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

[Bryan_Ekers]

Sounds like legitimate cause to keep it legal.

[DianaG]

I’d like to see a cite, please. Guttmacher says that in 2006 (I can’t find anything more recent) 3.8% of abortions were performed after 16 weeks (which those of us with the ability to count will note is not the third trimester anyway).

[begbert2]

@Damuri_Ajashi

@begbert2

Then you’re screwed, because it’s not ethical to force a woman to carry a child to term, either. You’re subjecting her to a long period of phyisical discomfort and potentially extreme medical risks. Personally I see forcing that on a person against their will to be about as morally equivalent as stealing their kidney and leaving them in a bathtub full of ice.

Though on the other side of things, if one decides that there’s no person/child to be found in an early-term fetus, then there’s nothing immoral or unethical about killing it at all - unless you have similar problems with killing tapeworms, anyway.

Ethics allows you to choose the lesser of two evils doesn’t it? Perhaps the ethical choice is in fact forcing a woman to either have a ceasarean or carry a viable fetus to term over killing a viable fetus.

Ethics allows her to choose what she considers the lesser of two evils. It does not allow you or me to assert ownership over her body to satisfy our own whims - slavery is illegal in these parts. Even if one is of the opinion that enslaving the person will save lives! (Or at least that’s what they told me when I tried to chain that doctor to the operating table.)

@Damuri_Ajashi

There were over 1000 third trimester abortions last year. A survey of 420 women who had abortions after the 16th week gave the following reasons for their abortion:

71% Woman didn’t recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation
48% Woman found it hard to make arrangements for abortion
33% Woman was afraid to tell her partner or parents
24% Woman took time to decide to have an abortion
8% Woman waited for her relationship to change
8% Someone pressured woman not to have abortion
6% Something changed after woman became pregnant
6% Woman didn’t know timing is important
5% Woman didn’t know she could get an abortion
2% A fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy
11% Other

Over 5% of abortions occur after the 16th week.

Totalling 222%?

For some reason I don’t trust your numbers.

[justrob]

@Damuri_Ajashi

It describes the most pivotal point of their position. The choice to have an abortion. All other issues pale in comaprison.

That is only half of the most pivotal point the Pro-Choice position. The other half is that each woman also has the option to choose to not have an abortion and carry the pregnancy to term. It seems that a lot of Pro-Life people leave that part of the position out.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Whack-a-Mole

@Chronos

First of all, it’s clearly and absolutely not a parasite.

Seems to fit the definition of a parasite:

(n) parasite (an animal or plant that lives in or on a host (another animal or plant); it obtains nourishment from the host without benefiting or killing the host)

If you’re pregnant, it’s a result of your own actions. If you didn’t want to be pregnant, then you shouldn’t have gotten pregnant.

• Accidents happen (condoms break, the pill is not 100% effective, etc.).

• Women get raped and become pregnant.

So that’s your position, fetuses are parasites?

I can understand the rationale for abortion up to a certain point (a lot of people say viability, I might come in sometime before that)

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Third trimester abortions are a minute fraction (less than a tenth of 1%) of all abortions anyway, and the ones that are performed are not elective, but performed for medically necessary reasons (usually after the fetus is already dead or dying).

The “one day before birth” scenario is a red herring in the abortion debate, since elective abortions of healthy, full term fetuses never happen in actuality. 90% of abortions occur in the first trimester.

And ten percent of abortions are after the first trimester. Whats your point, we shouldn’t be bothered by the ten percent because the other 90% is during the first trimester?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@DianaG

@A Monkey With a Gun

It’s the all too common fault shown here:

The all too common fault with your argument is that it comes from a place of thinking that you should get to decide for anyone who isn’t you. You don’t. THAT is what choice means.

Laws always constrict choice. They always make decisions for you.

[DianaG]

So… no cite yet?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Whack-a-Mole

@A Monkey With a Gun

I wasn’t trying to address a mainstream organization. It’s the all too common fault shown here:

You’re the one ranting about the wrongness of the argument of those on the “pro-choice” side and why “choice” is an awful stance to take on the issue.

You have been shown why it absolutely is about “choice” at the root of it. If you outlaw abortions you will force any woman who becomes pregnant to carry the baby to term (and a whole raft of scary issues arise if we go down that road).

In short, you have denied her of any choice in the matter.

You have yet to spell out where these idiots are misusing choice as the argument since that really what it is. DianaG has been expressing that.

So are you admitting that at least one poster is in fact saying choice>all?

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12760359&postcount=61

[Marley23]

@Damuri_Ajashi

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Third trimester abortions are a minute fraction (less than a tenth of 1%) of all abortions anyway, and the ones that are performed are not elective, but performed for medically necessary reasons (usually after the fetus is already dead or dying).

The “one day before birth” scenario is a red herring in the abortion debate, since elective abortions of healthy, full term fetuses never happen in actuality. 90% of abortions occur in the first trimester.

And ten percent of abortions are after the first trimester. Whats your point, we shouldn’t be bothered by the ten percent because the other 90% is during the first trimester?

His point is pretty clear. In fact it was the next sentence in the post you just quoted. What don’t you understand? [And incidentally could you please use the multi-quote function instead of responding to so many posts one at a time?]

[DianaG]

So are you admitting that at least one poster is in fact saying choice>all?

Yes, I said that, quite some time ago. The time to read the thread was BEFORE you started posting to it.

[begbert2]

@Damuri_Ajashi

So are you admitting that at least one poster is in fact saying choice>all?

No, nobody is saying anything about “all”. But it’s no secret that several people are taking the position that a woman should retain the right to decide what to do with her body right until, through, before, and after the pregnancy.

Is that some kind of problem?

[begbert2]

I’d like to add that the quality of the opposing arguments in this thread have singlehandedly tipped me that last little bit over the edge to complete unrestricted choice for the woman - she should be able to get an abortion anytime she likes.

After all, abortions of babies on the cusp of birth just don’t happen much anyway - and the degree they do happen will only decrease as early abortions become more available and socially accepted.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Whack-a-Mole

@Chronos

First of all, it’s not a parasite because a parasite provides no benefit to the host, and a fetus provides tremendous benefit to the host, in biological terms. If a species would go extinct without a “parasite”, then it’s not a parasite.

We may see that as desirable (continuation of the species) it is not a benefit to the host. At least I am hard pressed to see how my existence today benefited Julius Caesar.

Yes but if we are going to start throwing around technical definitions of parasite to prove that the fetus is kinda like a tapeworm the I think it is fair to consider the term in the biological sense, and I am pretty sure that most biologists would not call a fetus a parasite in teh biological sense.

As noted earlier car accidents happen. Maybe if you were more selective about when to drive you’d be safer but still…accidents happen. Since you chose to drive if an accident happens we should consider you SOL?

No of course not but if you get into an accident, noone gets hurt and for whatever reason, you decide not to stick around and have a police report made at the scene, your insurance company might not want to pay you for the damage to your car if you show up 6 months later and file an insurance claim. While tehre are all sorts of valid reasons to have a late term abortion, the most common reasons seem to be “I didn’t know I was pregnant” Now I can present a eugenic argument why we should let that woman have an abortion anyways but some part of me idn’t comfortable with killing babies because their parents are stupid.

The rape angle is important in this debate. If someone really truly believes there is a human life at stake from the moment of conception then does how that conception occurred really matter? I know some anti-abortion people hold this view and to me it is the only consistent view you can hold if you believe in full-blown human life as worthy of protection as you or me occurs at the moment of conception.

Yes I agree, the rape argument is important, it is an extreme that shows how the application of a principle plays out. If we say that a fetus is a person when it becomes viable then allowing abortions in those cases is tantamount to punishing the child for the sins of the father.

What if you get raped and the rapist tied you up for 7 months before you escaped and you try to get an abortion at your first available opportunity? Should we allow you to abort a viable fetus then? Its a tough call and the calls get tougher but if teh fetus is a person at viability, then no you don’t get to have an abortion, you can induce labor but you can’t kill your rapist’s child.

On the flip side. lets take another ridiculous scenario, an abortion the day before the due date. Its very unlikely and might never even happen but if choice is the most important factor, doesn’t that mean you have to let the woman have an abortion the day before the due date?

If you say “well we’re not that extreme” then you are basically saying, choice is NOT absolute and there are instances where we can force a woman to carry a baby to term or induce delivery. You may not do it as frequently as i do but you would do it.

[begbert2]

@Damuri_Ajashi

On the flip side. lets take another ridiculous scenario, an abortion the day before the due date. Its very unlikely and might never even happen but if choice is the most important factor, doesn’t that mean you have to let the woman have an abortion the day before the due date?

If you say “well we’re not that extreme” then you are basically saying, choice is NOT absolute and there are instances where we can force a woman to carry a baby to term or induce delivery. You may not do it as frequently as i do but you would do it.

We’re that extreme.

[DianaG]

[recording]Thank you for your comment. Damuri Ajashi will get back to you in approximately two pages.[/recording]

[ZPG_Zealot]

@spark240

@DianaG

“Inside my body” vs. “outside my body” is a pretty bright line.

Indeed, the unborn baby is not only inside, it’s attached.

Birth may not be the only “line” worth thinking about in moral terms, but it’s still a bright one. There is a major operational difference between an unborn baby and a born one.

And its eating the nutrients, vitamins, etc. of his or her mother essentially eating her. If she consents to that is her choice. If she does not she has the same right to evict the fetus from her body as I have to shot an insane person that breaks into my house and tries to drink my blood.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@begbert2

because third trimester elective abortions don’t happen at all

Then there would be no harm in criminalizing elective third term abortions nationwide, right?

[Marley23]

@Damuri_Ajashi

@begbert2

because third trimester elective abortions don’t happen at all

Then there would be no harm in criminalizing elective third term abortions nationwide, right?

What the fuck would be the point?

[ZPG_Zealot]

@Damuri_Ajashi

@spark240

Interesting to come at the question of killing the unborn from two directions today. Elsewhere, I said this,

.

As I said, there may be more than one “line” to be found, depending on context. I see no necessary conflict in acknowledging that a late-term unborn baby is almost the same as a born baby, and holding an assailant similarly responsible for its injury (including murder charges), while also acknowledging the critical difference, with respect to the prevailing rights of the woman.

This is probably the most succinct way to put it.

So does a woman have the right to evict a viable fetus by chopping it to bits before sucking it out througha vaccum hose?

I never heard Der Trihs actually say this before:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12748680&postcount=5

Yep, same as she has the right to shot, stab in the heart, etc., a fully grown, walking talking adult who is attempting to drink her blood, cut pieces of her flesh to cannibalize, steal her organs for transplant. The right to own your body and it’s resources should be absolute