Situational dependant on other factors.
Advertisement
by Telconi » Tue Sep 18, 2018 10:27 am
by The Free Joy State » Tue Sep 18, 2018 10:31 am
by Telconi » Tue Sep 18, 2018 10:34 am
by The Free Joy State » Tue Sep 18, 2018 10:58 am
by Telconi » Tue Sep 18, 2018 11:40 am
The Free Joy State wrote:Telconi wrote:
Risk to the mother or child if pregnancy is carried to term.
What about if the rape victim was a child who couldn't give birth without serious injury?
The younger the girl the higher the risk of serious unforeseen injury in childbirth; her pelvis might be too small to deliver -- she may die in childbirth, develop fistulas. The foetus also leaches nutrients from a still-growing child.
Girls under 15 are five times more likely to die in childbirth than women in their 20s.
Considering the heightened risk to the mother, would you let a young rape victim abort?
by Katganistan » Tue Sep 18, 2018 7:25 pm
Datlofff wrote:Katganistan wrote:Here is a study that discusses the impacts of unintended pregnancy on both parents and children.
Another discussing the impacts on women who wanted to abort but could not.
Legalizing abortion has led to a significant drop in crime.
Most adult women who have abortions do not have mental health problems as a result of them.
Children born of unintended pregnancies tend to have poorer developmental scores.
Sorry to infodump, but there seem to be reasons that abortion is sometimes better than carrying to term.
Why not put it up for adoption instead of killing it?
by Katganistan » Tue Sep 18, 2018 7:29 pm
Datlofff wrote:The New California Republic wrote:...because the woman would need to go through 9 months of pregnancy before that happens...? And because chucking another 600,000+ babies into the already creaking adoption and foster system isn't a viable solution...?
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.
by Godular » Tue Sep 18, 2018 8:05 pm
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.
by Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft » Wed Sep 19, 2018 11:34 am
by Kowani » Thu Sep 20, 2018 7:10 am
by The Caleshan Valkyrie » Tue Sep 25, 2018 9:41 pm
by The Free Joy State » Wed Sep 26, 2018 8:11 am
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)
The “Hard Cases”
Children are sometimes conceived as a result of an evil act, such as rape, but a child’s worth does not depend on the circumstances of his or her conception. A child is always a great good in the eyes of God and a source of joy and love to his biological or adoptive family as well.[...]
Today many of the babies diagnosed prenatally with a disability are aborted. Frightened parents, unsure of their ability to care for a child with disabilities, need to recognize that God has chosen them to be the parents of this child for a reason. [...] Even when a baby has such severe disabilities that she is likely to die before or during birth, parents can find peace by nurturing the baby until God calls her home. [...]
Very rarely, continuing a pregnancy may put the mother’s life at risk. In certain cases, such as aggressive uterine cancer or an ectopic pregnancy, it is morally licit to remove the threat to the mother’s life by removing the cancerous uterus, or by removing part or all of the Fallopian tube where the child implanted, even though it is foreseeable that the child will die as an indirect and unintended effect of such surgery. Abortion, a direct and intentional attack against the child’s life, is never morally licit. The unborn child and his mother have equal human dignity and possess the same right to life. When a medical crisis arises during pregnancy, there are always two patients involved. Doctors should do whatever they can to save both their lives, never directly attacking one—through drugs, surgery or other means—to save the other.
The Mother’s (Insert Here) Health
The criteria used to determine that this rare choice is morally acceptable are the same criteria that tell us that abortions for "the health of the mother" are immoral. If an abortion is performed to preserve a less-than-life-threatening aspect of the mother’s health, it is simply wrong, by all three criteria of the moral principle of double effect.
Although the intention is ostensibly to preserve the health of the mother, all too often the mother’s mental or emotional health—even financial or social health—is invoked to justify the act. In some cases, the doctor may foresee problems arising in a pregnancy that would put the mother at risk.
But regardless of the reason cited, the action taken is the abortion of the child, and the direct intention of that act is death. When an abortion is performed to "preserve the health of the mother," the abortion is the cause of any perceived benefit to the mother. In other words, an evil is being done to pursue a supposed good, and this is never morally licit. Finally, we must weigh the moral gravity: A grave evil is being done—the direct and intentional killing of an innocent person—to achieve a lesser good. Whether the intended benefit to the mother’s health is small or great, actual or contrived, "good health" can never equal life itself. Abortions performed "for the health of the mother" fail the test on all three counts.
by Telconi » Wed Sep 26, 2018 8:29 am
Kowani wrote:Oh, and for everyone who claims that “There is little to no risk in pregnancy!” No. Every pregnancy is inherently risky. Even with modern medicine, it’s still fuckin’ dangerous.
https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/ ... 546889002/
https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/ ... 547050002/
by The Free Joy State » Thu Sep 27, 2018 10:36 pm
The most detailed account is told of Ciarán of Saigir, after he rescued a nun named Bruinnech who had been abducted by a local king. “When the man of God returned to the monastery with the girl, she confessed that she was pregnant. Then the man of God, led by the zeal of justice, not wishing the serpent’s seed to quicken, pressed down on her womb with the sign of the cross and forced her womb to be emptied.” Bruinnech’s feelings about her rape, pregnancy, or abortion are not addressed, apart from her “confession”
When another nun, pregnant after “fornicating secretly”, had Cainnech of Aghaboe bless her belly, “at once the baby (infans) in her womb vanished without a trace”. While this may well have answered her most desperate prayers, the sort of blessing she sought isn’t specified.
by Olerand » Fri Sep 28, 2018 3:13 am
Free Rhenish States wrote:You're French, without faith, probably godless, liberal without any traditional values or respect for any faith whatsoever
by The Caleshan Valkyrie » Fri Sep 28, 2018 3:53 am
Olerand wrote:How does abortion continue to dominate the political discussion so much? How is it possible that out of all Western countries, only one is still hung up on this.
Anyway, most of Continental Europe has the right policy on this, elective until the end of the first trimester, then subject to special circumstances.
by Olerand » Fri Sep 28, 2018 4:20 am
The Caleshan Valkyrie wrote:Olerand wrote:How does abortion continue to dominate the political discussion so much? How is it possible that out of all Western countries, only one is still hung up on this.
Anyway, most of Continental Europe has the right policy on this, elective until the end of the first trimester, then subject to special circumstances.
Much of Europe has universal healthcare though. That makes the idea more tenable for them.
The US continues to dawdle on that issue though.
Free Rhenish States wrote:You're French, without faith, probably godless, liberal without any traditional values or respect for any faith whatsoever
by The Caleshan Valkyrie » Fri Sep 28, 2018 4:26 am
Olerand wrote:The Caleshan Valkyrie wrote:
Much of Europe has universal healthcare though. That makes the idea more tenable for them.
The US continues to dawdle on that issue though.
Why does it make it more tenable? The opposition to abortion isn't exactly tethered to the great American healthcare fiasco.
by Olerand » Fri Sep 28, 2018 4:31 am
The Caleshan Valkyrie wrote:Olerand wrote:Why does it make it more tenable? The opposition to abortion isn't exactly tethered to the great American healthcare fiasco.
Because having to pay for certain services, even a small fee, can be too much for some women. If they had universal healthcare, they’d be more willing to seek medical attention on the matter.
Plus, does your universal healthcare include abortion services?
Free Rhenish States wrote:You're French, without faith, probably godless, liberal without any traditional values or respect for any faith whatsoever
by The Caleshan Valkyrie » Fri Sep 28, 2018 4:53 am
Olerand wrote:The Caleshan Valkyrie wrote:
Because having to pay for certain services, even a small fee, can be too much for some women. If they had universal healthcare, they’d be more willing to seek medical attention on the matter.
Plus, does your universal healthcare include abortion services?
I'm confused. What does this have to do with societal support for or opposition to abortion? If anything, judging from the American opposition to "using public funds for abortion services", I would presume that the public financing of abortion would be a rallying call for opposition.
I can't speak for all of Europe, but abortion is 100% refundable by Social Security in France (most non-long term medical expenses are covered up to 70%), so yes.
by Olerand » Fri Sep 28, 2018 4:54 am
The Caleshan Valkyrie wrote:Olerand wrote:I'm confused. What does this have to do with societal support for or opposition to abortion? If anything, judging from the American opposition to "using public funds for abortion services", I would presume that the public financing of abortion would be a rallying call for opposition.
I can't speak for all of Europe, but abortion is 100% refundable by Social Security in France (most non-long term medical expenses are covered up to 70%), so yes.
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.
Free Rhenish States wrote:You're French, without faith, probably godless, liberal without any traditional values or respect for any faith whatsoever
by The Free Joy State » Fri Sep 28, 2018 4:57 am
The Caleshan Valkyrie wrote:Olerand wrote:Why does it make it more tenable? The opposition to abortion isn't exactly tethered to the great American healthcare fiasco.
Because having to pay for certain services, even a small fee, can be too much for some women. If they had universal healthcare, they’d be more willing to seek medical attention on the matter.
Plus, does your universal healthcare include abortion services?
Olerand wrote:The Caleshan Valkyrie wrote:
Because having to pay for certain services, even a small fee, can be too much for some women. If they had universal healthcare, they’d be more willing to seek medical attention on the matter.
Plus, does your universal healthcare include abortion services?
I'm confused. What does this have to do with societal support for or opposition to abortion? If anything, judging from the American opposition to "using public funds for abortion services", I would presume that the public financing of abortion would be a rallying call for opposition.
by Olerand » Fri Sep 28, 2018 5:03 am
The Free Joy State wrote:The Caleshan Valkyrie wrote:
Because having to pay for certain services, even a small fee, can be too much for some women. If they had universal healthcare, they’d be more willing to seek medical attention on the matter.
Plus, does your universal healthcare include abortion services?
Universal healthcare covers abortion, free contraception and the morning-after-pill in my country. God bless the NHS.Olerand wrote:I'm confused. What does this have to do with societal support for or opposition to abortion? If anything, judging from the American opposition to "using public funds for abortion services", I would presume that the public financing of abortion would be a rallying call for opposition.
This may help. Trump offered to keep federal funding for Planned Parenthood if they stopped performing abortions.
Without universal healthcare, abortion services are provided by charitable health organisations (vital for poor women), or private health insurance (which not all women carry).
Medicaid only has to offer abortion in cases of rape, incest and danger to a woman's life, which conservative states can use to prevent abortion access to low-income women. Studies show that up to 35% of Medicaid-eligible women have been forced to carry their pregnancies to term in states where access is restricted.
So I'd say provision of funding and public support go hand-in-hand.
Free Rhenish States wrote:You're French, without faith, probably godless, liberal without any traditional values or respect for any faith whatsoever
by The Caleshan Valkyrie » Fri Sep 28, 2018 5:10 am
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?
by The Free Joy State » Fri Sep 28, 2018 5:17 am
Olerand wrote:The Free Joy State wrote:Universal healthcare covers abortion, free contraception and the morning-after-pill in my country. God bless the NHS.
This may help. Trump offered to keep federal funding for Planned Parenthood if they stopped performing abortions.
Without universal healthcare, abortion services are provided by charitable health organisations (vital for poor women), or private health insurance (which not all women carry).
Medicaid only has to offer abortion in cases of rape, incest and danger to a woman's life, which conservative states can use to prevent abortion access to low-income women. Studies show that up to 35% of Medicaid-eligible women have been forced to carry their pregnancies to term in states where access is restricted.
So I'd say provision of funding and public support go hand-in-hand.
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.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Aadhirisian Puppet Nation, Battadia, Daphomir, Google [Bot], Likhinia, Nova Zueratopia, Sarduri, Squirreltopia, The Black Forrest, The Sapientia, The Skellies, The Two Jerseys, The Vooperian Union, Zae Doradoria
Advertisement