Just the usual.
Only if someone forgot to cross all the i’s and dot all the t’s
[
](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11546410/)and[
](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11546410/)
Thought I heard Wisconsin AB 991 passed the Assembly tonight.
CMC
No, the government is not responsible for feeding, clothing, or housing anyone. As much as you like it to be so, that is not reality. This is not Sweden or Cuba.
And you fancy yourself a mind-reader, too? I want the mother and the child “to die as slowly and unpleasantly as possible”.
YOU ARE A JERK.
Given that he started that post with “It’s time to lance this boil.” and then… well, didn’t, I’ll take No Attempt for $1000, Alex.
One day you really must learn to differentiate between “I have no answer for that.” and “That’s not relevant.”
That’s awfully nice of you, aside from refuting my right to life, and all.
theRaindog I will give you a real life, proper case where pregnancy would seriously endanger the mother’s life.
Eisenmenger’s syndrome has a 50% maternal mortality rate if the pregnancy goes beyond 12 weeks. The mother would die from a sudden cardiac event, there would be very little chance to retrieve a living foetus.
May I remind you, that if the mother dies before 24 weeks, then so will the foetus, and if the mother dies suddenly and the foetus is without blood flood for more than a few minutes, it will also die.
Now, if a woman with Eisenmenger’s syndrome wishes to continue her pregnancy, knowing this, well, good for her she’s a braver woman and a bigger gambler than I am.
However, this might not be an either mother or baby situation, it might well be a situation where you either save the mother or you save no-one…but you don’t get to find out what would have happened, because you’re not psychic.
Would you be in favour of such a women being given the option of terminating her pregnancy before 12 weeks, even though at that time she may be physically well?
As for your assertion that 1% is an insignificant risk, in some jurisdictions a doctor can be found negligent if they do not inform their patient of a serious side effect or complication with an incidence of 1 in 200,000, as it could be argued that a cautious person may not choose the treatment were they aware of that risk.
Actually, I agree with Updike here. That the result of making abortion illegal will create untold amounts of extra births every year is not your government’s reponsibility. If the government were to pass a law banning alcohol, it doesn’t have the responsibility to reimburse breweries and bars for their loss of revenue. The government’s responsibilities are merely (in the abortion scenario) stop murder from ocurring, and for that they have made sure the law only allows abortion up till before the point the foetus is imbued with “personhood”.
Well, yeah, dude, it’s Der Trihs. 
I was going to point this out after raindog’s response to irishgirl’s first question about acceptable risk. What’s acceptable for one is not acceptable for all. A 10% chance may not sound too scary until it’s your chances of dying that are being discussed, and it’s up to each individual to decide for herself what’s too risky.
If abortion is only OK when the mother’s death is imminent (raindog’s words), someone has to determine the cutoff point. All pregnancies and births carry risk, but what amount of risk is too much? And why should someone else get to tell a woman how much risk she can tolerate?
A coworker told me about a family at her church. The woman was diagnosed with fairly advanced cancer while she was pregnant, and the doctor recommended aborting so she could begin treatment–that was the only way she would survive. She opted to carry out the pregnancy and died shortly after the baby was born. To me, that was a selfish and irresponsible decision. She left her husband to raise three young children who would never know their mother, all because of her desire to bring a potential life into being. But despite the fact that I disagree with her and feel that she made a bad decision–it was her decision to make. She knew the risk and decided it was acceptable. So why not let all women have the right to decide for themselves?
Bumping in the hope that the raindog will soon make his “relevant” answers.
But how will they deal with the consequences? These laws will have them. We’re not talking about breweries here. We’re talking about how the resulting children will be dealt.
Since it isn’t the government’s responsibility to care for the resulting children, then I suppose it’s safe to the say that the reluctant mother isn’t either. I, for one, have no intention of taking care of a child that I don’t want. And putting a child up for adoption is not as easy as you think given the physical problems a pregnancy can bring and the process of actual adoption.
Call me all the names you want, but I agree with Catsix. Not only do I have no respect for “Pro-lifers” and I won’t allow anyone to bully me around with stupid laws. If this means I have to get an illegal abortion or give one to myself, then I will gladly do so and not have any regrets.
And I find it ironic that Updike calls someone a jerk and yet clearly doesn’t care about any unwated children, not even whether they live or die or if they end up in a living hell. This is one of the many reasons why I have ZERO respect for “pro-lifers”. They don’t care about anyone that’s already been born. They only care what they want.
They gotta protect “unborn children”. Bah. Hell with them when they’re born. spits
Oh, and one more thing, nonsense like “keep your legs closed” or “don’t have sex” is meaningless. Children are not the only reason why people have sex. How hard is it to notice that?
If people are so concerned about abortion, then increase birth control and give sex-ed other than abstinance. Abortions would go way down then. But, once again, I know that people are more concerned with forcing people into lives they don’t want than with anything else.
No, it isn’t safe to say that. The government has responsibility to make sure that if it has personhood, that it has the rights of an adult human, that it isn’t killed or afflicted with anything that may not be done to an adult human. If the reluctant mother does not take care of the child, then it gets taken into care - at that point it is the government’s reponsibility. Until then, it is the mother’s, and thus she is able to (with the authority of this responsibility) put the child up for adoption.
The point made by pro-lifers (of which I am not one) is that yes, there is hardship, and yes, there is pain, and suffering - but life is an untenable right, and there is no hardship (short of the life of another) that may override that.
Good for you. I’d like to point out that I haven’t called anyone names so far in this thread, though.
I think the problem that pro-lifers often have is that, as I pointed out, life is the primary right, one which cannot be overidden by any other factor in their beliefs. However, many pro-lifers seem to make the mistake of significantly downplaying any other factor at all - and, while (under their system) they are indeed less important than life, they are not totally unimportant (again, under their system). Their caring about the single most important factor of life means they often don’t take any action on other issues that they should, and this comes off as a lack of emapthy when I think it’s more to do with a very flawed sense of importantness.
I’d just like to point out again i’m pro-choice - i’m just trying to get both sides to a point where we can understand each other, here.
[nitpick]
Children only have the rights of children, not adults (can’t vote, enter into contracts, etc.)
There are things that you can do to a child that you can not do to an adult (corporal punishment, non-consensual medical treatment, etc.)
[/nitpick]
CMC
I’m not interested in calling you any names. But where did you get second part from? That I clearly don’t care about unwanted children, or whether they live or die or live in hell?
Weeell, if we only score this by post count, your the winner. By content, not so much.
CMC
Because all you care about is making sure they’re born. What happens after that doesn’t concern you at all.
Well, where have you shown that you are more than pro-birth? Do you support social programs that aid single mothers? I am not about to wade back thru this monster thread, but I believe you said you had no responsibility towards the mother or the baby. I do recall that you were quite free upthread about excommunicating anyone who views things differently than you do.
If these children are to be born, they will need assistance. Things will have to change. Do you support an increase in taxes to pay for the increased burden on the social system (health care, education, child protective services etc). Where have you touted a nurtuing community extending and supporting the children born in less than ideal circumstances? How about tracking down those deadbeat Dads out there–you play, you play, right? Or does that just apply to women?
Are you willing to support HIV babies, babies with severe congenital anomalies, crack addicted babies? No, not you personally in your own home, but through taxes and yes, a cultural acceptance of the same? Unless you can say a whole hearted, YES to the above, you cannot say that you truly care about the baby. We already get that you consider the woman to be a vessel and not a person in her own right. Myself, I think being a baby incubator is a bit limiting, but YMMV. Since you will never have to carry one, you really can’t say.
Not all babies are healthy/viable, not all babies are wanted, not all babies should be born. Until each and every one of us is willing to step up and help these mothers AND fathers nurture their offspring and until there are systems in place to ensure that each and every baby has a place in a loving home–no-one should judge another’s choice.
(actually, I don’t believe that in even the most ideal of circumstances that it shouldn’t be the woman’s decision to carry to term or abort, but I’m just trying to make a point here).
I disagree.
Let’s assume everything you said is true, that I personally, or pro-lifers as a group, or society in general, don’t support having those systems in place.
The fact that things aren’t the way you think they should be still doesn’t justify abortion.
Paraphrasing: “I don’t want the kid, I can’t afford it, it will ruin my career, and society won’t take care of it, so I can just kill it.” A resounding NO to that.
Now, I wonder why the PL crowd ALWAYS picks the most superficial of reasons for AB? I’ll give you some credit, at least you made it income based, and not just vanity re bikinis. Nowhere do you admit to medical reasons, psychological reasons, hereditary reasons for not carrying a baby to term. I wonder why that is? Perhaps it is easier for you to demonize us babykillers–it certainly makes the issue more black and white and easier to resolve now, doesn’t it?
Nice hedging of your position, there. You have not said if you support such systems. I suspect that you don’t. I won’t quote my whole post a page back, but I think that with you as well there is a misogynistic aspect to it that is not appealing.
I’ll quote you right back to yourself: “the fact that things aren’t the way you think they should be still doesn’t justify governmental control over women’s bodies.”
I have more of a right to life than any unborn anything, by dint of the fact that I am here. I am not a potential person, I am one. My body, my choice.
Look eleanorigby, it is my belief that all abortions are a grave evil. So your blathering about medical/psychological/hereditary reasons are just not going to wash. There are an average of 1.5 MILLION abortions in the US per year. Are you seriously claiming that all of them are for those reasons, and not for convenience?
I don’t think anyone’s claiming that all of them are for those reasons. But what is your position on the ones that are NOT for the sake of convenience?
I think they are all wrong, and that some people try to use those reasons to justify abortion for any reason.