"Men Must Approve Abortion, Women Are Hosts"

[Mechanisburg]

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.

You have not read the argument. First, the risk is not "negligible": death happens, severe maternal morbidity happens at a much higher rate, third degree perineal tears happen in about 10% of cases - risk is not just death. And, even if the risk of everything was negligible, it still wouldn't matter one iota: forcing a woman to take that risk against her will is fucked up.

And, even if there was no risk at all, it still wouldn't matter one iota: forcing a woman to provide for a foetus against her will is fucked up.

The argument is not "it's risky". The argument is "whatever the risk, forcing women to take it is fucked up".

[Napkiraly]

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

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.

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.

You have not read the argument. First, the risk is not "negligible": death happens, severe maternal morbidity happens at a much higher rate, third degree perineal tears happen in about 10% of cases - risk is not just death. And, even if the risk of everything was negligible, it still wouldn't matter one iota: forcing a woman to take that risk against her will is fucked up.

And, even if there was no risk at all, it still wouldn't matter one iota: forcing a woman to provide for a foetus against her will is fucked up.

The argument is not "it's risky". The argument is "whatever the risk, forcing women to take it is fucked up".

Blood fucking hell.

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.

[Hashirajima]

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

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.

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.

You have not read the argument. First, the risk is not "negligible": death happens, severe maternal morbidity happens at a much higher rate, third degree perineal tears happen in about 10% of cases - risk is not just death. And, even if the risk of everything was negligible, it still wouldn't matter one iota: forcing a woman to take that risk against her will is fucked up.

And, even if there was no risk at all, it still wouldn't matter one iota: forcing a woman to provide for a foetus against her will is fucked up.

The argument is not "it's risky". The argument is "whatever the risk, forcing women to take it is fucked up".

Blood fucking hell.

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.

I'm here to kindly inform you, my good sir, that the point of my argument just effectively passed you by overhead.

Would this phrasing perhaps enhance your understanding?

The argument I, at least, wish to make, is not regarding quantity of risk. I do not dispute that maternal death risk in the US is relatively low.

The argument I wish to make against the proposed bill, HB1441, is that women would be put under risk (quantity notwithstanding) against their will.

[Ashmoria]

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

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.

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.

You have not read the argument. First, the risk is not "negligible": death happens, severe maternal morbidity happens at a much higher rate, third degree perineal tears happen in about 10% of cases - risk is not just death. And, even if the risk of everything was negligible, it still wouldn't matter one iota: forcing a woman to take that risk against her will is fucked up.

And, even if there was no risk at all, it still wouldn't matter one iota: forcing a woman to provide for a foetus against her will is fucked up.

The argument is not "it's risky". The argument is "whatever the risk, forcing women to take it is fucked up".

Blood fucking hell.

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.

it IS something to fear.

the thing is that today pregnancy is TERRIFYING. even if you have a perfectly normal, uneventful pregnancy you are worried utterly constantly that it is actually going wrong or that you ate something that will kill or deform your baby.

i don't know if it ever was a wonderful time of preparation for a new family member but today its 9 months of stress.

[Napkiraly]

Blood fucking hell.

I'm here to kindly inform you, my good sir, that the point of my argument just effectively passed you by overhead.

Would this phrasing perhaps enhance your understanding?

The argument I, at least, wish to make, is not regarding quantity of risk. I do not dispute that maternal death risk in the US is relatively low.

The argument I wish to make against the proposed bill, HB1441, is that women would be put under risk (quantity notwithstanding) against their will.

And you are overlooking mine since the people opposing us don't give a shit. They view at reducing the amount of deaths. You guys approach this from the foundations of a pro-choice morality - that wont work, so stop fucking doing it. They see forcing women to take on that risk as an acceptable trade off to, in their view, save more lives than would be lost to maternal death.

[Ashmoria]

I'm here to kindly inform you, my good sir, that the point of my argument just effectively passed you by overhead.

Would this phrasing perhaps enhance your understanding?

The argument I, at least, wish to make, is not regarding quantity of risk. I do not dispute that maternal death risk in the US is relatively low.

The argument I wish to make against the proposed bill, HB1441, is that women would be put under risk (quantity notwithstanding) against their will.

And you are overlooking mine since the people opposing us don't give a shit. They view at reducing the amount of deaths. You guys approach this from the foundations of a pro-choice morality - that wont work, so stop fucking doing it. They see forcing women to take on that risk as an acceptable trade off to, in their view, save more lives than would be lost to maternal death.

which is why it is important to fight the argument. if we don't more people will find it persuasive.

[Hashirajima]

I'm here to kindly inform you, my good sir, that the point of my argument just effectively passed you by overhead.

Would this phrasing perhaps enhance your understanding?

The argument I, at least, wish to make, is not regarding quantity of risk. I do not dispute that maternal death risk in the US is relatively low.

The argument I wish to make against the proposed bill, HB1441, is that women would be put under risk (quantity notwithstanding) against their will.

And you are overlooking mine since the people opposing us don't give a shit. They view at reducing the amount of deaths. You guys approach this from the foundations of a pro-choice morality - that wont work, so stop fucking doing it. They see forcing women to take on that risk as an acceptable trade off to, in their view, save more lives than would be lost to maternal death.

Actually, I'm seeing it from the point of: Modern medical practice sees patient autonomy as a sacrosanct right and this should *not* work. But I get what you mean.

Then again, I never did approach this whole debate with the objective of convincing the other side. I've long given up on that.

[Lamperis Astari]

Even the thought of this is ridiculous.The fetus is inside the woman's body.It is her decision to abort it or not.There is no "valid" reason and "not valid" reason for abortion.If it is valid to the woman carrying the fetus,it isn't anybody's business.It is a murder only if you do it after the fetus is born.

[Mechanisburg]

I'm here to kindly inform you, my good sir, that the point of my argument just effectively passed you by overhead.

Would this phrasing perhaps enhance your understanding?

The argument I, at least, wish to make, is not regarding quantity of risk. I do not dispute that maternal death risk in the US is relatively low.

The argument I wish to make against the proposed bill, HB1441, is that women would be put under risk (quantity notwithstanding) against their will.

And you are overlooking mine since the people opposing us don't give a shit. They view at reducing the amount of deaths. You guys approach this from the foundations of a pro-choice morality - that wont work, so stop fucking doing it. They see forcing women to take on that risk as an acceptable trade off to, in their view, save more lives than would be lost to maternal death.

That's why I put forth my proposal for mandatory sterilization following sperm cryostorage: either they really want to reduce the amount of deaths, even at the cost of some bodily autonomy - and then they'd agree with my proposal - or they don't really care that much about the foetuses when it really impacts them. Strangely enough, anti-choicers were silent following an objection that put the nebulous "continued existence of the human race" over reducing the actual amount of deaths.

In any case, there's no convincing them - debate is not about convincing the counterpart, but about swaying people on the fence. The "oh but even if she rips open her rectum at least we saved a foetus" people are too far gone, their system of morality being completely detached from reality, but if their arguments are ignored and not ridiculed at every turn it only gives them more weight: "Yes, killing foetuses is bad, how awful! Why can't women take a very small risk for its sake?"

[Godular]

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.

So long as the fetus resides within and draws sustenance from the woman's body, she has every right to dictate whether its presence is allowed to continue. Removing it might kill it, but also might not.

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.

Generally, by the time a fetus has reached this state the mother has already chosen to keep the pregnancy, and any abortion that takes place beyond said point has a DAMN good reason for it.

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

Says you. You do not know the woman's situation, nor is it your business to know. Mayhap if you wished this line to work, you might think about advocating for welfare programs that negate the medical costs of pregnancy. There will still be those who do not wish to take on the risks inherent to pregnancy, however.

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.

There is no such thing as moral duty. I also fail to see how it 'pays off in the long run'... is this you saying all children are a gift from god or something?

[Sacred Europe]

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).

Indeed, and that is a good thing.

[Katganistan]

What's wrong with it?

She misquoted it as 17.8% instead of 17.8 per 100,000.

Oops.

My original statement: that it's not insignificant if you fall into the "minimal" category, still stands, though.

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.

Then YOU, personally, take the risk. When it's YOU playing russian roulette with your health and life, it is not "insignificant".

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.

Hmm, how about defunding clinics that discuss birth control and abortion, and writing laws that force women to risk their lives by making getting medical attention far, far harder than it needs to be?

Could THAT be a factor?

[Sanctissima]

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.

Then YOU, personally, take the risk. When it's YOU playing russian roulette with your health and life, it is not "insignificant".

It's ridiculous to call it Russian Roulette in a first-world country with decent healthcare. Are there health concerns? Yes, but in terms of death, the risk is so negligible that I hardly see how it's relevant.

[Katganistan]

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

Clearly we need to write a law in which all women are forced to become pregnant and bear children that they will then be castigated for having if they can't afford to support them without government aid, at a time when education is about to be tanked in favor of sending federal dollars to religious schools so that the poor have even fewer educational opportunities, so that our prison systems can are being privatized and for profit -- to take in all these children forced into the world who will have few educational opportunities to better themselves. Because God knows the for-profit prisons need to make money, and where else would we get our slave-labor force?

Don't worry, it's all about morality -- not about making rich people richer.

[Salandriagado]

Then YOU, personally, take the risk. When it's YOU playing russian roulette with your health and life, it is not "insignificant".

It's ridiculous to call it Russian Roulette in a first-world country with decent healthcare. Are there health concerns? Yes, but in terms of death, the risk is so negligible that I hardly see how it's relevant.

So if I got a gun with 10,000 barrels, loaded 2 of them, span it randomly, tied you up in front of it and pulled the trigger, you'd be fine with that?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Then YOU, personally, take the risk. When it's YOU playing russian roulette with your health and life, it is not "insignificant".

It's ridiculous to call it Russian Roulette in a first-world country with decent healthcare. Are there health concerns? Yes, but in terms of death, the risk is so negligible that I hardly see how it's relevant.

In a first world country where not everyone has access to this healthcare it is an issue though.

Having top-notch healthcare means nothing without universal access to it. Right now it's not a universal access, it's a limited access based on your income.

The problem with the "healthcare" argument in America is that we don't have a universally accessible system of healthcare.

[Sanctissima]

It's ridiculous to call it Russian Roulette in a first-world country with decent healthcare. Are there health concerns? Yes, but in terms of death, the risk is so negligible that I hardly see how it's relevant.

So if I got a gun with 10,000 barrels, loaded 2 of them, span it randomly, tied you up in front of it and pulled the trigger, you'd be fine with that?

It'd be more like 100,000, but regardless, my answer would obviously be no.

[Sanctissima]

It's ridiculous to call it Russian Roulette in a first-world country with decent healthcare. Are there health concerns? Yes, but in terms of death, the risk is so negligible that I hardly see how it's relevant.

In a first world country where not everyone has access to this healthcare it is an issue though.

Having top-notch healthcare means nothing without universal access to it. Right now it's not a universal access, it's a limited access based on your income.

Fair point, I keep forgetting your healthcare system is privatized.

Regardless, that's more of an argument in favour of universal healthcare than anything.

[Godular]

So if I got a gun with 10,000 barrels, loaded 2 of them, span it randomly, tied you up in front of it and pulled the trigger, you'd be fine with that?

It'd be more like 100,000, but regardless, my answer would obviously be no.

Then the risk is very apparently relevant.

[Sanctissima]

It'd be more like 100,000, but regardless, my answer would obviously be no.

Then the risk is very apparently relevant.

1 in 100,000?

Hardly.

[Salandriagado]

So if I got a gun with 10,000 barrels, loaded 2 of them, span it randomly, tied you up in front of it and pulled the trigger, you'd be fine with that?

It'd be more like 100,000, but regardless, my answer would obviously be no.

No, 10,000. It's 20/100,000, or 2/10,000. And since you're not OK with that, why are you OK with forcing women to do the same thing?

Then the risk is very apparently relevant.

1 in 100,000?

Hardly.

But it's one that you're not willing to have me force you to take, which makes it relevant.

[Katganistan]

Then YOU, personally, take the risk. When it's YOU playing russian roulette with your health and life, it is not "insignificant".

It's ridiculous to call it Russian Roulette in a first-world country with decent healthcare. Are there health concerns? Yes, but in terms of death, the risk is so negligible that I hardly see how it's relevant.

Then you haven't been reading, or are being willfully obtuse.

THE RISK IS NOT IRRELEVANT, NEGLIGIBLE, OR UNIMPORTANT IF YOU MUST TAKE IT AGAINST YOUR WILL, AND IF DEATH OR PERMANENT HEALTH ISSUES ARE A POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCE.

Is this clear enough, or do I have to add tap-dancing cartoon characters, a catchy tune, and twenty seven eight-by ten-color glossy photos with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back explaining what each one is to hammer this point home to everyone who thinks risking life and health unwillingly is no big deal?

[Sanctissima]

It'd be more like 100,000, but regardless, my answer would obviously be no.

No, 10,000. It's 20/100,000, or 2/10,000. And since you're not OK with that, why are you OK with forcing women to do the same thing?

Where are you getting those statistics from? Are they global or national?

Regardless, I'm okay with it because I view pregnancy as a responsibility. In my opinion, a woman has a responsibility to, at the very least, give birth to her child.

[Katganistan]

It's ridiculous to call it Russian Roulette in a first-world country with decent healthcare. Are there health concerns? Yes, but in terms of death, the risk is so negligible that I hardly see how it's relevant.

In a first world country where not everyone has access to this healthcare it is an issue though.

Having top-notch healthcare means nothing without universal access to it. Right now it's not a universal access, it's a limited access based on your income.

The problem with the "healthcare" argument in America is that we don't have a universally accessible system of healthcare.

And the one system we had to provide healthcare for everyone is being dismantled as we speak. Because socialism.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I think the problem with the statistic is that people are focusing on the fact that it is so ridiculously low as opposed to the fact that the risk exists.

While maternal death is not a large probability for many women, many women are scared that the possibility of dying due to a pregnancy still exists in a first-world country.

It really has nothing to do with statistics putting the odds in their favor, but rather that there are odds at all is terrifying.

To put a personal example: I don't have sex left and right simply because I use condoms, because while condoms have the odds of me and my partner in my favor at over 90% efficacy that doesn't mean that the odds of condoms failing is not a possibility. And condoms have to fail only once.