Abortion

Post Reply New Topic

This. Might have to add that contrary to what pro-lifers tend to think, legalizing abortion doesn't increase abortion rates. Illegalizing abortion however has serious ramifications, such as increased risks of maternal deaths and child neglect. In exchange for what really? Moral satisfactory? People need to drop the whole 'muh abortion' act.

Not changing the subject, if you believe abortion is murder then it doesn't make sense to allow a woman to murder someone because she was raped.

I guess I mean it's been shown throughout history that when you make things illegal people will still do it even if the punishment is being tortured to death.

It’s about compassion for the mother. I believe it’s wrong to take the choice away from the mother.

It’s also unfair to the baby, but when it comes to saving lives I will always take the mother’a side. In the case of rape, I believe it is wrong to expect a woman to be forced to carry the child to full term.

It’s murder, but I don’t look at it as being her fault.

If someone commits a violent crime that creates a life-threatening condition for the victim but doesn’t immediately end life, at that point in time the criminal is only guilty of, let’s say, assault with a deadly weapon. Two weeks later the victim dies. Depending on exact circumstances, he might be charged with murder.

Similarly, if someone causes another person to unwillingly commit a crime while under duress, the person who carries out the act might be found not guilty while the abuser is punished.

Same principles are at work here. The woman can’t be found at fault because she was forced into a situation beyond her control. It’s not fair to force her to live with the consequences of someone else’s crime.

So abortion would be an option. And because a woman could decide whether the baby lives or dies, there’s a chance the rapist might not be charged with murder, similar to how a shooter would avoid a murder charge if the victim survives.

The other interpretation would be that the rapist caused the woman to commit murder while under duress, in which case she could not be held responsible.

It basically follows precedents from already-existing laws. And I think that should satisfy the pro-life side and yet keep abortion. It would restrict abortion to hospital emergencies only and stop doctors and clinics from specializing in the procedure. It defines non-emergency abortion procedures as murder and makes people responsible for the death of the baby.

And that means women would be held responsible along with abortionists in the event of “back alley” procedures. It would also mean emergency rooms and law enforcement would have to join the rest of the 21st century in collecting evidence and following up. One would hope that tougher penalties and risks would be a better deterrent for would-be rapists.

Actually conservatives are anti-abortion.
But regardless, I am pro-abortion ONLY if there are potential problems to be expected in the future.
If you want to be more extreme, then I'd suggest also disallowing to carry a problematic fetus and make abortion obligatory. I would not mind such future, as people deserve to live a good time, not a life with genetic complications

People who are "pro-life" often don't care what happens to these children the moment they are born, as they seem to be against universal healthcare, against social security safety nets, pro death penalty and pro war, which makes them actually just pro-birth, not pro-life. I respect others who are against abortion, I just don't respect those who make that choice for others. If you dont believe in abortion, don't get one.

That is because of the right-left split more than anything.

I'm for healthcare, especially post natal care. However, I feel healthcare falls under economics and I am knowingly not good at that. If we simply stop hospitals from over charging people that alone would help.

Social security, I am okay with, but normal social security needs to make sure that getting a job is more beneficial. Disability programs need to be expanded and improved.

I am against the death penalty in all cases.

Few people are really pro war.

To top that off I'm vegetarian.

All life should be protected. That last part is like living right before the civil war and saying, "I respect others who are against slavery, I just don't respect those who make that choice for others. If you dont believe in slavery, don't buy one."

If I see a born person being killed in front of me, or even committing suicide I wouldn't just mind my own business, and the same goes here. Both the woman and child should be supported, and neither harmed.

Lifetime insurance limits which pro-lifers support(often right wingers) means that if a child is born with a serious chronic medical condition, it would be game over as they would eventually reach a lifetime and be screwed not to mention that child having a preexisting condition which these same pro-lifers would gladly allow insurance companies to deny such a child coverage. This is what I mean by pro-lifers not giving a damn about what happens to a child after they are born or anyone for that matter.

While Canadian right wingers(of who of most pro-lifers are a part of) are not against universal healthcare here(simply because it is so ingrained into society already) they are against universal pharmacare which essentially means they ultimately dont care who dies because they cannot afford their life saving medications.

OK then. Given any thought to a tubal ligation?

I agree with you. The problem with most pro lifers is their motivation (sky fairy mythology). If they really understood the teachings of Christ which they claim to champion, they would be in favor of universal health care, in favor of safety nets, anti death penalty, and anti war.

The vast majority of doctors will not preform such a procedure on a woman unless she already has at least one child.

I understand your position and I do think the fetus may be able to feel pain and therefore it is morally reprehensible to kill it. equally, if a parent is thinking about killing their growing sperm toad then it is probably safe to assume that they do not want the child / wouldn't make good parents / are in unhealthy or bad circumstances all of which would entail suffering for the child. Also there are circumstances in which a woman has been raped and she did not choose to get pregnant nor was it out of carelessness.

I take the long view. In a case where suffering is unavoidable, it is better to suffer less.

I thought this was a common means of surgical birth control for women.

It’s possible but extremely difficult to reverse T.L. Most if not all OB’s will avoid the procedure if a woman has never had kids. Some women can get really messed up over regret once the biological alarm clock goes off.

Even after our third child we were offered T.L. since it was a c-section and they had all the right parts out in the open anyway. We declined. Even though we think we’re done, there’s just that sense of the door closing that makes us uncomfortable. The question “what if...?” will eat you for a lifetime.

I don’t blame docs for refusing, but I think it’s a shame that women who feel that strongly about it get denied the procedure. Maybe if there was some kind of waiting period involved, like 1-2 years, mandatory legal counseling and an extensive paper trail, you might eliminate some of the concerns docs have. If a woman wants it bad enough to clear legal hurdles and not change her mind in the waiting process, by all means get out of her way. If 25, 35 years down the road she changes her mind, that’s her own fault.

If I wasn't gay, I'd get a vasectomy. I have no desire whatsoever to be a father.

It's not.

Recently, in England, a woman had to go through a long legal battle in order to get sterilized.

After having me in 1983, my mother was told she could have her tubes tied, but she needed her husband's consent.