NationStates

Katganistan wrote:

Datlofff wrote:
Almost like...we should put more money into the system. Also with the rising acceptance of gay people in culture, I wouldn't imagine that gay couples who can't have kids wouldn't happily take unwanted children.

OH NO
CAN'T LET TEH GAYZ ADOPT
THEN TEH SWEET INNOCENT BABBIES WILL BECOME TEH GAYZ!

Yeah. It's a thing some people are against.
I for one am all for letting all people who can provide a safe, healthy, loving environment for children adopt. Apparently some people think gays can't provide that without some gross sexual predation entering into their wish to adopt and/or that they will convert straight babies to gay babies.

And, indeed, these are, to a large degree, the same people.

The Free Joy State wrote:

Olerand wrote:In that public support must precede public funding no? So the provision of public funds for abortion doesn't give rise to public support for abortion, but rather stems from it.
At least that's how I would imagine it.

However, some U.S. views are a little inconsistent here. Recent polls reveal only 18% of the American population are completely opposed to abortion (with the majority allowing abortion in some, the majority, or all cases). On the other hand, 40% would be in favour of a law prohibiting health clinics that provide abortion services from receiving federal funding.

So, some appear to accept abortion as sometimes necessary, but don't seem to see the need for federal funds to pay for it.

I see.

Olerand wrote:

The Caleshan Valkyrie wrote:
I’m speaking specifically to access for services affecting the tenable time limitation. The 13 week business is fine... for you. It is not fine for everyone.

Ah, I see. But if you're poor and you don't have the funds for an abortion by the 12th week, will you by the 22nd?

It's not necessarily the funds for the abortion. It might be access to contraception, or to pregnancy testing (which obviously becomes rather free and trivial at some point in most pregnancies).

The Free Joy State wrote:

Olerand wrote:In that public support must precede public funding no? So the provision of public funds for abortion doesn't give rise to public support for abortion, but rather stems from it.
At least that's how I would imagine it.

However, some U.S. views are a little inconsistent here. Recent polls reveal only 18% of the American population are completely opposed to abortion (with the majority allowing abortion in some, the majority, or all cases). On the other hand, 40% would be in favour of a law prohibiting health clinics that provide abortion services from receiving federal funding.

So, some appear to accept abortion as sometimes necessary, but don't seem to see the need for federal funds to pay for it.

Or, for an alternative interpretation of that: there is a goodly chunk of the population who want to cut government spending, and aren't fussy as to where it is cut, so answer "yes" to questions of the form "would you be in favour of a law prohibiting [THING] from receiving federal funding?" for basically all things.

Salandriagado wrote:

Olerand wrote:Ah, I see. But if you're poor and you don't have the funds for an abortion by the 12th week, will you by the 22nd?

It's not necessarily the funds for the abortion. It might be access to contraception, or to pregnancy testing (which obviously becomes rather free and trivial at some point in most pregnancies).

By the 3rd month, you're both too late for contraception and pregnancy testing. At that point, all that's left is abortion.

I don't think that abortion should be restricted in any way or form, as it is the parents decision whether they want a child, or not. While dialogue is encouraged between the partners, ultimately the decision lays in the pregnant mother's hands, because she carries the fetus. However, because teenagers will be teenagers, the *amount* of the abortions should be limited to avoid the public treating the abortion process as a free birth control.

Visionary Union wrote:I don't think that abortion should be restricted in any way or form, as it is the parents decision whether they want a child, or not. While dialogue is encouraged between the partners, ultimately the decision lays in the pregnant mother's hands, because she carries the fetus. However, because teenagers will be teenagers, the *amount* of the abortions should be limited to avoid the public treating the abortion process as a free birth control.

There is no evidence to suggest that is the case. I sincerely doubt any woman would use abortion as a replacement for contraception, due to what is involved. Women routinely using abortion as some kind of like-for-like replacement for contraception is a non-issue, so I really don't see why you are mentioning it...?

I myself don't know what is involved in the process of abortion, but just in case someone is willing to go top that process, they shouldn't have unlimited amount of free abortions subsidized by the state.

The New California Republic wrote:

Visionary Union wrote:I don't think that abortion should be restricted in any way or form, as it is the parents decision whether they want a child, or not. While dialogue is encouraged between the partners, ultimately the decision lays in the pregnant mother's hands, because she carries the fetus. However, because teenagers will be teenagers, the *amount* of the abortions should be limited to avoid the public treating the abortion process as a free birth control.

There is no evidence to suggest that is the case. I sincerely doubt any woman would use abortion as a replacement for contraception, due to what is involved. Women routinely using abortion as some kind of like-for-like replacement for contraception is a non-issue, so I really don't see why you are mentioning it...?

The claims that women use abortion as an alternative contraceptive are largely debunked. I thought...

Research found that women are more likely to need more than one abortion in their lifetime if trapped in abusive relationships (where the partner may control contraceptive access or ending the pregnancy may be the only way to break the ties), or if severely economically disadvantaged.

Any limits would penalise the most vulnerable women, for no real reduction in the number of abortions, as only a tiny percentage of women have a number of abortions that might be deemed high (85 procedures of the 189,575 in the UK in 2010 were on women who had had 7 previous procedures or more).

IMO, it would be inappropriate to deny bodily autonomy to those women. It would be a mistake, too, to assume that repeated abortion happens due to a lack of contraception; this study found that all the women -- who had had at least one, often more, previous abortions -- fell pregnant while using contraceptives.

Another factor is age, women older than 35 are more likely to have had more than one abortion (just due to statistics).

Visionary Union wrote:I myself don't know what is involved in the process of abortion, but just in case someone is willing to go top that process, they shouldn't have unlimited amount of free abortions subsidized by the state.

Like I said, it is a non-issue. It is as much a non-issue as, say, the State saying it shouldn't have to educate all the children of a woman who has a hundred kids. It is a non-issue precisely because it will not happen. You are attempting to use a situation that doesn't happen in order to reinforce your point; it just has the effect of making your argument nonsensical. It is entirely spurious.

The Free Joy State wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:There is no evidence to suggest that is the case. I sincerely doubt any woman would use abortion as a replacement for contraception, due to what is involved. Women routinely using abortion as some kind of like-for-like replacement for contraception is a non-issue, so I really don't see why you are mentioning it...?

The claims that women use abortion as an alternative contraceptive are largely debunked. I thought...

Research found that women are more likely to need more than one abortion in their lifetime if trapped in abusive relationships (where the partner may control contraceptive access or ending the pregnancy may be the only way to break the ties), if severely economically disadvantaged.

Any limits would penalise the most vulnerable women, for no real reduction in the number of abortions, as only a tiny percentage of women have a number of abortions that might be deemed high (85 procedures of the 189,575 in the UK in 2010 were on women who had had 7 previous procedures or more).

IMO, it would be inappropriate to deny bodily autonomy to those women. It would be a mistake, too, to assume that repeated abortion happens due to a lack of contraception; this study found that all the women -- who had had at least one, often more, previous abortions -- fell pregnant while using contraceptives.

Another factor is age, women older than 35 are more likely to have had more than one abortion (just due to statistics).

Yes. Some people are content with using the minuscule minority of cases, cases whereby women do have multiple abortions, to somehow justify their claims that women are using it as a like-for-like replacement for contraception, and therefore that access to abortions should be controlled. Such an interpretation relies on a willful blindness to the specific circumstances of the women that do have multiple abortions; preferring instead to make up stories about the motivations of the women in order to fit their narrative.

The New California Republic wrote:

The Free Joy State wrote:

The claims that women use abortion as an alternative contraceptive are largely debunked. I thought...

Research found that women are more likely to need more than one abortion in their lifetime if trapped in abusive relationships (where the partner may control contraceptive access or ending the pregnancy may be the only way to break the ties), if severely economically disadvantaged.

Any limits would penalise the most vulnerable women, for no real reduction in the number of abortions, as only a tiny percentage of women have a number of abortions that might be deemed high (85 procedures of the 189,575 in the UK in 2010 were on women who had had 7 previous procedures or more).

IMO, it would be inappropriate to deny bodily autonomy to those women. It would be a mistake, too, to assume that repeated abortion happens due to a lack of contraception; this study found that all the women -- who had had at least one, often more, previous abortions -- fell pregnant while using contraceptives.

Another factor is age, women older than 35 are more likely to have had more than one abortion (just due to statistics).

Yes. Some people are content with using the minuscule minority of cases, cases whereby women do have multiple abortions, to somehow justify their claims that women are using it as a like-for-like replacement for contraception, and therefore that access to abortions should be controlled. Such an interpretation relies on a willful blindness to the specific circumstances of the women that do have multiple abortions; preferring instead to make up stories about their motivations in order to fit their narrative.

I don't suppose "Studies Reveal Poor Women in Abusive Relationships More Likely to Have More Abortions" would sell as many copies of the Daily Mail as "Sluts Using Repeated Abortions As Contraception"

Only acceptable as a passive consequence resulting from a procedure or mediation needed to preserve the mothers life, should the mother opt to live with that.

Otherwise, the right to kill should not exist.

Distruzio wrote:Only acceptable as a passive consequence resulting from a procedure or mediation needed to preserve the mothers life, should the mother opt to live with that.

Otherwise, the right to kill should not exist.

There's no right to kill, certainly, but there is a right to choose whether one remains pregnant or not. And it is always the woman's choice.

The Caleshan Valkyrie wrote:Soooooo, I have something of a question for the catholics out there.

I can understand that the ongoing policy is that one must work to preserve all human life, but I am fundamentally flabbergasted at the idea of inflicting suffering on others to do so. It feels almost as if quality of life has taken a complete backseat to quantity, without regard for those who actually feel pain.

The two properties are very much intertwined. How can the policy hold up without glaring inconsistencies? Would you maim in self defense? How is refusing to remove a stillborn that has gone septic a part of this policy?

‘Tis a boggler.

(yes this is Godular, couldn’t be arsed to switch to my main)

I suppose I'm the exception that proves the rule, then, Godular. I was raised Catholic but very much definitely am pro choice.

Katganistan wrote:I suppose I'm the exception that proves the rule, then, Godular. I was raised Catholic but very much definitely am pro choice.

Same with my mother. My grandparents, devout Catholics, are very pro-life, my mother is very pro-choice, and I am very pro-life.

Free abortion on demand with no restrictions.

I strongly support abortion on-demand. However, I respect the "moderates" on abortion less than the people who want to completely ban it.

If aborting a fetus is morally okay, any restrictions on abortion that force women to give birth are an abominable act of torture and sexual violence.

If aborting a fetus is morally wrong, any abortions for any reason (other than life of the mother) are an act of murder.

Either way, any position on abortion that falls in between the two extremes is evil under both scenarios, and the people who support them don't even care that they're blatantly violating their own moral codes. The anti-abortion hardliners may have a twisted sense of morality, but at least they stick by it.

Second Empire of America wrote:I strongly support abortion on-demand. However, I respect the "moderates" on abortion less than the people who want to completely ban it.

If aborting a fetus is morally okay, any restrictions on abortion that force women to give birth are an abominable act of torture and sexual violence.

If aborting a fetus is morally wrong, any abortions for any reason (other than life of the mother) are an act of murder.

Either way, any position on abortion that falls in between the two extremes is evil under both scenarios, and the people who support them don't even care that they're blatantly violating their own moral codes. The anti-abortion hardliners may have a twisted sense of morality, but at least they stick by it.

Yes, it can be hard to reconcile the two positions, which is why it is necessary to find situations in which terminating the life of another human being is not seen as murder even by the pro-life types.

The V O I D wrote:

Distruzio wrote:Only acceptable as a passive consequence resulting from a procedure or mediation needed to preserve the mothers life, should the mother opt to live with that.

Otherwise, the right to kill should not exist.

There's no right to kill, certainly, but there is a right to choose whether one remains pregnant or not. And it is always the woman's choice.

Plus, what do you define as human life? If you define it by consciousness and mental ability to suffer (as I personally do), then a foetus is not alive until 24-30 weeks. If you define it by autonomy (can it survive outside the womb?), then a foetus is not alive until viability (at the very least 20 weeks).

I draw the line when you abort 12 or more months of the fetus, or aborting during birth, or aborting even after brith

Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft wrote:

The V O I D wrote:
There's no right to kill, certainly, but there is a right to choose whether one remains pregnant or not. And it is always the woman's choice.

Plus, what do you define as human life? If you define it by consciousness and mental ability to suffer (as I personally do), then a foetus is not alive until 24-30 weeks. If you define it by autonomy (can it survive outside the womb?), then a foetus is not alive until viability (at the very least 20 weeks).

The earliest foetus that I've heard of surviving is 21 weeks and 5 days, although the chance at that gestation is minimal.

And the chance of severe disability is high.

They usually also say medical viability is around 24 weeks (the age after-which -- in the UK -- abortion is banned, except for fairly-severe foetal abnormality and risk to the mother's life).

This woman shared this story, about her child who was born at 23 weeks, which asks -- even though survival is technically possible -- at what cost to the child.

I personally value quality of life rather than technical functioning of cells. I think the British laws are about right in that regard.

Mryasia wrote:I draw the line when you abort 12 or more months of the fetus, or aborting during birth, or aborting even after brith

.....are you fucking serious right now?

Mryasia wrote:I draw the line when you abort 12 or more months of the fetus, or aborting during birth, or aborting even after brith

Abortion after birth is called infanticide

Mryasia wrote:I draw the line when you abort 12 or more months of the fetus.

...erm, what? What animal are you thinking of? We are talking about human pregnancy, which only lasts for 9 months.

Mryasia wrote:aborting even after birth

No. That isn't abortion, that is infanticide. It is impossible to abort after birth.