[Abortion Thread] A Tough Pill To Swallow

[Spirit of Hope]

Consent must be continuous, in pregnancy just as in sex. Just because I made a choice at one time does not mean that I can not withdraw at a later time. The fetus doesn't get to use the woman's body without the woman's consent. It really is that simple.

Responsibility>consent
When you make some decisions, you make a commitment and take on responsibility. It's like signing a contract, you can't just back out with no consequences.

So you are ok with marital rape then? After all they signed a contract and have to take responsibility for that and responsibility is more important than consent.

Contracts are deeply complicated and just because you signed a piece of paper written up like a contract doesn't mean everything in it is binding and that their is no way to withdraw from it, as an example you can not contractually agree to allow someone to commit a crime against you. Contracts are also made between two adults.

Again you don't get to use someone else's body without their consent.

There are options to get the toddler out of the woman's home besides killing the toddler. There is no way to remove a fetus from a woman besides an abortion.

A toddler in the home also doesn't generally pose a significant threat to life or limb to a mother, but a fetus does pose such a threat to a woman.

Despite this line of argument, the vast majority of pregnancies do not have a high risk of serious complications. Again, this isn't really about safeguarding women's health or lives in most cases. It's about preserving a right to bodily autonomy and privacy - both from a philosophical and a legal perspective.

About 1 in 5,000 pregnancies ends with the death of the mother in the US and 1 in 4 pregnancies involves a cesarian section. I think major abdominal surgery (which is what a cesarian is) qualifies as significant bodily harm. So while yes, the majority of pregnancies are safe, a significant minority involve harm to the mother and it is basically impossible to know which it will be at the time that the vast majority of abortions are preformed.

[Khurkhogur]

Is a pregnant woman responsible for a fetus? If so, why?

when people have sex without protection/contraception, they should keep in mind that they might create a new living being.

It is on you to prevent that from happening if you don't want it (except in cases of rape, obviously). It is also on you if it does happen. And by you I mean the mother and the father.

[Neutraligon]

Funny thing, having an abortion is the responsible thing to do. Becoming pregnant is in no way like a contract,, and having an abortion is not without consequence.

Yeah, killing the thing you're responsible for is obviously the responsible thing to do. Becoming pregnant is not like a contract, but I think when people have sex without protection/contraception, they should keep in mind that they might create a new living being. I do think they should have time to back out during the initial pregnancy - when the zygote/embryo isn't properly "alive" the way we would define it. But once it becomes a fetus, at that point you should be considered responsible.

It is a very responsible decision actually. What is irresponsible is ignoring the pregnancy, continuing to drink, do drugs, not do the appropriate checkups, have a life-style that can cause permanent injury to the fetus Having an abortion means discovering you are pregnant and making the decision to go through with an abortion. That is taking responsiblity for the actions you have taken. Being aware that you are not able to be responsibly pregnant is taking responsibility. Being aware that you do not have the resources to maintain a pregnancy is being responsible.

Is a pregnant woman responsible for a fetus? If so, why?

when people have sex without protection/contraception, they should keep in mind that they might create a new living being.

It is on you to prevent that from happening if you don't want it (except in cases of rape, obviously). It is also on you if it does happen. And by you I mean the mother and the father.

Correct, and the steps to deal with said pregnancy if unwanted involve an abortion, preferably the earlier the better as early abortions are less dangerous and less likely to have long lasting consequences for the mother.

[Spirit of Hope]

Is a pregnant woman responsible for a fetus? If so, why?

when people have sex without protection/contraception, they should keep in mind that they might create a new living being.

It is on you to prevent that from happening if you don't want it (except in cases of rape, obviously). It is also on you if it does happen. And by you I mean the mother and the father.

What if you use contraceptives and they fail? What if you didn't know that sex could lead to pregnancy?

[Fahran]

The threat posed by complications cannot be zero, and so the hypothetical you suggest does not matter. It being an option for high-risk pregnancies still means that women are forced to take on the risks associated with pregnancy when it is not high-risk. It is a very honest argument.

Not really. I doubt anyone's position would change in the event that pregnancy came with zero risks because the principle of the matter wouldn't really change. The fact that the risk is usually negligible serves to highlight that.

[Khurkhogur]

So you are ok with marital rape then? After all they signed a contract and have to take responsibility for that and responsibility is more important than consent.

Now this is bad faith. You're trying to make me look bad by saying this, and obviously I wouldn't agree with it. When you get married, you're not agreeing to have sex with this person whenever they want, you're agreeing to be faithful and support each other.

Contracts are deeply complicated and just because you signed a piece of paper written up like a contract doesn't mean everything in it is binding and that their is no way to withdraw from it, as an example you can not contractually agree to allow someone to commit a crime against you. Contracts are also made between two adults.

I already addressed this point. I am not saying pregnancy is identical to signing a contract, I'm saying that like a contract, you should not be able to just quit whenever you want (after the pregnancy has become a fetus)

in the US and 1 in 4 pregnancies involves a cesarian section. I think major abdominal surgery (which is what a cesarian is) qualifies as significant bodily harm.

Chalk this up to the fucked-up medical care in the US. Caesareans are seriously overprescribed in the US.

[Neutraligon]

The threat posed by complications cannot be zero, and so the hypothetical you suggest does not matter. It being an option for high-risk pregnancies still means that women are forced to take on the risks associated with pregnancy when it is not high-risk. It is a very honest argument.

Not really. I doubt anyone's position would change in the event that pregnancy came with zero risks because the principle of the matter wouldn't really change. The fact that the risk is usually negligible serves to highlight that.

It really does not. The risk of walking down the street is often negligible, that does not mean we force people to walk down the street. THe risk during many surgeries is negligible, we still do not force people to go through surgery. That the risk for death (note this is just death, it says nothing on other long-lasting issues) is small does nothing to highlight the issue, and I pointed out that until the mother and fetus can be completely separated the risk will never be 0.

[Fahran]

Is a pregnant woman responsible for a fetus? If so, why?

when people have sex without protection/contraception, they should keep in mind that they might create a new living being.

It is on you to prevent that from happening if you don't want it (except in cases of rape, obviously). It is also on you if it does happen. And by you I mean the mother and the father.

Around two-thirds of women, according to some studies, who had an abortion performed on them were using contraception during the time they became pregnant.

[Neutraligon]

So you are ok with marital rape then? After all they signed a contract and have to take responsibility for that and responsibility is more important than consent.

Now this is bad faith. You're trying to make me look bad by saying this, and obviously I wouldn't agree with it. When you get married, you're not agreeing to have sex with this person whenever they want, you're agreeing to be faithful and support each other.

That is something you believe, there are people who believe that a marriage means that a wife is obliged to be sexually available to her husband whenever he so desires.

Contracts are deeply complicated and just because you signed a piece of paper written up like a contract doesn't mean everything in it is binding and that their is no way to withdraw from it, as an example you can not contractually agree to allow someone to commit a crime against you. Contracts are also made between two adults.

I already addressed this point. I am not saying pregnancy is identical to signing a contract, I'm saying that like a contract, you should not be able to just quit whenever you want (after the pregnancy has become a fetus)

So basically, you are trying to make a comparison without accepting the consequences of making the comparison. Why shouldn't a woman be able to withdraw consent when she wants? Seems to me pregnancy is more like sex, consent can be withdrawn at anypoint during the act.

in the US and 1 in 4 pregnancies involves a cesarian section. I think major abdominal surgery (which is what a cesarian is) qualifies as significant bodily harm.

Chalk this up to the fucked-up medical care in the US. Caesareans are seriously overprescribed in the US.

You base this on....And you think normal birth does not have long-lasting effects?

[Khurkhogur]

What if you use contraceptives and they fail? What if you didn't know that sex could lead to pregnancy?

If you use contraceptives and they fail, and I already said this, you should be able to have a pre-fetal abortion. Life doesn't start at conception, and I think performing abortion before life begins is reasonable (of course the line between embryos and fetuses would have to be arbitrary). Also contraception very rarely fails, so statistically speaking I doubt that's an issue.
I think very few people don't know that sex can't lead to pregnancy, and people should be taught about it at home and in schools.

[Fahran]

It really does not. The risk of walking down the street is often negligible, that does not mean we force people to walk down the street. THe risk during many surgeries is negligible, we still do not force people to go through surgery. That the risk for death (note this is just death, it says nothing on other long-lasting issues) is small does nothing to highlight the issue, and I pointed out that until the mother and fetus can be completely separated the risk will never be 0.

To be frank, separating the fetus from the mother, even with more advanced medical technology, is likely never going to be completely without risk either. In fact, abortion, especially in the first or second trimester, has a lower rate of complications and fatalities than pregnancies brought to term. I will mention, however, that the risk of death for both procedures remains very low, especially compared to the risk of complications. Notably, and with a thought for completeness, natural abortions/miscarriages also carry risk of complications - including death, infertility, etc.

But, yeah, my main point here is that we're sidestepping much of the actual beliefs held. Abortion is, much of the time, the modern form of abandoning an unwanted child to the elements. Something that was common enough before the medieval period.

[Khurkhogur]

That is something you believe, there are people who believe that a marriage means that a wife is obliged to be sexually available to her husband whenever he so desires.

Civil/legal marriage contracts should make it clear that that's not the case, and as a result marital rape should, of course, be a crime.

So basically, you are trying to make a comparison without accepting the consequences of making the comparison. Why shouldn't a woman be able to withdraw consent when she wants?

Because a fetus is a living being and aborting it should not be shrugged off.

You base this on....And you think normal birth does not have long-lasting effects?

I provided you a link to an article, what do you want me to do? Write down all the statistics in a presentation format for you?
Of course I know birth has long-lasting effects, but the point is serious harm can be avoided by prescribing caesareans when it's actually necessary.

[The V O I D]

The Supreme Court needs to be expanded and packed. This is a clear signal of intent. They won't stop until we're back in the 1800s, unless we stop them.

[Spirit of Hope]

The threat posed by complications cannot be zero, and so the hypothetical you suggest does not matter. It being an option for high-risk pregnancies still means that women are forced to take on the risks associated with pregnancy when it is not high-risk. It is a very honest argument.

Not really. I doubt anyone's position would change in the event that pregnancy came with zero risks because the principle of the matter wouldn't really change. The fact that the risk is usually negligible serves to highlight that.

Its weird to me that people call the risks from pregnancy trivial, when pregnancy is one of the top 10 most dangerous jobs in the US.

The US maternal mortality rate is 23.8 per 100,000.

Underground Mining Machine Operators (9th most dangerous job) have a fatality rate of 21.6 per 100,000.

So you are ok with marital rape then? After all they signed a contract and have to take responsibility for that and responsibility is more important than consent.

Now this is bad faith. You're trying to make me look bad by saying this, and obviously I wouldn't agree with it. When you get married, you're not agreeing to have sex with this person whenever they want, you're agreeing to be faithful and support each other.

I have no clue what you believe in until you answer my questions. Some people do believe that a marriage requires that one or both parties be available to the sexual desires of the other at all times. Lets say a specific married couple signed a contract that required such an obligation, would it be acceptable for one party to withdraw from the agreement at a later date? Or are they not taking responsibility for their actions?

Contracts are deeply complicated and just because you signed a piece of paper written up like a contract doesn't mean everything in it is binding and that their is no way to withdraw from it, as an example you can not contractually agree to allow someone to commit a crime against you. Contracts are also made between two adults.

I already addressed this point. I am not saying pregnancy is identical to signing a contract, I'm saying that like a contract, you should not be able to just quit whenever you want (after the pregnancy has become a fetus)

Except a pregnancy is completely unlike a contract in that a person don't necessarily agree to get pregnant at the beginning. Again you haven't really presented an argument for why the fetus gets to use the woman's body without her consent only that they should take "responsibility."

in the US and 1 in 4 pregnancies involves a cesarian section. I think major abdominal surgery (which is what a cesarian is) qualifies as significant bodily harm.

Chalk this up to the fucked-up medical care in the US. Caesareans are seriously overprescribed in the US.

And? The US has a host of other issues that make life more difficult for mothers here. Certainly if we changed all of those circumstances there may be some changes in abortions and peoples beliefs about them. But those circumstances haven't changed so I think they are very relevant to the current discussion about abortion in the US.

[Khurkhogur]

The Supreme Court needs to be expanded and packed. This is a clear signal of intent. They won't stop until we're back in the 1800s, unless we stop them.

Back to the legal discussion. Packing the court would open Pandora's box, fundamentally undermining America's political system and causing it to spiral out of control. Although that is bound to happen sooner or later so more power to you, I guess

[Fahran]

If you use contraceptives and they fail, and I already said this, you should be able to have a pre-fetal abortion. Life doesn't start at conception, and I think performing abortion before life begins is reasonable (of course the line between embryos and fetuses would have to be arbitrary). Also contraception very rarely fails, so statistically speaking I doubt that's an issue.
I think very few people don't know that sex can't lead to pregnancy, and people should be taught about it at home and in schools.

So... as I pointed out before, around two-thirds of women who seek abortions may have been using contraception at the time they became pregnant. I'm cautious in citing this statistic because we do not actually have good data on these issues since reporting isn't required and abortion is an issue where a good many people have reason to keep things private. But it's the data we have.

Taking this in mind, and the fact that menstrual cycles are not always a reliable way of figuring out you're preggers, how can you continue to support a broad ban on abortion in the first trimester?

[Neutraligon]

What if you use contraceptives and they fail? What if you didn't know that sex could lead to pregnancy?

If you use contraceptives and they fail, and I already said this, you should be able to have a pre-fetal abortion.

Women typically learn they are pregnant anywhere from 4-6 weeks. the not-born is considered a fetus at 8 weeks. At best that gives 4 weeks for a poor woman to find a way to get the money together for an unplanned medical expense, find the transportation needed to get to the location, the time needed to get off from work, the time needed to deal with any obstacles in the way, including waiting periods, invasive ultrasounds, etc. And yet despite this, the vast majoority of abortions occur before 13 weeks. So...for most women it occurs very nearly before the fetal stage. I do not understand why you are so focused on that stage of fetal development.

Life doesn't start at conception, and I think performing abortion before life begins is reasonable (of course the line between embryos and fetuses would have to be arbitrary). Also contraception very rarely fails, so statistically speaking I doubt that's an issue.

Contraceptioves when used correctly rarely fail...now how often do you think they fail when used incorrectly, and what percentage of women/men use them incorrectly? Consider that in red states, neither are taught how to properly protect themselves.

I think very few people don't know that sex can't lead to pregnancy, and people should be taught about it at home and in schools.

There seem to be a lot of myths about it not being possible to get pregnant when it is on your first time, or when you are having your period, or any other number if things that people believe well into their twenties. And once again, you failt to understand just how piss-poor the sexual education is in many parts of theUS.

[Port Caverton]

The Supreme Court needs to be expanded and packed. This is a clear signal of intent. They won't stop until we're back in the 1800s, unless we stop them.

If the dems add 3 people the GOP will add 69 people lol.

[The Black Forrest]

That is something you believe, there are people who believe that a marriage means that a wife is obliged to be sexually available to her husband whenever he so desires.

Civil/legal marriage contracts should make it clear that that's not the case, and as a result marital rape should, of course, be a crime.

How do you prove it?

So basically, you are trying to make a comparison without accepting the consequences of making the comparison. Why shouldn't a woman be able to withdraw consent when she wants?

Because a fetus is a living being and aborting it should not be shrugged off.

So are the cells which multiply and yet things go wrong an a miscarriage happens.

A being implies self awareness. How do you prove that?

You base this on....And you think normal birth does not have long-lasting effects?

I provided you a link to an article, what do you want me to do? Write down all the statistics in a presentation format for you?
Of course I know birth has long-lasting effects, but the point is serious harm can be avoided by prescribing caesareans when it's actually necessary.

[Neutraligon]

That is something you believe, there are people who believe that a marriage means that a wife is obliged to be sexually available to her husband whenever he so desires.

Civil/legal marriage contracts should make it clear that that's not the case, and as a result marital rape should, of course, be a crime.

Too bad you can't do that, since this is a religious belief These people do not believe it is possible for marital rape to be a thing.

So basically, you are trying to make a comparison without accepting the consequences of making the comparison. Why shouldn't a woman be able to withdraw consent when she wants?

Because a fetus is a living being and aborting it should not be shrugged off.

Why do you assume that a person having an abortion is shrugging it off?

You base this on....And you think normal birth does not have long-lasting effects?

I provided you a link to an article, what do you want me to do? Write down all the statistics in a presentation format for you?
Of course I know birth has long-lasting effects, but the point is serious harm can be avoided by prescribing caesareans when it's actually necessary.

Can it? Once again birth itself can cause serious bodily harm. You are still insisting on forcing women to go through that risk, against their will. AS to the article, I joined the conversation late, mind linking it again?

Edit: oh wait, you edited your post to include the article, nermind.

[Spirit of Hope]

What if you use contraceptives and they fail? What if you didn't know that sex could lead to pregnancy?

If you use contraceptives and they fail, and I already said this, you should be able to have a pre-fetal abortion. Life doesn't start at conception, and I think performing abortion before life begins is reasonable (of course the line between embryos and fetuses would have to be arbitrary). Also contraception very rarely fails, so statistically speaking I doubt that's an issue.
I think very few people don't know that sex can't lead to pregnancy, and people should be taught about it at home and in schools.

What to you is a pre fetal abortion? Most people don't know they are pregnant until after implantation.

Also about half of abortion patients in the US reported using contraceptives in the month they became pregnant.

And you would be surprised by the number of people who are not well informed about human reproduction in the US. You need look no further than the absolute insanity that is GOP talking points about abortion.

[Khurkhogur]

Some people do believe that a marriage requires that one or both parties be available to the sexual desires of the other at all times. Lets say a specific married couple signed a contract that required such an obligation, would it be acceptable for one party to withdraw from the agreement at a later date? Or are they not taking responsibility for their actions?

I'm not going to lie to you, I don't know exactly how contracts or divorce work in the US. I'm not sure if a contract like that would even be considered valid. If you signed that contract, I'd say that they should be able to withdraw from it, but not without consequences. They chose to sign it, that's on them. And again, I wasn't trying to fully equate pregnancy to signing a contract. They're not the same thing, and I never said they were. I'm just saying that you shouldn't be able to up and quit without consequences.

[Khurkhogur]

What to you is a pre fetal abortion? Most people don't know they are pregnant until after implantation.

When the embryo becomes a fetus, which is way after implantation. Pregnancies become fetuses about 9 weeks (2 months) in according to google.

[Neutraligon]

Some people do believe that a marriage requires that one or both parties be available to the sexual desires of the other at all times. Lets say a specific married couple signed a contract that required such an obligation, would it be acceptable for one party to withdraw from the agreement at a later date? Or are they not taking responsibility for their actions?

I'm not going to lie to you, I don't know exactly how contracts or divorce work in the US. I'm not sure if a contract like that would even be considered valid. If you signed that contract, I'd say that they should be able to withdraw from it, but not without consequences. You chose to sign it, that's on you. And again, I wasn't trying to fully equate pregnancy to signing a contract. They're not the same thing, and I never said they were. I'm just saying that you shouldn't be able to up and quit without consequences.

An abortion is a consequence, even while it is taking resposibility.

[Fahran]

Its weird to me that people call the risks from pregnancy trivial, when pregnancy is one of the top 10 most dangerous jobs in the US.

The US maternal mortality rate is 23.8 per 100,000.

url=https://www.invictuslawpc.com/most-dangerous-jobs-osha/]Underground Mining Machine Operators (9th most dangerous job) have a fatality rate of 21.6 per 100,000.[/url]

I describe it accordingly because the risk of occupational death isn't altogether high. The highest rate of occupational death is for loggers and about 11% of 1% of them will die as a result of their chosen career path. In the case of pregnancy, 2% of 1% of women will die as a result. A lot of this risk is actually associated with women over forty and the insufficient care black women, in particular, are given by healthcare professionals. But, yeah, you're not terribly likely to die from logging or pregnancy. Cancer or cardiovascular disease will probably be what gets you.