Abortion: Pro-Choice or Pro-Life?

[Ashmoria]

it is UTTERLY legal for planned parenthood to facilitate the donation of tissue of an aborted fetus.

just like it is UTTERLY legal for your doctor to facilitate the donation of YOUR tissue should you meet an untimely demise.

Well I did say "probably." I wasn't really sure to be honest. I've seen where it is legal while other places it isn't (fetuses). Wouldn't you have to donate your organs to a hospital in order for them to use them, or do they just take them? I imagine that a doctor would have to get written consent from you before you pass or from your loved ones. I really doubt they just take the organs, but then again, I could be wrong.

of course.

that is what your doctor would do and that is what planned parenthood does.

[138]

Well I did say "probably." I wasn't really sure to be honest. I've seen where it is legal while other places it isn't (fetuses). Wouldn't you have to donate your organs to a hospital in order for them to use them, or do they just take them? I imagine that a doctor would have to get written consent from you before you pass or from your loved ones. I really doubt they just take the organs, but then again, I could be wrong.

of course.

that is what your doctor would do and that is what planned parenthood does.

I figured haha . It would be kind of weird to just chop you up at the hospital right after you pass

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

it is UTTERLY legal for planned parenthood to facilitate the donation of tissue of an aborted fetus.

just like it is UTTERLY legal for your doctor to facilitate the donation of YOUR tissue should you meet an untimely demise.

Well I did say "probably." I wasn't really sure to be honest. I've seen where it is legal while other places it isn't (fetuses). Wouldn't you have to donate your organs to a hospital in order for them to use them, or do they just take them? I imagine that a doctor would have to get written consent from you before you pass or from your loved ones. I really doubt they just take the organs, but then again, I could be wrong.

It's fully legal to use the tissues of fetuses. They have no wills or desires so you cannot infringe upon their desires. The only person who gets a say in the matter is the woman who is pregnant. Just like if a young child dies, the parent and only the parent chooses whether or not the child's organs and tissues are donated. Even if an ADULT dies and they never made a choice on the matter, the next of kin gets to decide what happens to their body. There is no issue of consent here.

[138]

Well I did say "probably." I wasn't really sure to be honest. I've seen where it is legal while other places it isn't (fetuses). Wouldn't you have to donate your organs to a hospital in order for them to use them, or do they just take them? I imagine that a doctor would have to get written consent from you before you pass or from your loved ones. I really doubt they just take the organs, but then again, I could be wrong.

It's fully legal to use the tissues of fetuses. They have no wills or desires so you cannot infringe upon their desires. The only person who gets a say in the matter is the woman who is pregnant. Just like if a young child dies, the parent and only the parent chooses whether or not the child's organs and tissues are donated. Even if an ADULT dies and they never made a choice on the matter, the next of kin gets to decide what happens to their body. There is no issue of consent here.

Some people do decide to donate their organs before they pass, so it kind of is an issue of consent. You are right about the fetuses though. They really wouldn't have much say since they won't be born

[Ashmoria]

Well I did say "probably." I wasn't really sure to be honest. I've seen where it is legal while other places it isn't (fetuses). Wouldn't you have to donate your organs to a hospital in order for them to use them, or do they just take them? I imagine that a doctor would have to get written consent from you before you pass or from your loved ones. I really doubt they just take the organs, but then again, I could be wrong.

It's fully legal to use the tissues of fetuses. They have no wills or desires so you cannot infringe upon their desires. The only person who gets a say in the matter is the woman who is pregnant. Just like if a young child dies, the parent and only the parent chooses whether or not the child's organs and tissues are donated. Even if an ADULT dies and they never made a choice on the matter, the next of kin gets to decide what happens to their body. There is no issue of consent here.

it SOUNDS terrible but it is no more terrible than organ donation in reality. it can do a lot of good from a really bad situation.

[54e]

I'm not just talking about pregnancies carried to term and then aborted, I'm talking about late-term (or reasonably post-viability) pregnancies. This link makes it clear that third trimester abortions, while not common, are still widely practiced. (It's a useful link; it also gives some context/reasons for late abortions.)

so am I?

women are moral actors. I have no problem trusting that they will make the right decision for themselves and their families.

If we follow that argument to its logical end, then we should not have laws for anything because people are "moral actors" who should be trusted indefinitely.

I'm not just talking about pregnancies carried to term and then aborted, I'm talking about late-term (or reasonably post-viability) pregnancies. This link makes it clear that third trimester abortions, while not common, are still widely practiced. (It's a useful link; it also gives some context/reasons for late abortions.)

By "widely practiced" do you mean 1.5%? Because that's not really widely practiced. Past viability, the estimations are only at 0.08%. Wow. Soooo widely practiced.

If you'll look at the numbers, 0.08% is over a thousand abortions per year. Hardly anything to balk at. I would call that widely practiced - if you don't, that's fine, but I see no reason for you to be sarcastic about it.

[Wallenburg]

so am I?

women are moral actors. I have no problem trusting that they will make the right decision for themselves and their families.

If we follow that argument to its logical end, then we should not have laws for anything because people are "moral actors" who should be trusted indefinitely.

By "widely practiced" do you mean 1.5%? Because that's not really widely practiced. Past viability, the estimations are only at 0.08%. Wow. Soooo widely practiced.

If you'll look at the numbers, 0.08% is over a thousand abortions per year. Hardly anything to balk at. I would call that widely practiced - if you don't, that's fine, but I see no reason for you to be sarcastic about it.

For a nation of over 300 million people, a thousand abortions is insignificant.

[Cabratierra]

So, here is my opinion on all of this. So, being a Christian, in everything I say and do, I do it for God. And in the bible, it says that God knows us even before we are in the womb. It also speaks of God's active presence in the creation of us in the womb. And, it says that the penalty is the same for someone who commits murder as it is for someone who causes the death of a baby in the womb- death. Of course it's not physical death, but death of sin and separation from God. Now, whether you believe this or not, my point is that everything I say and do is because I love God. Not for any good or whatever, but because I want to grow in my relationship with him. And for those of you who argue for abortion in cases of rape and incest, why should a baby be punished for the evil act of its father? Sure, the baby may not be living (yet), but that's a child that won't get to live and do things like go to school, graduate, get a job, get married, etc. So in those kinds of cases, I voice for the child. The mother, if she does not wish to take care of her baby, can give it up for adoption to a loving family that may not be able to have children of it's own, or to any other type of loving and caring family.

[54e]

If we follow that argument to its logical end, then we should not have laws for anything because people are "moral actors" who should be trusted indefinitely.


If you'll look at the numbers, 0.08% is over a thousand abortions per year. Hardly anything to balk at. I would call that widely practiced - if you don't, that's fine, but I see no reason for you to be sarcastic about it.

For a nation of over 300 million people, a thousand abortions is insignificant.

No it isn't - these are late-term abortions where the fetus would be able to survive outside the womb. Under any other circumstances, this would be considered significant.

And this is per year. I understand there's a population problem, but one would think there are better ways of stopping unwanted pregnancies.

[Geilinor]

For a nation of over 300 million people, a thousand abortions is insignificant.

No it isn't - these are late-term abortions where the fetus would be able to survive outside the womb. Under any other circumstances, this would be considered significant.

And this is per year. I understand there's a population problem, but one would think there are better ways of stopping unwanted pregnancies.

Those "other circumstances" are after birth. Abortion should not be illegal before that.

[Ashmoria]

so am I?

women are moral actors. I have no problem trusting that they will make the right decision for themselves and their families.

If we follow that argument to its logical end, then we should not have laws for anything because people are "moral actors" who should be trusted indefinitely.

*shrug* I am not afraid of that slippery slope.

[Wallenburg]

For a nation of over 300 million people, a thousand abortions is insignificant.

No it isn't - these are late-term abortions where the fetus would be able to survive outside the womb. Under any other circumstances, this would be considered significant.

And this is per year. I understand there's a population problem, but one would think there are better ways of stopping unwanted pregnancies.

Well, if there is a complication that threatens the mother's life, then that makes sense. And that's probably the primary reason for late-term abortions.

[Freed Slaves (Ancient)]

Well I did say "probably." I wasn't really sure to be honest. I've seen where it is legal while other places it isn't (fetuses). Wouldn't you have to donate your organs to a hospital in order for them to use them, or do they just take them? I imagine that a doctor would have to get written consent from you before you pass or from your loved ones. I really doubt they just take the organs, but then again, I could be wrong.

of course.

that is what your doctor would do and that is what planned parenthood does.

They can't take your organs unless you ask them to take them, you can even get a card that says organ donor, same with fetuses in planned parenthood, you can choose to have your aborted baby's tissue donated to science (we've found cures to multiple serious problems with the help of fetal tissue) (personally if i were to have an abortion i'd obviously donate the tissue, it only helps) Really though can't we just like distribute condoms for free, anonymously, that'd make this whole debate pointless, i still think abortions should be able to be kept around because someone might change their mind during their pregnancy. (also really if you define life as the fertilized egg then periods are abortion, it's simple sex ed)

[54e]

No it isn't - these are late-term abortions where the fetus would be able to survive outside the womb. Under any other circumstances, this would be considered significant.

And this is per year. I understand there's a population problem, but one would think there are better ways of stopping unwanted pregnancies.

Those "other circumstances" are after birth. Abortion should not be illegal before that.

Okay, but the point remains: At a certain point, the fetus becomes able to survive outside the womb. My question, put plainly, is why terminate when it can survive on its own?

[54e]

If we follow that argument to its logical end, then we should not have laws for anything because people are "moral actors" who should be trusted indefinitely.

*shrug* I am not afraid of that slippery slope.

There's no slippery slope; it seems to me that your blanket assessment of women/humanity is somewhat foolish. I see no reason your argument can't be applied to other issues.

[Cabratierra]

of course.

that is what your doctor would do and that is what planned parenthood does.

They can't take your organs unless you ask them to take them, you can even get a card that says organ donor, same with fetuses in planned parenthood, you can choose to have your aborted baby's tissue donated to science (we've found cures to multiple serious problems with the help of fetal tissue) (personally if i were to have an abortion i'd obviously donate the tissue, it only helps) Really though can't we just like distribute condoms for free, anonymously, that'd make this whole debate pointless, i still think abortions should be able to be kept around because someone might change their mind during their pregnancy. (also really if you define life as the fertilized egg then periods are abortion, it's simple sex ed)

Pregnancy is obviously a big deal, and shouldn't be taken lightly. You don't just change your mind. There are other solutions for women who feel they can't raise a child, like adoption.

[Arach-Naga Combine]

Those "other circumstances" are after birth. Abortion should not be illegal before that.

Okay, but the point remains: At a certain point, the fetus becomes able to survive outside the womb. My question, put plainly, is why terminate when it can survive on its own?

Because it's a violation of bodily integrity, and absolutely nothing else matters.

[54e]

No it isn't - these are late-term abortions where the fetus would be able to survive outside the womb. Under any other circumstances, this would be considered significant.

And this is per year. I understand there's a population problem, but one would think there are better ways of stopping unwanted pregnancies.

Well, if there is a complication that threatens the mother's life, then that makes sense. And that's probably the primary reason for late-term abortions.

Again I will bring up this link - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_term ... _pregnancy

There's a section that gives the justifications for late termination. Complications don't seem to be the "primary reason" for late term abortions (or any abortions, for that matter).

[54e]

Okay, but the point remains: At a certain point, the fetus becomes able to survive outside the womb. My question, put plainly, is why terminate when it can survive on its own?

Because it's a violation of bodily integrity, and absolutely nothing else matters.

How? Why? You give no justification for this bodily sovereignty/integrity being so paramount to humanity and this particular issue, especially with regard to aborting a fetus that is viable.

[Arach-Naga Combine]

Because it's a violation of bodily integrity, and absolutely nothing else matters.

How? Why? You give no justification for this bodily sovereignty/integrity being so paramount to humanity and this particular issue, especially with regard to aborting a fetus that is viable.

Bodily sovereignty is why things like unconsented experimentation, rape, and organ harvesting are immoral and unlawful. It never has exceptions. There is never any reason to permit a violation of bodily sovereignty.

An example: your blood supply is linked to that of some other person. Can you be forced to maintain that link? This is a fully developed human being, with plenty of life left to live too.

The correct answer is no. It doesn't matter at all what the other conditions are. This is a right where context of the violation itself does not matter AT ALL. Unconditionally, abortion is a right.

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

Because it's a violation of bodily integrity, and absolutely nothing else matters.

How? Why? You give no justification for this bodily sovereignty/integrity being so paramount to humanity and this particular issue, especially with regard to aborting a fetus that is viable.

Because the second you tell a woman that something violating her body is more important than she is and she doesn't have the right to remove it, you remove the very most fundamental right of all. Before you can have any rights whatsoever, you must have the right to own your own body and protect it in the way that you see most fit.

[Ashmoria]

of course.

that is what your doctor would do and that is what planned parenthood does.

They can't take your organs unless you ask them to take them, you can even get a card that says organ donor, same with fetuses in planned parenthood, you can choose to have your aborted baby's tissue donated to science (we've found cures to multiple serious problems with the help of fetal tissue) (personally if i were to have an abortion i'd obviously donate the tissue, it only helps) Really though can't we just like distribute condoms for free, anonymously, that'd make this whole debate pointless, i still think abortions should be able to be kept around because someone might change their mind during their pregnancy. (also really if you define life as the fertilized egg then periods are abortion, it's simple sex ed)

cheap, easily available contraception can reduce the need for abortion but it will never eliminate it totally.

so pro-lifers really ought to be in favor of the full implementation (and expansion) of obamacare because it mandates free birth control.

[Wallenburg]

Well, if there is a complication that threatens the mother's life, then that makes sense. And that's probably the primary reason for late-term abortions.

Again I will bring up this link - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_term ... _pregnancy

There's a section that gives the justifications for late termination. Complications don't seem to be the "primary reason" for late term abortions (or any abortions, for that matter).

Seems you are right. I oppose abortions at that stage. Terminate the pregnancy so that the fetus lives and becomes a baby.

[Ashmoria]

*shrug* I am not afraid of that slippery slope.

There's no slippery slope; it seems to me that your blanket assessment of women/humanity is somewhat foolish. I see no reason your argument can't be applied to other issues.

when women actually start having needless late term abortions we can discuss it. until then it is a bit sick to imagine that there are bunches of women who wake up one day and decide to kill their baby for kicks.

that attitude is DANGEROUS for actual women because it makes late term abortions unavailable in emergency situations.

[54e]

How? Why? You give no justification for this bodily sovereignty/integrity being so paramount to humanity and this particular issue, especially with regard to aborting a fetus that is viable.

Bodily sovereignty is why things like unconsented experimentation, rape, and organ harvesting are immoral and unlawful. It never has exceptions. There is never any reason to permit a violation of bodily sovereignty.

An example: your blood supply is linked to that of some other person. Can you be forced to maintain that link? This is a fully developed human being, with plenty of life left to live too.

The correct answer is no. It doesn't matter at all what the other conditions are. This is a right where context of the violation itself does not matter AT ALL. Unconditionally, abortion is a right.

I'm following your lead here, and I'm not sure your conclusion matches your argument.

Assuming there is a fetus that is viable, why does it not have bodily sovereignty? If you can "remove the invasion" as you say, it essentially boils down to 2 options. Life for the fetus, and death for the fetus. What I'm trying to understand why is why some of the pro-choice rhetoric is so laser-focused on the rights of the woman in this situation, as though the viable fetus is merely a parasite. Why do its rights only come at birth? Is it not possible for both the woman and the fetus to have bodily sovereignty rights at the same time?

When virtually all human rights are restricted in some regard, why are abortion rights so "unconditionally" protected? Surely, in a post-viability scenario, there can be some consideration given to the fetus without trumpeting the all-encompassing Right of the Woman to Bodily Sovereignty, No Matter What.