How easy do you think it is to terminate a pregnancy? Have you tried to get one in South Dakota? Maybe it’s snowy and the buses aren’t running.
The point is, you don’t know her, or her condition, or her level of consent. You know nothing about the situation, with is actually her legal right.
What sort of cite are you looking for? Societal pressure? Family pressure? Religious pressure? A mob of angry protesters outside an abortion clinic? How about cost of treatment? The difficulty of getting to a clinic? You assume she’s flush with cash and in walking distance, your assumptions are all wrong.
Trust me, you really want to avoid an analogy to contract law. Because there isn’t, so to speak, even a peppercorn of consideration here, and so the contract isn’t binding.
Oh for christ’s sake. I can’t enter into a legally binding agreement with a seventeen year old, but you think I can with a fetus. This thing just gets specialer and specialer.
Are there cases you can cite of a person being compelled against their consent to provide another person with an organ?
Here’s a scenario for you, DT.
A woman is forced to choose between two doors, with full knowledge of what each entails.
“Pick the one on the left, and find yourself with an unwanted pregnancy in a country with no legal abortion. You are forced to carry to term.”
“Pick the one on the right, and find yourself chained to a bed and raped for nine months.”
Of course, the woman’s reaction is to be completely at a loss as to which door is worse.
To rephrase what you wrote:
Utterly stupid to say, completely indefensible.
In places where they have the power to get away with it, they don’t allow for those exceptions. It doesn’t take telepathy.