The argument of "pro-choice" is bullsh*t.

[Bryan_Ekers]

I wasn’t commenting on giving blood (I don’t agree that one should lose or even be threatened with losing custody for refusing to supply one’s OWN blood, just refusing medical treatment with donor blood), it just seemed like “perhaps” you felt there were some conditions where a parent could be required to donate a kidney. If I was mistaken, the later clarification has helped.

[monavis]

@Damuri_Ajashi

@Heart_of_Dorkness

Again, you didn’t really answer my questions. You came a little closer, though:

As we’ve already agreed, we’re not talking about whether someone *can *be forced do to any of these things, but whether you, Damuri Ajashi, in specific, think someone should be forced to do these things.

I’ll presume, then - please correct me if I’m wrong - that what you mean is, “No one should be forced to give blood, kidneys, etc. to anyone, except maybe their children.”

Is this correct? If so, why the (possible) exception for one’s children? Under what circumstances?

You are correct I don’t think people should be forced to donate a kidney or even donate lifesaving blood. The reason I make an exception for parent and children is that there is a special duty of care between a parent and a child. I can sit idly by and watch a child crawl off a cliff, their parents cannot. This duty does not extend to donating a kidney and may not even extend to donating blood (although i would say it [bold]should[/bold]).

One of the reasons for this is that a child is not an adult. They are incompetent and incapable of taking care of themselves so we say that a parent is also their guardian unless something happens to change that. Now a guardian can go to a court and relinquish guardianship at any time without undergoing surgery, an expectant mother does not have that luxury. On top of that, this duty of care does not extend to the fetus/mother relationship.

So while there are some emotional similarities between the two situations, they are not the same.

My answer to your question is:

If a person is going to die if I do not perform some action, I am not bound to perform that action.

If a person is going to live unless I perform some action, I am bound not to perform that action.

Just as I may sit idly by to watch a child crawl off a cliff but may not shove the child off that cliff.

Even if that child was born with a disability (no kidney) and a superpower (magically filters his blood using the kidneys of the people around him) and even if I was the only person that was going to be around him for the next 3 months, I can’t push him off the cliff.

I would like to add one gloss. In the case of the pregnant woman, she cannot be entirely surprised by her situation (even Mary was told by an angel that she was pregnant even though she had not had sex) so she has an opportunity to get out of the situation. In fact, I would give her 6 months to do something about that situation after that, I do not think her long unexercised “right to choose” trumps the fetuses “right to live”. I believe this is reasonable and takes into account the woman’s right to choose and the state’s interest in preserving the life of a viable fetus.

So that is why I think we should give every expectant mother the opportunity to reject her pregnancy for the first 6 months. After that, she may only do so if carry the child to term poses the a risk of death or physical disability.

I don’t believe a parent can be forced to donate a kidney. It was a hypothetical someone else posed to me.

Like I said, if the pregnancy poses a risk of death or physical disability then the woman gets to choose.

Yes, I think we should be doing that right now. I think we should have federally subsidized child care, I think we should have at LEAST 6 months paid maternity leave, I think we should make caretakers available to women the first several weeks after delivery, I think we should make available mother’s helpers who will help the mother with chores while she adjusts to her new role. I don’t know how single working moms do it but I think we should bend over backwards to make her burden lighter

Would you(if possible )take the fertile egg and have it implanted in you? If not then you are not thinking of the woman or the child,just trying to push your beliefs on her.

You probably haven’t read every post but we aren’t talking about fertilized eggs. We are talking about viable fetuses. A viable fetus doesn’t need to be implanted in me, it can survive outside the womb.

I am all in favor of giving ABSOLUTE discretion with no restrictions whatsoever during the first trimester. I am willing to give the woman the final say with no undue delay or burdensome additional cost during the second semester. I am opposed to abortions during the third trimester. I am still trying to figure out whether it is reasonable to ask a woman in her 6th month to carry the baby for a month until it has a relatively good chance of surviving on its own or if we would have to deliver an 3 month premature baby.

I notice you reply with the word "we,"not ‘yes’, I would be willing to go with out things to provide for another. Not knowing the woman’s state of mind or health there are cirumstances that could endanger her own life and in some cases even leave other children motherless.

Many pro birthers consider a fertile egg to be a person, and do not want a woman to even take a morning after pill, ‘just in case’ that she’May" be pregnant. Since I cannot know the woman’s state of mind, health etc. I leave that up to her, and her doctor.

War is justified by law even though many pregnant women and even innocent children and people die. We allow people to have guns to kill a person in self defense. so taking a life is not always Murder. The so called pro- life people use that term to try to intimidate others to follow their beliefs.Perhaps if they spent the time and money standing in front of Planned Parenthood etc. and used that time and money to help a woman it would do more good, and if they believe in prayer, then just pray that God will only allow women to concieve who want a child and can afford to take care of it!

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@monavis

I notice you reply with the word "we,"not ‘yes’, I would be willing to go with out things to provide for another. Not knowing the woman’s state of mind or health there are cirumstances that could endanger her own life and in some cases even leave other children motherless.

I assumed I was part of we. If you were asking if I was personally willing to pay for all this stuff myself, well I’m not able to do that. That is one reason why we have societies and government so that we can do together what we cannot do alone but I would certainly be willing to have my taxes raised for this purpose.

Many pro birthers consider a fertile egg to be a person, and do not want a woman to even take a morning after pill, ‘just in case’ that she’May" be pregnant. Since I cannot know the woman’s state of mind, health etc. I leave that up to her, and her doctor.

And, relatively early on in this thread it was made pretty clear that we were only talking about third trimester abortions.

War is justified by law even though many pregnant women and even innocent children and people die. We allow people to have guns to kill a person in self defense. so taking a life is not always Murder.

Yeah, ummm, I never said it was. I explicitly said several times that an abortion in the first trimester should have no restrictions, an abortion in the second trimester can have some restrictions but ultimately cannot be banned. I think the only question we are discussing in this thread are third trimester abortions.

The so called pro- life people use that term to try to intimidate others to follow their beliefs.Perhaps if they spent the time and money standing in front of Planned Parenthood etc. and used that time and money to help a woman it would do more good, and if they believe in prayer, then just pray that God will only allow women to concieve who want a child and can afford to take care of it!

I think you are arguing against a position that hasn’t been presented in this thread. A position I don’t think I have ever supported in ANY thread. I have always supported the right to choose in the first trimester, I don’t feel we can prohibit abortions in the second trimester, I think the state has an interest in a fetus during the third trimester.

[monavis]

@Damuri_Ajashi

@monavis

I notice you reply with the word "we,"not ‘yes’, I would be willing to go with out things to provide for another. Not knowing the woman’s state of mind or health there are cirumstances that could endanger her own life and in some cases even leave other children motherless.

I assumed I was part of we. If you were asking if I was personally willing to pay for all this stuff myself, well I’m not able to do that. That is one reason why we have societies and government so that we can do together what we cannot do alone but I would certainly be willing to have my taxes raised for this purpose.

And, relatively early on in this thread it was made pretty clear that we were only talking about third trimester abortions.

Yeah, ummm, I never said it was. I explicitly said several times that an abortion in the first trimester should have no restrictions, an abortion in the second trimester can have some restrictions but ultimately cannot be banned. I think the only question we are discussing in this thread are third trimester abortions.

The so called pro- life people use that term to try to intimidate others to follow their beliefs.Perhaps if they spent the time and money standing in front of Planned Parenthood etc. and used that time and money to help a woman it would do more good, and if they believe in prayer, then just pray that God will only allow women to concieve who want a child and can afford to take care of it!

I think you are arguing against a position that hasn’t been presented in this thread. A position I don’t think I have ever supported in ANY thread. I have always supported the right to choose in the first trimester, I don’t feel we can prohibit abortions in the second trimester, I think the state has an interest in a fetus during the third trimester.

That still doesn’t mean the woman has no right to self defense, her life is important too,Not knowing her circumstance one can’t judge her. She is not breaking any laws, and if you belive in a God, then let God worry about her!

You can’t afford to help raise her child,and there are many others who can’t as well. The best thing would be to help her get good information, and have the morning after pill available to her. Many people because of religious beliefs do not want her to even have that!

To call some one a Murderer is as bad as a woman having an Abortion when they do not know her circumstance, and stand in judgement of her. Trying to force their beliefs on another.

[begbert2]

@Damuri_Ajashi

Maybe I’m just a tool of the wingnut pro-lifers but explain to me how I slide down the slope from, “no third term abortions” to “all abortions=bad”?

Because with this “viable fetus” stuff you’re tilting against windmills. There simply aren’t enough attempted elected abortions of the things to get worried about - assuming that there are any at all. (Which I will note again, you have not shown to be the case.)

So. You either know that you’re fighting a phantom or you don’t - I suspect that many anti-choice folks don’t realize just how uncommon third-term abortions are. Some do, though - and there is a pervasive propaganda effort to inflate that number in people’s minds. Because the people who do care about first-trimester abortions need some way to gather others to their side.

Painting you in the best possible light, you have been thus gathered, at least to the point of buying into the fervor to Save The Babies™. But the original intent behind the propaganda fueling your fervor has nothing whatsoever to do with viable fetuses, and never has.

@Damuri_Ajashi

You probably haven’t read every post but we aren’t talking about fertilized eggs. We are talking about viable fetuses. A viable fetus doesn’t need to be implanted in me, it can survive outside the womb.

Define “viable”. Because to me there’s a difference between “we can save it - we have the technology (if you have the money)” and any definition of ‘viable’ that is useful in this discussion.

I strongly suspect that when the fetus is developed enough to actually survive outside the womb on its own physical strength, that the policy is to induce birth absent other medical complications preventing that from being safe. You have yet to show otherwise, and until you do I will not join your windmill tilting. So, when I post about abortions, I am not talking about viable fetuses. Because I am trying to talk about the real world.

[lonestar88]

@Bryan_Ekers

Fine, let’s assume all abortions take place at 30+ weeks and are purely elective and the fetus is fully sentient.

I’m still pro-choice because I find protecting the woman’s rights are more important.

If this were true I think you would lose alot of votes from the pro-choice side, mine included.

You all act as if there is only one persons choice at anytime to have an abortion. Thats bs. Tell me exactly how many doctors can and will perform an abortion on a perfectly healthy woman and perfectly healthy 30-wk fetus. It may be easy to get one in NYC - but how about middle-America?

The only reason I’m pro-choice is because most abortions occur in the first trimester. Actually, I’m pro-choice but anti-abortion. Yep, I would actually prefer to see more safe sex and fewer abortions.

[LilShieste]

@lonestar88

You all act as if there is only one persons choice at anytime to have an abortion. Thats bs. Tell me exactly how many doctors can and will perform an abortion on a perfectly healthy woman and perfectly healthy 30-wk fetus. It may be easy to get one in NYC - but how about middle-America?

I don’t think anyone is acting like that. In fact, that’s another reason why I think it shouldn’t be illegal - it’s already virtually impossible to find doctors who are capable and willing to perform the procedure (for numerous reasons).

@lonestar88

The only reason I’m pro-choice is because most abortions occur in the first trimester. Actually, I’m pro-choice but anti-abortion. Yep, I would actually prefer to see more safe sex and fewer abortions.

I would be immensely surprised if you found someone who had an differing view (i.e., if you found someone who was of the mind “I would rather people have abortions than practice safe sex”).

[lonestar88]

@LilShieste

I don’t think anyone is acting like that. In fact, that’s another reason why I think it shouldn’t be illegal - it’s already virtually impossible to find doctors who are capable and willing to perform the procedure (for numerous reasons).

I don’t know, I didn’t read all 9 pages, but it sure seemed as if some of the pro-choice responses were pretty nonchalant about choosing an abortion at anytime during the pregnancy. Which is bs.

[Der_Trihs]

@LilShieste

@lonestar88

The only reason I’m pro-choice is because most abortions occur in the first trimester. Actually, I’m pro-choice but anti-abortion. Yep, I would actually prefer to see more safe sex and fewer abortions.

I would be immensely surprised if you found someone who had an differing view (i.e., if you found someone who was of the mind “I would rather people have abortions than practice safe sex”).

Truly. Abortion is clearly inferior to not getting pregnant in the first place. It’s what you turn to when the better methods fail or aren’t used.

I’m sure that somewhere there’s someone who for some bizarre reason is literally pro-abortion; no matter how nutty the idea you can rely on someone somewhere holding it. But yes, for most purposes “pro-choice but anti abortion” (in that sense of “anti-abortion”) is pretty much identical with “pro-choice”, I think.

The members of the actual anti-abortion movement of course is also typically against other forms of birth control. They really are literally anti-choice.

[begbert2]

@lonestar88

I don’t know, I didn’t read all 9 pages, but it sure seemed as if some of the pro-choice responses were pretty nonchalant about choosing an abortion at anytime during the pregnancy. Which is bs.

It’s pretty easy to be nonchalant about something that is, by and large, not going be a problem anyway.

If it actually were the case that all abortions took place at 30+ weeks and were purely elective and the fetuses were fully sentient, then I would change sides too. But this is not what’s happening, and it’s not something we need to legislate to prevent either.

[lonestar88]

@begbert2

@lonestar88

I don’t know, I didn’t read all 9 pages, but it sure seemed as if some of the pro-choice responses were pretty nonchalant about choosing an abortion at anytime during the pregnancy. Which is bs.

It’s pretty easy to be nonchalant about something that is, by and large, not going be a problem anyway.

If it actually were the case that all abortions took place at 30+ weeks and were purely elective and the fetuses were fully sentient, then I would change sides too. But this is not what’s happening, and it’s not something we need to legislate to prevent either.

I guess you are right, because it doesn’t happen in late stages of pregnancy without some kind of good reason… but still, it bothers me seeing some of the arguments not consider the trauma involved.

[begbert2]

@lonestar88

I guess you are right, because it doesn’t happen in late stages of pregnancy without some kind of good reason… but still, it bothers me seeing some of the arguments not consider the trauma involved.

To which trauma are you specifically referring?

[lonestar88]

@begbert2

@lonestar88

I guess you are right, because it doesn’t happen in late stages of pregnancy without some kind of good reason… but still, it bothers me seeing some of the arguments not consider the trauma involved.

To which trauma are you specifically referring?

Pretty much everyone involved… including a hypothetical 30-wk sentient fetus…

[begbert2]

@lonestar88

@begbert2

To which trauma are you specifically referring?

Pretty much everyone involved… including a hypothetical 30-wk sentient fetus…

Well, the suffering of the woman is explicitly accounted for in the ‘full-term pro-choice’ scenario: we let her decide if she wants to go through with it! Nobody is better positioned than she to decide if she can stand to get the abortion - or stand not to get it and deal with the burdens of the child.

Contrariwise, those that would ban abortions after some specific point in the pregnancy are explicitly disregarding the woman’s opinions on the matter. At best they have decided that they know better than the woman how bad the outcomes would be for her. Which is, in my opinion, a pretty stupid notion every time I see it.

The suffering of the hypothetical fetus is hypothetically of some hypothetical concern. And that suffering? Brief. Hypothetically. They won’t know what hit 'em. Hypothetically.

Oh, and also - the fetuses in question are only hypothetical. In case you were unaware.
So who else is involved? The father? (Assuming he’s hanging around.) My answer: screw him. Feel free to argue against that if you like.

The doctor? That is a touchy subject, which I have refrained from addressing. Do I need to?

Did I miss anyone?

[lonestar88]

[quote=“begbert2, post:414, topic:549037”]

@lonestar88

Well, the suffering of the woman is explicitly accounted for in the ‘full-term pro-choice’ scenario: we let her decide if she wants to go through with it! Nobody is better positioned than she to decide if she can stand to get the abortion - or stand not to get it and deal with the burdens of the child.

Contrariwise, those that would ban abortions after some specific point in the pregnancy are explicitly disregarding the woman’s opinions on the matter. At best they have decided that they know better than the woman how bad the outcomes would be for her. Which is, in my opinion, a pretty stupid notion every time I see it.

The suffering of the hypothetical fetus is hypothetically of some hypothetical concern. And that suffering? Brief. Hypothetically. They won’t know what hit 'em. Hypothetically.

Oh, and also - the fetuses in question are only hypothetical. In case you were unaware.
So who else is involved? The father? (Assuming he’s hanging around.) My answer: screw him. Feel free to argue against that if you like.

The doctor? That is a touchy subject, which I have refrained from addressing. Do I need to?

Did I miss anyone?

Nope… pretty much what I expected. Of course you won’t win any pro-life arguments, but I don’t expect you want to.

[DianaG]

@lonestar88

I don’t know, I didn’t read all 9 pages, but it sure seemed as if some of the pro-choice responses were pretty nonchalant about choosing an abortion at anytime during the pregnancy. Which is bs.

Well, we’d certainly hate for you to trouble yourself by actually reading our arguments before you respond.

[lonestar88]

@DianaG

Well, we’d certainly hate for you to trouble yourself by actually reading our arguments before you respond.

Well, I’ve read some of your responses, and I must admit you are changing my mind. Pushing me more towards my wife’s viewpoint of pro-life.

[DianaG]

I’m not here to persuade anyone. I prefer being right to being popular, and especially to being popular with people who are wrong.

[lonestar88]

@DianaG

I’m not here to persuade anyone. I prefer being right to being popular, and especially to being popular with people who are wrong.

It must feel good to be so right… especially if roe vs. wade ever gets overturned.

Unfortunately for you, being popular counts in a democracy.

[DianaG]

Only to a point, just ask the nearest black person.

Feel free to keep congratulating yourself on basing your entire position on your distaste for me personally though. It’s easier and far less time consuming (assume you keep the self-congratulating short) than thinking it through.