What do you think about abortion

Post Reply New Topic

And, again, you are wrong.

If you abandon someone who you are responsible to care for and they die, you are legally responsible. Doesn't matter if nobody would relieve you, you (and your employer) would be civilly and criminally charged for neglect and abandonment. While you are correct that you can't be expected to remain by someone's side 24/7 until someone relives you, if you KNOW your leaving would jeopardize the patient's life and you CHOOSE to leave, then it's no different than your choosing to kill them. Now, if you fell asleep from exhaustion, your employer would be more liable for pushing you beyond what any person could be expected to perform, but the idea is one of ABANDONMENT and NEGLECT.




Um...yes...they are. And you are lampooning the scenario. A caregiver is different from someone who has agreed to be physically attached to someone for their survival.



You are only partially correct. Yes, you can change your mind up until you are under anesthesia. However, if you know the patient is going to be medically compromised after X point, then if you were to refuse to go through with it after you said you were okay at that point, I think you may be liable for the harm to the patient. Yes, you could still change your mind and nobody would force you to go through with it, but you KNEW that after X point, changing your mind would harm or kill the patient, and you said at that point to continue. Your choosing to change your mind was made with the foreknowledge that you would be jeopardizing the health and safety of another. Believe me, doctors let you know when you are at that "point of no return" and ask if you want to change your mind at that point.



Again, wrong. You can change your mind about doing something up to the point you have committed yourself. If you just "up and walk away" after it has started and it harms or kills the patient, you are guilty for that harm. You knew before you started that once committed you can't just walk away. You become legally obligated once you consent to move forward and are "hooked up."



Law school graduate (that makes me a "lawyer") former EMT first responder (didn't keep my training current). Want to pull more magic rabbits out of your hat?

Frankly with your views, I hope and pray you are in no way involved with the health care industry.

I don't know the specifics, but she *is* involved in the healthcare industry. This could go real bad, please be civil.

Also, the example of the organ donor and the point of no return looks like a great real-word answer to LKL's thought experiment. Once the donor has agreed to donate, and gone beyond the point of no return, although he or she *can* still back off and not proceed, exercising their right of autonomy over their own body, they must also assume all the consequences that come with it.

So in your case, your mother could unhook you if so she wishes. But there could be consequences. The problem I see with the problem is, if I was I'm the same situation with my father:
1) I wouldn't like him to pay fines or go to jail or whatever if he backs off and lets me die, I still have a sister and a mother and those two would not benefit them.
2) He'd go through even if it killed him. Not that I agree with that or I'd accept it, but it makes your experiment's premise a bit unconceivable to me.

I prefer to dwell on the moral implications rather than on the legal ones. In your case, if she agreed initially and then backed off and let you die for petty reasons, would you just calmly accept your fate and believe in her complete right to do so? Wouldn't you feel utterly betrayed? If the roles were reversed would you do the same for her? And would you exercise your right to unhook her from you if you feel like it for petty reasons?

Doesn't matter if she's in the industry or not. It's an open discussion and there is a ton of good information out there. Pulling the whole "well, I'm a [insert expert label]" on yourself or anyone else amounts to nothing more than an appeal to authority...oh, and if you start pulling the whole, "yeah, well, in my field I've seen [insert personal experience here]" you're only citing anecdotal evidence, the plural of which is not "data."

You don't have to be an expert to look at the available evidence and make up your own mind. Sure, experts should more often know what they're talking about. Abortions destroy human life. QED. The rest of the debate is whether that form of infanticide is justifiable or not. You don't have to be an expert to reach that conclusion.

What do you think about abortion?

I think it's a very good thing to do if it's well done.
Even if I heard women being upset about theirs years and years later, wondering "what if..." and "s/he would be X years old now", it still is a very valid option when life is hard.

I believe we're already more or less 7.000.000.000 people on earth and that's quite a lot.

The cure for that is self control and birth control, not abortion.

ruveyn

Yes, I agree: it's quite a better choice.

I did not mean it that way AngelRho, it was an answer to the " Frankly with your views, I hope and pray you are in no way involved with the health care industry." comment. There could be a fight, although I hope there is not.

Understood. Unfortunately, it's already a fight, and was before any of us posted about it on WP.

And when that fails, whats going to happen to these millions of unwanted children? Let them die? Because the same people who oppose abortion, also oppose welfare.

Given the efficacy of contraceptives, I'd like to know where these "millions" of children are. Granted, I've had a condom break before and it just happened at the right time for someone to get pregnant. But so what? He's a good kid. He laughs a good deal more than he cries and has reached the walking stage finally. That condom break was the best worst-case scenario that ever happened to me.

And that after being with the same woman for some 14 years and having lots of sex in the meantime. One major mishap in 14 years. Odds are it's going to happen to some people. But MILLIONS? I'm not very good at math, but given what is known about condom failure on average, how many people would have to consistently be using condoms as their sole form of contraceptive for MILLIONS of unwanted pregnancies to occur? Let's make it easier...let's assume that condom failure guarantees a pregnancy.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5exauOFonU[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuJDZHtyz8g[/youtube]

Source: http://www.indexmundi.com/world/demogra ... ofile.html

As only women can get pregnant, I will base my results on total woman population. There are 1988 million of women aged 15-54. Menopause comes at 51 on average, so let's make it 1800 million.

... when I was searching for next step I found a better way to make my point, I'll leave the previous information because I don't like deleting my stuff lol.

New source: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_contr_use.html

62 million of women IN THE US are of childbearing age.

31 percent of those women don't need contraception because of infertility for any reason, or abstinence, which leaves 36.5 million.

And scrap that again, I found an even easier way!

6.2 million women in the US use condoms. Condoms have a 10% failure rate. If all failures lead to pregnancy, that would lead to 620000 pregnancies. And the ones who didn't get pregnant are still in risk, and the ones who didn't use condoms because they were pregnant or lactating stop doing so and begin using condoms again and are at risk again. And that's only in the US.

Or lack thereof.

Just one unwanted pregnancy because of contraception failure is necessary to justify abortion being legal.

Only one.

I think that abortion is very unfortunate, and something that nobody wants to have, but that sometimes circumstances dictate it in a particular persons life at the time.

In a perfect world all children are wanted, or at least the pregnancy is accepted if not planned. But we know that doesn't happen and many times a girl gets pregnant when she absolutely can not (not literally, figuratively)cannot have a child. So, because she is here first and I think it should be first come, first serve, she has the right to get it out of her body. The only way we have now of doing that is abortion. I think that something should be done to find a way to remove younger fetuses without killing them and then adopt them out. That would solve it for everybody, because back in the 80s I knew several girls who had abortions. Nobody wanted to kill the baby, they just wanted to get it out of them and if that was the only way, that's what it had to be. The motive is not to kill, just to remove.

AngelRho, does your statement above apply to Zeronetgain's "[I am a] Law school graduate (that makes me a "lawyer") former EMT first responder (didn't keep my training current)," or only to my own experience as a HCP in a hospital? I declined to mention so in previous parts of this discussion, but I'm curious if I'm still more guilty of an 'appeal to authority' than is the one person who *has* mentioned his credentials. Does it only count if you disagree with the arguer?