NationStates

Napkiraly wrote:

Mechanisburg wrote:
Eeeeh, not really. She misquoted/misread the source, but it is still true that women risk death when undergoing pregnancy, and it is still true the risk of severe complications is higher, and it is still true that forcing women, against their will, to risk death or even simply dialysis or incontinence for the rest of their life is fucked up.

Hell, even if no risks whatsoever were involved and pregnancy happened magically with the foetus in an interdimensional pouch she still should have the right to stop providing for it.

The risk of death is negligible for women in the USA. It does take away from the argument since it rested upon the risk of death being something significant which it isn't for women in the USA. Such an argument is better suited for countries with high mortality rates for pregnant women.

Is the risk of death due to cancer negligible in the US?

Fact is, pregnancy-related death rates have doubled over the past 30 years within the United States. And this isn't due to something innate in the human condition, or even in the modern progression(!) of society - it's gone down in the rest of the world.

America really needs to figure out WTF is going on, then do something about it.

Neutraligon wrote:

Napkiraly wrote:The risk of death is negligible for women in the USA. It does take away from the argument since it rested upon the risk of death being something significant which it isn't for women in the USA. Such an argument is better suited for countries with high mortality rates for pregnant women.

The argument is not that it is great, the argument is that it exists at all and that women are being forced to take on that risk, no matter how small, against their will.

This pretty much.
It is essentially a draft on womens bodies. It could be rationalized in a protracted war time or in a time of major crisis if somehow a higher birth rate was necessary to national survival.
They didn't argue that.
Didn't even allude to it.

Because it would necessitate acknowledging that they're doing harm.

Ostroeuropa wrote:

Neutraligon wrote:The argument is not that it is great, the argument is that it exists at all and that women are being forced to take on that risk, no matter how small, against their will.

This pretty much.
It is essentially a draft on womens bodies. It could be rationalized in a protracted war time or in a time of major crisis if somehow a higher birth rate was necessary to national survival.
They didn't argue that.
Didn't even allude to it.

Because it would necessitate acknowledging that they're doing harm.

There is a difference between women looking to have children and looking to have fun.

Napkiraly wrote:

Mechanisburg wrote:
Eeeeh, not really. She misquoted/misread the source, but it is still true that women risk death when undergoing pregnancy, and it is still true the risk of severe complications is higher, and it is still true that forcing women, against their will, to risk death or even simply dialysis or incontinence for the rest of their life is fucked up.

Hell, even if no risks whatsoever were involved and pregnancy happened magically with the foetus in an interdimensional pouch she still should have the right to stop providing for it.

The risk of death is negligible for women in the USA. It does take away from the argument since it rested upon the risk of death being something significant which it isn't for women in the USA. Such an argument is better suited for countries with high mortality rates for pregnant women.

It's doubled over the past 30 years.

Women have right to decide what they do with their own body. But they don`t have right to decide what to do with body of their child growing inside them.
If living form is theoretically able to grow into human when outside womb, nobody has right to kill it. But if living form could not even theoretically grow into human outside womb, it is not different from any other living things we kill all the time, like bacteria, ants or in some cases somebody`s arm (amputation), and can be killed.

Having abortion becouse you can`t for example afford children is wrong reason to have abortion. Governments must take care of everyone who is not able to do it themselves. It is their moral duty, and it also pays off in the long run.

Kentucky bill for wives to approve viagra for their husbands and only married men would have access to it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/17/us/v ... nsent.html

Seems only fair.

Sacred Europe wrote:Women have right to decide what they do with their own body. But they don`t have right to decide what to do with body of their child growing inside them.
If living form is theoretically able to grow into human when outside womb, nobody has right to kill it. But if living form could not even theoretically grow into human outside womb, it is not different from any other living things we kill all the time, like bacteria, ants or in some cases somebody`s arm (amputation), and can be killed.

Having abortion becouse you can`t for example afford children is wrong reason to have abortion. Governments must take care of everyone who is not able to do it themselves. It is their moral duty, and it also pays off in the long run.

Well? How do you handle miscarriages let alone prove it happened naturally?

Ever seen these support institutions?

Maybe the forces of "morality" should band together and empty the system of children before adding more.

Gravlen wrote:

Napkiraly wrote:The risk of death is negligible for women in the USA. It does take away from the argument since it rested upon the risk of death being something significant which it isn't for women in the USA. Such an argument is better suited for countries with high mortality rates for pregnant women.

Is the risk of death due to cancer negligible in the US?

See the trick is dividing the various forms of cancer up (and not taking into account the various mortality rates for each kind of cancer), not to mention the age of people. If I were diagnosed with cancer, while terrible, I'd recognize my odds are much better than if I am in my 50's (especially given my family history). As a whole, cancer has a significantly higher amount of deaths per 100 000 (something around 121 iirc). Now let''s take the data from 2014 as an example for deaths caused by the complications of pregnancy. https://www.cdc.gov/women/lcod/2014/all-females/index.htm

Now as you can see, it is only in the top 3 for the ages 15-34, not surprising considering that is the age range when most women have children. And the worst it gets is a whooping...2.8%. Not really something most people I think go around worrying about. I mean, do you go around worrying about heart disease in your 20's? I don't think most do. So perhaps it was a bit brash of me to say it's negligible (though it is compared to many other countries in the world) but it's not really something to be all that concerned about really. I mean, most us don't worry about chronic liver disease of influenza. Which should I fear more, homicide or heart disease?

Or to put even more simply - for every 100 000 pregnancies, 0.0178% of the women die.

The Black Forrest wrote:

Sacred Europe wrote:Women have right to decide what they do with their own body. But they don`t have right to decide what to do with body of their child growing inside them.
If living form is theoretically able to grow into human when outside womb, nobody has right to kill it. But if living form could not even theoretically grow into human outside womb, it is not different from any other living things we kill all the time, like bacteria, ants or in some cases somebody`s arm (amputation), and can be killed.

Having abortion becouse you can`t for example afford children is wrong reason to have abortion. Governments must take care of everyone who is not able to do it themselves. It is their moral duty, and it also pays off in the long run.

Well? How do you handle miscarriages let alone prove it happened naturally?

Ever seen these support institutions?

Maybe the forces of "morality" should band together and empty the system of children before adding more.

How to handle? Therapy and what ever help is needed. Doctors do what they can to find out if there is something that caused the miscarriage. And if possible, cure/fix that.

No, i am male and have never had abortion myself. Why are you asking? And what support institution are you talking about? And why?

What are you talking about?

Sacred Europe wrote:Women have right to decide what they do with their own body. But they don`t have right to decide what to do with body of their child growing inside them.
If living form is theoretically able to grow into human when outside womb, nobody has right to kill it. But if living form could not even theoretically grow into human outside womb, it is not different from any other living things we kill all the time, like bacteria, ants or in some cases somebody`s arm (amputation), and can be killed.

So you support Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, then - that was, in fact, the explicit reasoning on which those two cases were decided. Meaning, ironically, that the anti-abortion activists just have to wait - as the point where we can remove a foetus from the mother's body and place it in an artificial womb moves to earlier in the pregnancy due to medical advances, the "viability threshold" moves with it - and, therefore, so does the point at which States are constitutionally permitted to outlaw abortion, even if 90%+ of women can't afford to have their foetuses brought to term in that manner. Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood both declined to address the issue of accessibility of alternatives to bringing the foetus to term, after all, only of theoretical availability.

Having abortion becouse you can`t for example afford children is wrong reason to have abortion.

Why?

No, seriously, why? Why should a woman essentially give up a lifetime of career advancement because her birth control method (pill, partner's condom, diaphragm, contraceptive implant, etc. etc.) failed - as opposed to having the foetus aborted prior to viability?

Governments must take care of everyone who is not able to do it themselves. It is their moral duty, and it also pays off in the long run.

Yeah.....laudable idea, but let's face it - it's never going to happen. Everywhere there is a welfare state, it's under orchestrated assault by the modern Right, and more often than not, the modern "Left" is complicit in the assault too.

Face the reality: We're reverting to pre-Depression social structures, and thanks to the increased level of control of the wealthy over larger networks of communication, it's not going to go away soon....if ever. Publicly available pre/post-natal care? Fuggedaboutit!

New Chalcedon wrote:

Napkiraly wrote:The risk of death is negligible for women in the USA. It does take away from the argument since it rested upon the risk of death being something significant which it isn't for women in the USA. Such an argument is better suited for countries with high mortality rates for pregnant women.

It's doubled over the past 30 years.

Perhaps not. Though America is still quite shockingly high considering how developed it is.

Look I'm not saying that there is no risk for women in the USA or that women should not be on the lookout for any signs that something may be amiss. But maternal death is not something that most pregnant women in the USA have to fear, by quite a significant amount. It is not the strongest argument to use in such a context, especially when dealing with a crowd who think that abortions are murder and that the abortion rate vastly outstrips that of maternal death.

Sacred Europe wrote:

The Black Forrest wrote:
Well? How do you handle miscarriages let alone prove it happened naturally?

Ever seen these support institutions?

Maybe the forces of "morality" should band together and empty the system of children before adding more.

How to handle? Therapy and what ever help is needed. Doctors do what they can to find out if there is something that caused the miscarriage. And if possible, cure/fix that.

No, i am male and have never had abortion myself. Why are you asking? And what support institution are you talking about? And why?

What are you talking about?

It's apparant you don't understand miscarriages. There isn't a simple cure.

The institutions are what the government places unwanted children.

The forces of "morality" always mention them but they don't seem to understand them let alone give these children homes.

Napkiraly wrote:

New Chalcedon wrote:
It's doubled over the past 30 years.

Perhaps not. Though America is still quite shockingly high considering how developed it is.

You're right - the measurement has changed, and now captures neonatal death as well as prenatal death of the parent. The trendline is still upward, and significantly so - America's pre- and neo-natal parental mortality rates are, quite literally, the highest in the developed world, and there's no sign that the increase is really slowing down.

Look I'm not saying that there is no risk for women in the USA or that women should not be on the lookout for any signs that something may be amiss. But maternal death is not something that most pregnant women in the USA have to fear, by quite a significant amount. It is not the strongest argument to use in such a context, especially when dealing with a crowd who think that abortions are murder and that the abortion rate vastly outstrips that of maternal death.

OK....I'm not so convinced of that as you seem to be, but you do make a logical point. What line of argument would you use when dealing with such an individual?

This is bad because it doesn't go far enough.

New Chalcedon wrote:

Napkiraly wrote:Perhaps not. Though America is still quite shockingly high considering how developed it is.

You're right - the measurement has changed, and now captures neonatal death as well as prenatal death of the parent. The trendline is still upward, and significantly so - America's pre- and neo-natal parental mortality rates are, quite literally, the highest in the developed world, and there's no sign that the increase is really slowing down.

Look I'm not saying that there is no risk for women in the USA or that women should not be on the lookout for any signs that something may be amiss. But maternal death is not something that most pregnant women in the USA have to fear, by quite a significant amount. It is not the strongest argument to use in such a context, especially when dealing with a crowd who think that abortions are murder and that the abortion rate vastly outstrips that of maternal death.

OK....I'm not so convinced of that as you seem to be, but you do make a logical point. What line of argument would you use when dealing with such an individual?

I'm still not entirely certain, to be quite honest. I'm still figuring out what approach to use, which also requires coming at this topic from their moral foundation (as it is with many other issues, to be honest).

New Chalcedon wrote:

Sacred Europe wrote:Women have right to decide what they do with their own body. But they don`t have right to decide what to do with body of their child growing inside them.
If living form is theoretically able to grow into human when outside womb, nobody has right to kill it. But if living form could not even theoretically grow into human outside womb, it is not different from any other living things we kill all the time, like bacteria, ants or in some cases somebody`s arm (amputation), and can be killed.

So you support Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, then - that was, in fact, the explicit reasoning on which those two cases were decided. Meaning, ironically, that the anti-abortion activists just have to wait - as the point where we can remove a foetus from the mother's body and place it in an artificial womb moves to earlier in the pregnancy due to medical advances, the "viability threshold" moves with it - and, therefore, so does the point at which States are constitutionally permitted to outlaw abortion, even if 90%+ of women can't afford to have their foetuses brought to term in that manner. Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood both declined to address the issue of accessibility of alternatives to bringing the foetus to term, after all, only of theoretical availability.

Having abortion becouse you can`t for example afford children is wrong reason to have abortion.

Why?

No, seriously, why? Why should a woman essentially give up a lifetime of career advancement because her birth control method (pill, partner's condom, diaphragm, contraceptive implant, etc. etc.) failed - as opposed to having the foetus aborted prior to viability?

Governments must take care of everyone who is not able to do it themselves. It is their moral duty, and it also pays off in the long run.

Yeah.....laudable idea, but let's face it - it's never going to happen. Everywhere there is a welfare state, it's under orchestrated assault by the modern Right, and more often than not, the modern "Left" is complicit in the assault too.

Face the reality: We're reverting to pre-Depression social structures, and thanks to the increased level of control of the wealthy over larger networks of communication, it's not going to go away soon....if ever. Publicly available pre/post-natal care? Fuggedaboutit!

Ehm, i have no idea what your point there was.

First of all, lets be more clear. I meant that you can kill multi cellular organism, but at the point where it becomes human you no longer have that right. So if you have accident, you have plenty of time to fix it. And nobody forces you to raise the kid if you get pregnant, you can always give it up to adoption.

So you are saying welfware states don`t work becouse sometimes in the future they collapse? Well just so you know, at the moment welfare states clearly work. So at the moment that "laudable idea" should happen. In fact i am already living in welfare nation that clearly works. So i don`t see what your point is. Are you maybe American capitalist who thinks poor people are just not trying hard enough?

I have no idea why you are saying that. Where do you live? And in any case, that has not happened. At the moment welfare states work very well. When they don`t, we can change the system. But at the moment they work, so we should live in one. Luckily i already do.
Increased control of wealthy over larger networks is certainly trough though.

The Black Forrest wrote:

Sacred Europe wrote:How to handle? Therapy and what ever help is needed. Doctors do what they can to find out if there is something that caused the miscarriage. And if possible, cure/fix that.

No, i am male and have never had abortion myself. Why are you asking? And what support institution are you talking about? And why?

What are you talking about?

It's apparant you don't understand miscarriages. There isn't a simple cure.

The institutions are what the government places unwanted children.

The forces of "morality" always mention them but they don't seem to understand them let alone give these children homes.

What on earth are you talking about? I never said there is cure for miscarriage... I said we need to do what we can to help and improve the situation. Aka therapy and doctors.

Oh that. What about those institutions? Something wrong with them? I am sure. But go ask kids who live in those institutions if they prefer to live there or be killed before they even are born. Nobody wants to die. If they do, they need help as that is not normal. If institution does not work, it needs to be improved - i know it is not easy. I am just saying that is not excuse for abortion. It is like going to doctor, even if all doctors would offer only very little help, you still should go there for obvious reasons. Over time with effort, it all can be improved.

I don`t want to give unwanted child home any more than i want to give poor man enough money to live. That simply would mean that i could not live myself. That means other solutions have to be found. Like for example everyone pays 1€ a month to help that poor chap. And that is called taxation. So i do help, via my taxes. I am fine with paying heavy taxes (already do), as long as it means it helps people. And that is how it works in Finland. You pay heavy taxes but that helps people. And if you get sick and need expensive medication, nation pays that for you. That is how it should be everywhere. Of course you can`t do it in a day, but over time that is direction where everyone should be heading.

Sacred Europe wrote:First of all, lets be more clear. I meant that you can kill multi cellular organism, but at the point where it becomes human you no longer have that right. So if you have accident, you have plenty of time to fix it. And nobody forces you to raise the kid if you get pregnant, you can always give it up to adoption.

So you are saying welfware states don`t work becouse sometimes in the future they collapse? Well just so you know, at the moment welfare states clearly work. So at the moment that "laudable idea" should happen. In fact i am already living in welfare nation that clearly works. So i don`t see what your point is. Are you maybe American capitalist who thinks poor people are just not trying hard enough?

I have no idea why you are saying that. Where do you live? And in any case, that has not happened. At the moment welfare states work very well. When they don`t, we can change the system. But at the moment they work, so we should live in one. Luckily i already do.
Increased control of wealthy over larger networks is certainly trough though.

This is already what happens though.

Doctors don't kill and extract the fetus when it becomes "human" which is usually demarcated at the third trimester in the United States. They simply extract it which is an abortion in a sense, but no doctor is going to kill a third trimester fetus unless they are positively sure they don't stand a chance in life (and that's usually when there is a medical reason why the fetus cannot survive outside the womb, or the fetus can kill the mother or cripple her, not just because it is medically convenient to kill it).

Sacred Europe wrote:Ehm, i have no idea what your point there was.

Perhaps you should work on your reading comprehension skills, then.

First of all, lets be more clear. I meant that you can kill multi cellular organism, but at the point where it becomes human you no longer have that right. So if you have accident, you have plenty of time to fix it. And nobody forces you to raise the kid if you get pregnant, you can always give it up to adoption.

You're assuming that there's a set point at which we can reasonably (i.e., logically, defensibly) say "Now it's a multi-cellular organism, now it's a human". There isn't.

So you are saying welfware states don`t work becouse sometimes in the future they collapse?

No, I'm saying that they aren't politically viable because the wealthy (who are invariably the powerful) will unite to wear them down, one bit at a time. As has already happened across most of the Western world, and as is in the final stages of happening in the rest.

*snips irrelevant twaddle*

Yeah, yeah....you want some sparkly unicorn shit with your utopia? Or are you just gonna ad hominem me some more, based on where I'm from?

New Chalcedon wrote:

Sacred Europe wrote:Ehm, i have no idea what your point there was.

Perhaps you should work on your reading comprehension skills, then.

First of all, lets be more clear. I meant that you can kill multi cellular organism, but at the point where it becomes human you no longer have that right. So if you have accident, you have plenty of time to fix it. And nobody forces you to raise the kid if you get pregnant, you can always give it up to adoption.

You're assuming that there's a set point at which we can reasonably (i.e., logically, defensibly) say "Now it's a multi-cellular organism, now it's a human". There isn't.

So you are saying welfware states don`t work becouse sometimes in the future they collapse?

No, I'm saying that they aren't politically viable because the wealthy (who are invariably the powerful) will unite to wear them down, one bit at a time. As has already happened across most of the Western world, and as is in the final stages of happening in the rest.

*snips irrelevant twaddle*

Yeah, yeah....you want some sparkly unicorn shit with your utopia? Or are you just gonna ad hominem me some more, based on where I'm from?

Well, the most common metric is viability, which a fetus is viable during the third trimester and as early as the 6th month. That's why states can legislate against third-trimester abortions.

That doesn't necessarily mean that's the precise cutoff point between human and non-human, but it is the preferred cutoff point.

Napkiraly wrote:

Gravlen wrote:Is the risk of death due to cancer negligible in the US?

See the trick is dividing the various forms of cancer up (and not taking into account the various mortality rates for each kind of cancer), not to mention the age of people. If I were diagnosed with cancer, while terrible, I'd recognize my odds are much better than if I am in my 50's (especially given my family history). As a whole, cancer has a significantly higher amount of deaths per 100 000 (something around 121 iirc). Now let''s take the data from 2014 as an example for deaths caused by the complications of pregnancy. https://www.cdc.gov/women/lcod/2014/all-females/index.htm

Now as you can see, it is only in the top 3 for the ages 15-34, not surprising considering that is the age range when most women have children. And the worst it gets is a whooping...2.8%. Not really something most people I think go around worrying about. I mean, do you go around worrying about heart disease in your 20's? I don't think most do. So perhaps it was a bit brash of me to say it's negligible (though it is compared to many other countries in the world) but it's not really something to be all that concerned about really. I mean, most us don't worry about chronic liver disease of influenza. Which should I fear more, homicide or heart disease?

Would you be fine with legislation denying you treatment for cancer or heart disease unless your partner consents to it?

Napkiraly wrote:

Mechanisburg wrote:
Eeeeh, not really. She misquoted/misread the source, but it is still true that women risk death when undergoing pregnancy, and it is still true the risk of severe complications is higher, and it is still true that forcing women, against their will, to risk death or even simply dialysis or incontinence for the rest of their life is fucked up.

Hell, even if no risks whatsoever were involved and pregnancy happened magically with the foetus in an interdimensional pouch she still should have the right to stop providing for it.

The risk of death is negligible for women in the USA. It does take away from the argument since it rested upon the risk of death being something significant which it isn't for women in the USA. Such an argument is better suited for countries with high mortality rates for pregnant women.

the risk of death is negligible BECAUSE we have legal abortion. the vast majority of dangerous pregnancies are aborted before they risk the mothers life. those that DONT, that are sudden and unexpected are the ones that will kill future women when late term abortion is banned and the hoops that her doctors have to jump through to get permission to save her life are so severe that she dies before it can be done.

and, of course, sometimes women die in childbirth no matter how hard her doctors try to save her.

Napkiraly wrote:

Mechanisburg wrote:
Eeeeh, not really. She misquoted/misread the source, but it is still true that women risk death when undergoing pregnancy, and it is still true the risk of severe complications is higher, and it is still true that forcing women, against their will, to risk death or even simply dialysis or incontinence for the rest of their life is fucked up.

Hell, even if no risks whatsoever were involved and pregnancy happened magically with the foetus in an interdimensional pouch she still should have the right to stop providing for it.

The risk of death is negligible for women in the USA. It does take away from the argument since it rested upon the risk of death being something significant which it isn't for women in the USA. Such an argument is better suited for countries with high mortality rates for pregnant women.

The argument is never about "significant risk". It is about being put under risk against one's own will.

Addendum: Okay seriously. I don't think anyone arguing against this bill has EVER mentioned the term "significant risk" unless it was to argue against you guys claiming that insignificant risks don't matter.