Page 11 of 16

Re: Abortion

Posted: 2012-12-04, 20:41
by Bijlee
Varislintu wrote:
What do you consider to be relevant? :)


Sorry I didn't notice you said something to me! :oops:

I think the woman's decision and the fact that it is her body be used is relevant. Safety of course is relevant too for when the pregnancy is life-threatening, but I'm referring to more voluntary situations for abortion.

Even if it were to be proven that the fetus had a soul and was a person(which personally, I don't think so), it doesn't change the fact that it is in the woman's body be used. No one should be forced to give up their own body for someone else.

Re: Abortion

Posted: 2012-12-06, 13:10
by Varislintu
Bijlee wrote:
Varislintu wrote:
What do you consider to be relevant? :)


Sorry I didn't notice you said something to me! :oops:

I think the woman's decision and the fact that it is her body be used is relevant. Safety of course is relevant too for when the pregnancy is life-threatening, but I'm referring to more voluntary situations for abortion.

Even if it were to be proven that the fetus had a soul and was a person(which personally, I don't think so), it doesn't change the fact that it is in the woman's body be used. No one should be forced to give up their own body for someone else.


No prob! :)

You have pretty much the same considerations as I, then. But it seems you came to them much younger than I -- especially what's in your last paragraph took me a few years to figure out. Even though it seems so obvious now! :hmm: :)

Re: Abortion

Posted: 2012-12-13, 2:36
by johnklepac
I think that a woman should definitely be able to have an abortion anytime in the first trimester/trimester and a half, and that then it should become an issue of the conditions under which she became pregnant (e.g. if she was somehow raped while detained illegally and denied access to an abortion but was released or escaped a few months later, or if she didn't reasonably have access to an abortion clinic in the first few months).

Re: Abortion

Posted: 2012-12-16, 20:12
by Varislintu
johnklepac wrote:I think that a woman should definitely be able to have an abortion anytime in the first trimester/trimester and a half, and that then it should become an issue of the conditions under which she became pregnant (e.g. if she was somehow raped while detained illegally and denied access to an abortion but was released or escaped a few months later, or if she didn't reasonably have access to an abortion clinic in the first few months).


I don't want you to feel singled out for your opinions, but I want to ask a question. What is it that changes along the way that makes later abortion not okay? Or another way to phrase it: what makes abortion okay, what do you base that right in? And what then removes that right, and why can there still be exceptions (like rape)?

On a more general note (not directed at you, johnklepac), I mentioned earlier that I've lately changed my opinion on late term abortions (from having qualms to not having qualms about them). It was because I realised I wasn't being consistent. The things I based the right to abortion on, they don't change when the pregnancy progresses. The right not to have to risk your health or life for another person, that just doesn't go away. Pregnancy and childbirth are not simple, safe bodily functions.

I guess one thing that helped me rethink my position and reasoning was that I've come to that age when I will soon have to start having kids if I intend to have them. Suddenly, all this about women's bodily autonomy, them not becoming public property when pregnant, them having to personally carry the health consequences of pregnancy -- it wasn't abstract armchair musings anymore. These are issues that pertain to my actual life, my actual body, and my actual health. The only life, body and health I have and will ever get.

It's easy, when being pregnant is not relevant to you, to sit and muse about how this and that point in time (weeks or trimesters) should change your rights so and so, and how this or that circumstance (rape, or somehow otherwise being pitiful enough to deserve to still decide over your body) earns you this or that right. The intentions are often good, and sure we have to make laws together, but it still ends up seeming like a bunch of unpregnant people, who out of their unconcerned safe unpregnant position, muse over what they are comfortable seeing someone pregnant do with their own body. And not just muse, but usually naturally also wish to legislate.

Realising that I will soon probably be among those pregnant people, made me realise just how it must feel to be told by other people that your judgement over what is best for you and your body and life cannot be trusted to you, we other people must legislate to limit your choices so you won't have too much choice. From what I can discern from my not-yet-pregnant position, it sucks and feels really demeaning. Take late term abortions, for example. They are very rare, and when done, they are usually done for very good reasons (like serious genetic defects in the fetus). Very few women want to be pregnant for months for no particular reason. They also face increasing health risks related to pregnancy, not to mention the employment issues. Legislating that "late term abortions are wrong, but can be earned with special misery like rape", really feels so banal and corny when I consider the actual issues that women (autonomous adults with adult decision making capabilites) face in relation to late term pregnancy termination. Not to mention it misses the whole point, which is bodily autonomy, and that we've moved past moralising women for opening their legs.

Re: Abortion

Posted: 2013-01-19, 18:53
by Varislintu
Oh, great:

New report shows how the principle of “personhood” is already criminalizing pregnancy in the US

I wonder at what time American women will just stop having children in protest. Is getting pregnant really worth the risk, after all, of losing your status as something more than an incubator to a Holy Innocent? :x

Re: Abortion

Posted: 2013-01-20, 3:50
by md0
WHAT.

I want to see the legislators who came up with this law behind the bars as well, because they are obviously masturbating while writing those laws.

Re: Abortion

Posted: 2013-01-21, 1:30
by Bijlee
I hate how reproductive rights are so undervalued here(and in the world in general). One day I hope my children will look at these times as full of a bunch of crazies.

Re: Abortion

Posted: 2013-01-21, 1:41
by Kenny
Let's hope they will. It wasn't that long ago that racial segregation was totally okay in the US and I think most (if not all) people today agree that that was insane...
Hate to bring this up but as long as religion runs rampant in all four corners of the world, the chances of these things changing are considerably lower =/.

Re: Abortion

Posted: 2013-01-21, 4:53
by Bijlee
Kenny wrote:Let's hope they will. It wasn't that long ago that racial segregation was totally okay in the US and I think most (if not all) people today agree that that was insane...
Hate to bring this up but as long as religion runs rampant in all four corners of the world, the chances of these things changing are considerably lower =/.


At least religion is on the decline. On top of that, religion is definitely going to be getting a lot of reform if it wants to survive the modern world. Look at how many religious Christians are starting to accept homosexuality now. Not as much as there should be, but the numbers are increasing greatly.

Re: Abortion

Posted: 2013-01-22, 8:24
by Lur
Religion is having a strange time.

In the case of Christianity in Spain, the Pope came here to reinforce religiousness and what he said what a direct comment against secularism and things like that. Meanwhile, priesthood is on decline, and the local population might not produce priests anymore in a a few decades. Most of the population call themselves Christians even if they don't really believe or practice, and despite what many believe the pocentage of atheists and agnostics surpasses the percentage of practicing Christians. And this situation increases, slowly.

I once saw a chart following the decrease of Christian believers in the USA. They took the tendency and projected it into the future, predicting the disappearance of widespread Christianity in three centuries or so. Which could be less, due to the progresive influence of technology and science in human thought, and because having religious parents doesn't guarantee the deconversion of the children upon interaction with the rest of the society through their life.

Or maybe this is just wishful thinking on my part. Although things don't normally last forever.

Bijlee wrote:I hate how reproductive rights are so undervalued here(and in the world in general). One day I hope my children will look at these times as full of a bunch of crazies.

I think things change slowly but steady. Things that people didn't have a a problem with are now condemned (normally). Other things are starting to get widely looked down. And then there might be things that you or I might not have a problem with, but will be looked down in the future.

Re: Abortion

Posted: 2013-02-02, 4:03
by johnklepac
Varislintu wrote:I don't want you to feel singled out for your opinions, but I want to ask a question. What is it that changes along the way that makes later abortion not okay? Or another way to phrase it: what makes abortion okay, what do you base that right in? And what then removes that right, and why can there still be exceptions (like rape)?

On a more general note (not directed at you, johnklepac), I mentioned earlier that I've lately changed my opinion on late term abortions (from having qualms to not having qualms about them). It was because I realised I wasn't being consistent. The things I based the right to abortion on, they don't change when the pregnancy progresses. The right not to have to risk your health or life for another person, that just doesn't go away. Pregnancy and childbirth are not simple, safe bodily functions.

I guess one thing that helped me rethink my position and reasoning was that I've come to that age when I will soon have to start having kids if I intend to have them. Suddenly, all this about women's bodily autonomy, them not becoming public property when pregnant, them having to personally carry the health consequences of pregnancy -- it wasn't abstract armchair musings anymore. These are issues that pertain to my actual life, my actual body, and my actual health. The only life, body and health I have and will ever get.

It's easy, when being pregnant is not relevant to you, to sit and muse about how this and that point in time (weeks or trimesters) should change your rights so and so, and how this or that circumstance (rape, or somehow otherwise being pitiful enough to deserve to still decide over your body) earns you this or that right. The intentions are often good, and sure we have to make laws together, but it still ends up seeming like a bunch of unpregnant people, who out of their unconcerned safe unpregnant position, muse over what they are comfortable seeing someone pregnant do with their own body. And not just muse, but usually naturally also wish to legislate.

Realising that I will soon probably be among those pregnant people, made me realise just how it must feel to be told by other people that your judgement over what is best for you and your body and life cannot be trusted to you, we other people must legislate to limit your choices so you won't have too much choice. From what I can discern from my not-yet-pregnant position, it sucks and feels really demeaning. Take late term abortions, for example. They are very rare, and when done, they are usually done for very good reasons (like serious genetic defects in the fetus). Very few women want to be pregnant for months for no particular reason. They also face increasing health risks related to pregnancy, not to mention the employment issues. Legislating that "late term abortions are wrong, but can be earned with special misery like rape", really feels so banal and corny when I consider the actual issues that women (autonomous adults with adult decision making capabilites) face in relation to late term pregnancy termination. Not to mention it misses the whole point, which is bodily autonomy, and that we've moved past moralising women for opening their legs.

Just found out that you'd replied. Sorry for being late, I guess. Anyway, I guess I've just thought of late-term abortions as, well, killing babies, since they'd otherwise be able to live (only within the last few weeks, though. Between my "trimester and a half" and then, I guess it's kind of a grey area). I don't mean to sound like a pro-lifer, nor like a sexist bigot, but I just don't think of getting an abortion that late - when there have been perfectly available opportunities beforehand, of course - as adequate judgment. What you're destroying, at that point, isn't a clump of cells anymore.

Sure, it sounds great to talk about never judging people whose situation you're not in or trying to make their decisions for them, but actually never doing that is very difficult, especially when forming political opinions. I'm not saying that there aren't sexist men out there or even that they aren't able to force their uneducated positions on reproduction on the rest of the country, but you have to draw the line somewhere. Not everyone is going to be the same as you, and if you're making any laws at all they'll inevitably affect people whose circumstances you won't "understand." I'd say that we should aim for more science in our government, not only for less judgment.

Re: Abortion

Posted: 2013-02-03, 2:10
by Varislintu
johnklepac wrote:Just found out that you'd replied. Sorry for being late, I guess. Anyway, I guess I've just thought of late-term abortions as, well, killing babies, since they'd otherwise be able to live (only within the last few weeks, though. Between my "trimester and a half" and then, I guess it's kind of a grey area). I don't mean to sound like a pro-lifer, nor like a sexist bigot, but I just don't think of getting an abortion that late - when there have been perfectly available opportunities beforehand, of course - as adequate judgment. What you're destroying, at that point, isn't a clump of cells anymore.


No prob, thanks for replying. Btw, my opinions on this matter may seem strict, but i want to say that they pertain to the matter, and aren't intended as an attack or anything.

I gather, then, that you don't base the right to early abortion on bodily autonomy (the right not to have to support another person with your body), but on the opinion that early on, the cells are not a person. Later on, however, they are. The most obvious question here is why it matters at all, then, whether the fetus was conceived from rape or not? I think this is a question that deserves some thought.

Also, some other points I'd put out there for you to consider:

Even late term abortion is safer for the woman's health than childbirth. Be aware that if you ban late term abortion, you are legally requiring women to risk their life and health (long term and short term) for another person.

Would you be willing to approve a law which made you legally required to donate a kidney to your child if they needed it?

Many late term abortions are on wanted pregnancies. Consider that for a moment. Something can be so wrong with a wanted baby that the parents are willing to abort a pregnancy which they have happily carried so far. And imagine in this situation telling them that they can't, but that had the woman been raped, it would be okay.

Imagine that I am pregnant with a child that has that horrible condition where the child's skin layers don't stick together, but fall apart at touch. I might know that the child was wanted, that the condition is horrible (children who have it express a desire to never have been born), that my health insurance doesn't cover the costly care, and that I am not mentally strong enough to be aware of my child slowly suffering to death. My partner is already showing signs of wanting to distance themselves from the situation after we got the news. These are all things I would know, and be able to consider. But a mass of people somewhere think that it's "kinda killing babies" to abort this late, so it's safer just to ban them alltogether, rather than trusting the risk takers' judgement.

Anyway, I know we have to make laws together. I guess i just want to make sure people have thought about what exactly they are requiring of other people and for how important a thing (on their own scale) before they do it. And that they be consistent.

Re: Abortion

Posted: 2013-02-03, 17:04
by Lur
You know what, I had never reflected seriously on late term abortion, but I agree with you now.

As for early abortion I always saw it as a non-issue. Didn't get a single coherent argument from people annoyed by it. :lol:

Re: Abortion

Posted: 2013-02-04, 0:37
by Varislintu
Luke wrote:You know what, I had never reflected seriously on late term abortion, but I agree with you now.


Hey, that's cool. :)

Re: Abortion

Posted: 2013-02-04, 1:35
by TeneReef
Science (ultrasound) ''eliminates'' women in Asia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_foeticide_in_India

Because of abortion of female babies, there are no enough girls for men to date,
and women get gang raped.

Re: Abortion

Posted: 2013-02-04, 1:44
by Varislintu
TeneReef wrote:Science (ultrasound) ''eliminates'' women in Asia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_foeticide_in_India

Because of abortion of female babies, there are no enough girls for men to date,
and women get gang raped.


No. Women get gang raped because men gang rape them.

Can't believe i had to write that, but yeah.

Re: Abortion

Posted: 2013-02-04, 1:46
by TeneReef
Varislintu wrote:
Even late term abortion is safer for the woman's health than childbirth.


This is debatable.
Normally, the late abortion IS childbirth, it is a pharmacologically induced labor. :roll:
Prostaglandin or ocytocin are normally given.

Late (surgical) abortion has always had (and still has) higher risks than induced labor.

In old times, in these situations, the unwanted child would be born, and would
be vivisected by ''blood midwifes'' as they were called.

Re: Abortion

Posted: 2013-02-04, 2:40
by Varislintu
TeneReef wrote:
Varislintu wrote:
Even late term abortion is safer for the woman's health than childbirth.


This is debatable.
Normally, the late abortion IS childbirth, it is a pharmacologically induced labor. :roll:
Prostaglandin or ocytocin are normally given.

Late (surgical) abortion has always had (and still has) higher risks than induced labor.

In old times, in these situations, the unwanted child would be born, and would
be vivisected by ''blood midwifes'' as they were called.


Where I read that, a reliable looking study was referenced, but i can't seem to find that reference now. Instead, all i could find right now is an article that mentions that until 20 weeks, abortion is 11 times safer than childbirth, while after 20 weeks, the risks are pretty much the same. The article seems to draw its info from a Guttmacher report, which is fine by me. the link doesn't work anymore, tho. Still, looks like I'll have to concede to your claim that it's debatable.

http://www.livescience.com/17529-trimes ... tions.html

Re: Abortion

Posted: 2013-02-05, 15:37
by johnklepac
Varislintu wrote:No prob, thanks for replying. Btw, my opinions on this matter may seem strict, but i want to say that they pertain to the matter, and aren't intended as an attack or anything.

Wow, that unexpectedly made me feel a lot better. Neither are mine, for what it's worth.

Varislintu wrote:I gather, then, that you don't base the right to early abortion on bodily autonomy (the right not to have to support another person with your body), but on the opinion that early on, the cells are not a person. Later on, however, they are. The most obvious question here is why it matters at all, then, whether the fetus was conceived from rape or not? I think this is a question that deserves some thought.

I'm not saying that women should, overall, have to carry babies they don't want to - only that if they don't want to, they should try to get it taken care of as soon as possible. I came to much the same conclusion as tenereef for late-term abortions: they aren't really safe for the mother, and they definitely aren't for the baby, who would be able to survive anyway.

Varislintu wrote:Would you be willing to approve a law which made you legally required to donate a kidney to your child if they needed it?

I don't know, but that doesn't seem like a fair comparison.

Varislintu wrote:Imagine that I am pregnant with a child that has that horrible condition where the child's skin layers don't stick together, but fall apart at touch. I might know that the child was wanted, that the condition is horrible (children who have it express a desire to never have been born), that my health insurance doesn't cover the costly care, and that I am not mentally strong enough to be aware of my child slowly suffering to death. My partner is already showing signs of wanting to distance themselves from the situation after we got the news. These are all things I would know, and be able to consider. But a mass of people somewhere think that it's "kinda killing babies" to abort this late, so it's safer just to ban them alltogether, rather than trusting the risk takers' judgement.

I don't think abortions should be banned altogether. This is just an exception I hadn't really thought about. Personally, I can see myself having an abortion if I was pregnant with a baby I knew would have a disease like that or any other severely dehabilitating physical or cognitive disorder.

Varislintu wrote:Anyway, I know we have to make laws together. I guess i just want to make sure people have thought about what exactly they are requiring of other people and for how important a thing (on their own scale) before they do it. And that they be consistent.

I think they generally have that same ideal in mind. If they were generally mean people, I don't think most of them would take the time and effort required to become a successful enough politician for their opinions to have real impacts.

Re: Abortion

Posted: 2013-02-05, 16:00
by Michael
TeneReef wrote:Because of abortion of female babies, there are no enough girls for men to date,
and women get gang raped.

I think we're supposed to distinguish between dating and mating here, aren't we? :?

EDIT: I forgot. In that part of the world, it's one and the same thing. :oops: