The pro-choice position is that women should have the right to a safe, legal abortion if she chooses to have one.
The “pro-life” position is no woman should ever have an abortion. PERIOD. That the second a woman consents to sex (or is raped) she is agreeing to carry a fetus to term and either give it up without a second glance or raise it for eighteen years.
Well, they aren’t necessarily permanently disabled (though there is a higher risk of many significant problems) but they are, as far as I know, ALL severely disabled for weeks after their births. Micropreemies require extensive intervention and stay in the NICU for months. If the government is going to force women to give birth to micropreemies rather than aborting the pregnancy, there should be consideration of who bears the cost.
Personally I would also consider how monstrous it could be to force a severely disabled neonate on a mother who had such significant problems she decided to end an advanced pregnancy. Plenty of people who would choose to abort a fetus would still feel linked to the baby once it was born, and couldn’t necessarily walk away saying, “Good luck seeing to that baby’s monumental medical needs and eventual rearing, government.”
Of course the woman would have input.
Riddle me this one.
A woman decides at 30 weeks gestation that she no longer wants to proceed with the pregnancy. There’s no health issues involved for her or the fetus, her reasons are her own and she is firm on the decision.
Which do you support.
Abortion is not permitted, she carries the child until delivery then if she doesn’t want it arranges adoption.
Abort the pregnancy which means the fetus is killed in the womb or delivered and left to die
remove the fetus either by inducing labour or by surgery, have the health professionals care for it and have it adopted out.
Eugenics came up. Even if eugenics aren’t the intended result of abortion laws, if the result is eugenics, is that a problem or something we live with? It’s a legitimate question.
There’s no “of course” about it; by definition when speaking of banning or restricting abortion we are talking about taking away a woman’s “input” into what happens to her to a greater or lesser degree. When someone asserts that a woman’s body is his property not hers, there’s no reason to assume he intends her to have a vote in what he has done with or to it.
4: This sort of thing doesn’t actually happen and is just an anti-abortion strawman meant to demonize women and doctors. This is exactly the same sort of scenario I saw (and occasionally still see) used to justify the murder of Dr George Tiller.
I agree ENTIRELY with this post! I merely add: It’s also used to reduce (with goal of eliminating) disabled children in the US.
this. last I heard, there were NO places you could get an abortion in one of the dakota states you had considerable travel incurred which is difficult or impossible relating to finances, post surgery health and pther factors
I think the reason men get discounted is that so many will refuse to take any responsibility whether it is wearing a condom or helping (at least financially) with raising the child.
note I did not say all men, just very many of them. They also don’t put their lives and health at risk with pregnancy, which regardless of what that one ignorant shitweasel teabagger said, still is a significant concern for many women.
ninja’d.
I seem to remember reading a long time back about a woman who found her baby was dead in utero and who pleaded for three days for induced labor, she finally went septic which triggered labor and nearly died.
Well, as is often said, it’s between a woman and her doctor. Patients don’t get to dictate what medical care they will receive. A friend of mine also had to carry a stillborn for a few days. Very traumatic, but in the end medical professionals make the decisions about what’s best for the physical health of the mother.
Sorry, I respectfully disagree completely. I’m talking about the appropriate medical practitioner liaising with the woman, not taking away her input.
But you didn’t answer the question. You say it doesn’t happen yet another poster proposed the scenario where she was pregnant but her husband died in an accident that also destroyed the house and she decided to not continue with the pregnancy.
You and others are arguing that there should be no limitations, so I propose a scenario that is possible, albeit (hopefully) uncommon.
BTW, as I posted earlier I am not anti abortion, I’m pro choice.
Choice between 2 or 3 with the decision made by the doctor and the woman as to which was the best option with no governmental involvement.
So infanticide is a woman’s choice? Look, I agree that when it’s not viable, it’s her choice. But once it’s viable, it is indistinguishable from a baby in every way, just smaller.
Now you can argue all you want that it’s her body, but there’s no way to morally get around the fact that if you favor abortion up until birth, you justify infanticide.
It is the woman’s choice to remove the child from her uterus. It is a discussion between the doctor and the woman to weigh different factors such as risk to the mother with regard to induced labour vs. c-section vs. abortion, quality of life of the baby, medical support costs, etc. in making their decision regarding how this removal occurs.
A 23-weeker is quite distinguishable from a fully-cooked baby, in every way. A 23-weeker has a survival rate of only 17-30%, and almost half of those very few survivors will have moderate or severe disabilities. And adoptive families for special need kids are few and far between. Even for the lucky ones, the ones who live with no or mild disabilities, well, if micropreemies can feel pain, their first few months of intensive medical care must be agonizing.
This blithe idea that we can end late term abortions by making micropreemies and adopting them out is monstrous. Those kids suffer.
fair enough, but I’m sure we can draw the line somewhere before birth. At some point, it’s a real live human and one real live human is not less important than another real live human.
It is a legitimate question. It’s just not the question of this thread, which was intended to not be another re-hashing of a debate that’s been beaten to death, but a slightly different take on this issue. If you want to discuss accidental eugenics, open a new thread. I’m not going to hijack this one.
The solution to the eugenics problem is
As far as black racial Eugenics, I await statistics that show that the that blacks are in danger of going extinct or even that the black population is even reducing. Allowing women to choose for them selves how many children to have is a far cry from forced sterilization and extermination by the Nazis. In fact if you put it this way, support education of women in Africa are doing far more in terms of reducing population growth than are abortions. Should that be viewed as eugenics. Also the same anti-eugenic argument could be made against the teaching of abstinence (pre-supposing that such education actually worked).
#1 is forced pregnancy and birthing, which is morally indefensible.
Your #2 and #3 are rather confused; the “delivered” of #2 implies inducing labor.
If a living baby is delivered by any means, it is an independent person and must be cared for; the bodily integrity and personal freedom of the woman are no longer involved. Infanticide, by action or by neglect, is repugnant and unjustifiable in modern civilized circumstances.
But unless/until that point of independence is reached, the bodily integrity and personal freedom of the woman are involved, and must be assigned primacy. Any “compromise” really just means taking the liberty of choice away from the pregnant woman, according to somebody else’s criteria. Somebody else who is not pregnant, and will not sustain the effects of the code they force on an unwilling woman.
So: I support the absolute right of a woman to choose or reject the medical procedures she wishes to undertake, under any stage or circumstance of pregnancy, in consultation with whatever other persons she finds relevant.
I think late term abortions should also include the situation of the fetus. If it is going to be born with such deformities that life will just be a misery for it, that should be taken into consideration. I think this is the case with some late term abortions at this point. The fetus may have so many problems, life is either not viable or will be so limited, it is no life at all.