Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,577 Year: 4,834/9,624 Month: 182/427 Week: 95/85 Day: 0/2 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Abortion questions...?
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4719 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 316 of 403 (602888)
02-01-2011 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 310 by Theodoric
01-31-2011 8:52 PM


Re: step by step
You may want to check the medical literature on that. It is extremely rare. Most women would die if they kept an ectopic pregnancy to the point that the baby was viable outside of the womb.
If you want to present evidence to support your assertion I would love to read it.
I said ''in some cases'', because I had heard/read of it, but didn't know how frequent it was. Turns out the example I chose was a rare thing, but it does happen. (Miracle baby Billy grew outside his mother's womb | Daily Mail Online)
In any case, the specific example I chose is a non-issue. The point is that if you can save the mother and the foetus, then that is what you should do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 310 by Theodoric, posted 01-31-2011 8:52 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 333 by Theodoric, posted 02-01-2011 7:51 PM slevesque has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 880 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 317 of 403 (602896)
02-01-2011 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 315 by slevesque
02-01-2011 2:34 PM


Re: step by step
So this "society of the future" rips the choice away from the woman?
Monetary reasons should never be the reason a human life isn't saved.
What "human life"? The only "life" that we can even substantially define is .......ding ding ding! the woman's!
Foster family.
So you would also champion for more couples to get rights to adopt?
Orphanage.
Seriously?
Of course, as I said, none of them are ideal situations, but I think that if we really wanted to, a lot of progress could be made into this.
Yes, and it starts with education. The likes of which anti-choicers such as yourself fight so hard against.

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 315 by slevesque, posted 02-01-2011 2:34 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 321 by slevesque, posted 02-01-2011 4:54 PM hooah212002 has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 318 of 403 (602899)
02-01-2011 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 313 by slevesque
02-01-2011 2:26 PM


Re: step by step
Every child should be given a chance to live, even if the starting situation isn't ideal.
I agree. However, the reality is that women do seek out abortions and will continue to do so even if it is made illegal. When abortions were illegal there was a serious class issue that arose where poor women were not allowed access or only had access to very dangerous alternatives. At the same time, rich women (read "white") had access to doctors that would perform hush-hush abortions in safe and clean environments using modern medical procedures.
While it saddens my heart that any woman would choose to abort their pregnancy it saddens me more to see women dying from medial malpractice as a result of poverty. In the end, it isn't my decision to make.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 313 by slevesque, posted 02-01-2011 2:26 PM slevesque has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 320 by Briterican, posted 02-01-2011 4:19 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 319 of 403 (602900)
02-01-2011 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 315 by slevesque
02-01-2011 2:34 PM


Re: step by step
Of course, we are talking about the society of the future, the one we would like to build.
Obviously, we aren't there yet. In our modern society, young and single mothers are villified by the very people who would like to stop them from getting an abortion. We live in a political environment where the party demonizing welfare recipients who receive money for children they did not abort is the same party claiming that abortion is wrong. Until women are not demonized for giving birth and face decades of economic disadvantages you will continue to see women seeking abortions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 315 by slevesque, posted 02-01-2011 2:34 PM slevesque has not replied

  
Briterican
Member (Idle past 4027 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 320 of 403 (602907)
02-01-2011 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 318 by Taq
02-01-2011 3:54 PM


Re: step by step
Taq writes:
In the end, it isn't my decision to make.
If only this view were more predominant. We have this raging debate about where life begins... conception, 100th cell division, and so on, but the very real potential hardships lie solely with the mother, and I don't see how it should fall to a guy in a suit on Capitol Hill to call her a murderer if she makes the tough choice to terminate a pregnancy at this stage where the "human being" is the size of a pencil point, most closely resembles a worm (that's 3 weeks, at 4 we begin to see a resemblance to a tadpole - how can anyone look at embryology without seeing evidence of evolution written all over it?) - AND - probably most importantly - exists within the body of the mother.
I agree with the sentiments expressed by others - being "pro-choice" does not mean I want to see more abortions. I just don't see how such things can (or should) be legislated. If I were female I would be aghast at the notion that the law could reach into my internal organs.
Forgive me if someone's already posed this type of question...
If a woman who is 5 weeks pregnant (a point at which I assume most "pro-lifers" consider it a "human being") decides to take a ride on a bicycle, hits a bump, falls off and has a miscarriage as a result of the tumble... is she guilty of negligent homicide? If not, how can voluntary termination at this early stage be considered homicide?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 318 by Taq, posted 02-01-2011 3:54 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 327 by slevesque, posted 02-01-2011 5:24 PM Briterican has replied
 Message 335 by Taq, posted 02-01-2011 8:14 PM Briterican has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4719 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 321 of 403 (602916)
02-01-2011 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 317 by hooah212002
02-01-2011 3:19 PM


Re: step by step
So this "society of the future" rips the choice away from the woman?
Begging the question epithet.
What "human life"? The only "life" that we can even substantially define is .......ding ding ding! the woman's!
I think you would be hard-pressed to find an ethician who wouldn't define a 25 week old foetus as a human being, given that it has it's nervous system in place and, given the right care, could survive outside the womb.
So when you can save that life, and the mother's life, you should. No matter what the differences in costs. That's what I'm saying.
So you would also champion for more couples to get rights to adopt?
I would certainly be for easier adoption procedures, particularly for children within your own country.
Seriously?
Yeah well there are obviously lots of better options.
Yes, and it starts with education. The likes of which anti-choicers such as yourself fight so hard against.
How you can seriously think I oppose education is beyond me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 317 by hooah212002, posted 02-01-2011 3:19 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 322 by jar, posted 02-01-2011 4:56 PM slevesque has replied
 Message 323 by ringo, posted 02-01-2011 5:07 PM slevesque has replied
 Message 332 by hooah212002, posted 02-01-2011 6:55 PM slevesque has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34048
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 322 of 403 (602917)
02-01-2011 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 321 by slevesque
02-01-2011 4:54 PM


Re: step by step
slevesque writes:
So this "society of the future" rips the choice away from the woman?
Begging the question epithet.
What "human life"? The only "life" that we can even substantially define is .......ding ding ding! the woman's!
I think you would be hard-pressed to find an ethician who wouldn't define a 25 week old foetus as a human being, given that it has it's nervous system in place and, given the right care, could survive outside the womb.
MIGHT survive outside the womb and then only at extreme expense.
See Message 176.
Edited by jar, : add link to earlier message.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 321 by slevesque, posted 02-01-2011 4:54 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 325 by slevesque, posted 02-01-2011 5:10 PM jar has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 490 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 323 of 403 (602921)
02-01-2011 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 321 by slevesque
02-01-2011 4:54 PM


Re: step by step
slevesque writes:
... given the right care, could survive outside the womb.
When a five-year-old is deathly ill and "could survive" at great expense, who decides?

"I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 321 by slevesque, posted 02-01-2011 4:54 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 324 by slevesque, posted 02-01-2011 5:09 PM ringo has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4719 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 324 of 403 (602922)
02-01-2011 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 323 by ringo
02-01-2011 5:07 PM


Re: step by step
When a five-year-old is deathly ill and "could survive" at great expense, who decides?
Nobody decides, we do all we can to save him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 323 by ringo, posted 02-01-2011 5:07 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 326 by ringo, posted 02-01-2011 5:19 PM slevesque has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4719 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 325 of 403 (602923)
02-01-2011 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 322 by jar
02-01-2011 4:56 PM


Re: step by step
Do you, or do you not, agree that we should try and save both the foetus and the mother ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 322 by jar, posted 02-01-2011 4:56 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 331 by jar, posted 02-01-2011 6:26 PM slevesque has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 490 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 326 of 403 (602925)
02-01-2011 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 324 by slevesque
02-01-2011 5:09 PM


Re: step by step
slevesque writes:
ringo writes:
When a five-year-old is deathly ill and "could survive" at great expense, who decides?
Nobody decides, we do all we can to save him.
You know that isn't true. Every pateint is not kept on life-support forever.
How about an honest answer? Who decides?

"I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 324 by slevesque, posted 02-01-2011 5:09 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 328 by slevesque, posted 02-01-2011 5:28 PM ringo has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4719 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 327 of 403 (602927)
02-01-2011 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 320 by Briterican
02-01-2011 4:19 PM


Re: step by step
If a woman who is 5 weeks pregnant (a point at which I assume most "pro-lifers" consider it a "human being") decides to take a ride on a bicycle, hits a bump, falls off and has a miscarriage as a result of the tumble... is she guilty of negligent homicide? If not, how can voluntary termination at this early stage be considered homicide?
You'll have to define what is negligence, but I doubt it is to be defined in a way that it is doing something, knowing there is a very,very small chance of a bad thing happening Am I negligent when I drive a car, knowing there is an equally small chance of me hitting someone ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 320 by Briterican, posted 02-01-2011 4:19 PM Briterican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 329 by Briterican, posted 02-01-2011 5:33 PM slevesque has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4719 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 328 of 403 (602928)
02-01-2011 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 326 by ringo
02-01-2011 5:19 PM


Re: step by step
You know that isn't true. Every pateint is not kept on life-support forever.
How about an honest answer? Who decides?
It was an honest answer. You do all you can to save him. If everything has been done and tried, then the closest relatives decide to let him die. Note the important difference between ''letting him die'' and ''actively causing it's death''.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by ringo, posted 02-01-2011 5:19 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 330 by ringo, posted 02-01-2011 5:42 PM slevesque has replied

  
Briterican
Member (Idle past 4027 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 329 of 403 (602929)
02-01-2011 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 327 by slevesque
02-01-2011 5:24 PM


Re: step by step
slevesque writes:
If a woman who is 5 weeks pregnant (a point at which I assume most "pro-lifers" consider it a "human being") decides to take a ride on a bicycle, hits a bump, falls off and has a miscarriage as a result of the tumble... is she guilty of negligent homicide? If not, how can voluntary termination at this early stage be considered homicide?
You'll have to define what is negligence, but I doubt it is to be defined in a way that it is doing something, knowing there is a very,very small chance of a bad thing happening Am I negligent when I drive a car, knowing there is an equally small chance of me hitting someone ?
A valid and fair response. And by the way I don't presume to know whether you would class the voluntary termination of a 5 week pregnancy as "murder" or not (I try to absorb the previous posts in these threads before commenting, but not always terribly successfully).
I just wonder how these "moral quandaries" play out in other people's minds, and I worry about the efforts to overturn Roe V Wade given the many "grey areas" on the subject.
I seem to recall a story from the states (where I originated btw) where a man was charged with double homicide after shooting a pregnant woman. Despite my previous statements, I can see the logic in that charge, which makes me think "well how can I view abortion as acceptable then?" - but it seems to have a WHOLE LOT to do with the circumstances and the choices of the mother.
I believe this debate will rage on, at least in the states, for many years to come.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 327 by slevesque, posted 02-01-2011 5:24 PM slevesque has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 490 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 330 of 403 (602932)
02-01-2011 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 328 by slevesque
02-01-2011 5:28 PM


Re: step by step
slevesque writes:
If everything has been done and tried, then the closest relatives decide to let him die. Note the important difference between ''letting him die'' and ''actively causing it's death''.
Yes, that was the criterion that I proposed earlier in the thread. If the fetus has a reasonable chance of survival outside the womb, I personally am less comfortable with aborting it.
So if the closest relatives - e.g. the mother - get to decide how much effort goes into saving a five-year-old child, why should complete strangers get to decide the fate of a five-week-old fetus?

"I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 328 by slevesque, posted 02-01-2011 5:28 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 336 by slevesque, posted 02-01-2011 9:53 PM ringo has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024