Your right to an Abortion

Wompa1

fatmammycat wrote: »

It's not hypocritical at all. Scott Peterson killed a woman who intended to carry a pregnancy to term, indeed she almost had, therefore, double homicide. This has NO relevance to a woman who is NOT going to carry a pregnancy to term and deliver a baby. I don't see what's so difficult to understand here. Abortion: not about 'babies'. Abortion: about pregnancy.

What if the woman was murdered on her way to an abortion clinic?

Ickle Magoo

metrovelvet wrote: »

Which countries would those be? Not the US btw. Consitutionally, the woman has a right to privacy, it is her body, end of, so it has to remain legal. However, finding an OB who will do it late stage, is another story. I spoke to my OB in NYC a little about this kind of thing, out of curiousity, and he made a face and said "yeah... it's really really icky."

So in the US there is no legal limit on abortion? I did not know that. I'm very happy to be hypocritical in that I place little to no value on a fertilised egg and yet place a lot of value on an older foetus.

I was thinking of the UK and it's 24 wk rule and other countries which have similar - even Ireland in which it's legal to abort if the mothers life is endangered - up to any stage. It is also not illegal to procure an abortion in another country or help a woman travel that country to procure an abortion. The issue is a jumble of contradictions unless you take an all or nothing approach - which most don't.

metrovelvet wrote: »

Well if you are going call people hyperbolising for saying baby killer, than bunch of cells should also be in the naught vocab list.

It's more an "inappropriate given the context" than a naughty vocab list. A bunch of cells is factual, claiming others are baby killers at every stage post-conception is merely a loaded personal opinion and would make an awful lot of women legal baby-killers and their partners willing accomplices to legal baby-killing - which is patently ridiculous in average temperate discussion.

drkpower

metrovelvet wrote: »

I never said I wished for it, I pointed it out as hipocrocy, a contradiction, that's all.

The double homicide charge for killing a pregnant woman just underscores that it's a baby when the mother decides its a baby.

It isnt really hypocrisy. The fetal homicide laws simply recognise that a foetus has rights. Abortion laws also recognise that a foetus has rights. But abortion laws also have to balance the conflicting rights of the mother.

The conflicting rights of a third party are not a consideration in fetal homicide laws*, which is why there appears to you to be an inherent hypocrisy. But there isnt.

*- my understanding is that the prosecution of women under foetal homicide laws was not intended or anticipated.

fatmammycat

Wompa1 wrote: »

Where did I say that? I hadn't considered the caveats is what I was saying. In that it wasn't taking those cases into consideration. In a later post I said that those types of scenarios are exceptional cases. I don't believe that all abortions are for women who have a diagnosed fear, ailment or have been raped.

So what if they're not? I'm trying to follow your thinking. How is terminating a pregnancy okay sometimes and not at other times? What's your criteria?

fatmammycat

Wompa1 wrote: »

What if the woman was murdered on her way to an abortion clinic?

Is the woman not still murdered?

fatmammycat

metrovelvet wrote: »

Exactly. It's a baby when the mother decides it's a baby.

I don't see the problem with this either. I trust women to know what they want from a pregnancy, don't you?

metrovelvet

Right. Its a baby in the bereavement forum and a bunch of cells in the LL.

Ok then.:rolleyes:

So, it's a baby when the mother says so.

Fluorescence

Wompa1 wrote: »

Where did I say that? I hadn't considered the caveats is what I was saying. In that it wasn't taking those cases into consideration. In a later post I said that those types of scenarios are exceptional cases. I don't believe that all abortions are for women who have a diagnosed fear, ailment or have been raped.

Ah, I thought you meant that you didn't think they were legitimate reasons to abort when you said you were ignoring the caveats. Still, the question remains: should people never have sex despite taking complete care with their contraceptives just because of the miniscule chance a child might come from it anyway?

metrovelvet

drkpower wrote: »

It isnt really hypocrisy. The fetal homicide laws simply recognise that a foetus has rights. Abortion laws also recognise that a foetus has rights. But abortion laws also have to balance the conflicting rights of the mother.

The conflicting rights of a third party are not a consideration in fetal homicide laws*, which is why there appears to you to be an inherent hypocrisy. But there isnt.

*- my understanding is that the prosecution of women under foetal homicide laws was not intended or anticipated.

Ok so basically the foetus has rights unless the mother's rights supercede the feotus's rights? Is that how it works?

drkpower

metrovelvet wrote: »

Which countries would those be? Not the US btw. Consitutionally, the woman has a right to privacy, it is her body, end of, so it has to remain legal. However, finding an OB who will do it late stage, is another story. I spoke to my OB in NYC a little about this kind of thing, out of curiousity, and he made a face and said "yeah... it's really really icky."

Metro, please do a little research outside of personal anecdote. That is not an accurate reflection of the US position on abortion at all. The position in the US is complex; but in a nutshell, abortion is legal but may be restricted by the states to varying degrees, which almost every state does by imposing limits on the point at which an abortion may be performed.

drkpower

metrovelvet wrote: »

Ok so basically the foetus has rights unless the mother's rights supercede the feotus's rights? Is that how it works?

That is the essence of the abortion debate, yes.

Ickle Magoo

metrovelvet wrote: »

Right. Its a baby in the bereavement forum and a bunch of cells in the LL.

Ok then.:rolleyes:

It's about having and allowing a certain quality of discussion. The function of the bereavement forum is not for debating the legal stance for a country, it is for getting empathy and understanding for an event that has happened to the individual and as such the language reflects that - it's not rocket science.

tatabubbly

As someone who knows someone this week who had a DNC due to an ectopic pregnancy it should definitely be allowed!

I got the bar in my arm because i don't want kids yet but if i found out today, i would definitely consider it. As a scientist, it's easy for me to say yes.

I definitely think though that there should be a get out clause for men or at least some sort of process which allows imput by the babys dad. How many men in Ireland alone have been trapped into having an accidental pregnancy, paying child support and never wanting a child? It's unfair for people to judge men if they have a child and don't want to be involved with it, just the same as it is for women

iguana

K-9 wrote: »

As for the names, I think saying murder or killing is unhelpful, I'd also say a "bunch of cells" or zygote are as well, they just can inflame posters with opposite views.

But that's medically, factually what they are. A zygote is a fertilised egg, with only a 25-35% chance of implanting. The next stage which occurs 4-7 days later, a blastocyst, is very literally a ball of cells that is implanting into the endiometrium of the uterus. It still has fairly low odds implanting successfully. Once implanted, that ball of cells divides into the sack, placenta and embryo, at which point the "baby" is an embryo. That brings us to week 4 of a pregnancy, but only week 2 since the egg was fertilised. At this point the odds of survival move toward 85%. But miscarriage is still extremely common at this stage.

It's not until the last week of the first trimester that the embryo forms a fetus. Week 11 of the pregnancy, week 9 since fertilisation. It's now that the fetus becomes truly viable (still inside it's mother, obv), it's why most prenatal care includes a scan as this week ends, to ensure the fetus is still viable, that it hasn't stopped growing without aborting (what is known as a missed miscarriage). Miscarriages are reasonably rare at this point which is why the majority of expectant couples/mothers only announce the pregnancy on entering the 2nd trimester.

It's not deliberately dismissive language, it's scientific. Even with a mother who is perfectly happy to be pregnant, the viability of the unborn is quite and then reasonably weak, up until the foetal stage. I'm at the stage in my cycle where I could be hosting a blastocyst. If I am, it'll be my baby. My husband and I are already talking to it and willing it to exist. But, that doesn't mean that we're under any illusion that if it does exist it's anything more than a ball of cells with only limited potential to become a baby. That is just the fact, not emotive language.

metrovelvet

Week 11? Viability?

I had a viability scan at 8 weeks, or what they thought was 8 weeks. A lima bean, with a big booming heartbeat.

southsiderosie

Two things...

First, the "Unborn Victims of Violence" act in the US only applied to very specific crimes under specific conditions, and it is very controversial.

Second, it is highly inaccurate to say that the "US" is a anything goes country when it comes to abortion. It is a federal system, and as such states have their own rules and regulations regarding abortion, violent crimes involving pregnant women, the death penalty, etc. This is all much more straightforward in a small centralized state like Ireland.

Wompa1

fluorescence wrote: »

Ah, I thought you meant that you didn't think they were legitimate reasons to abort when you said you were ignoring the caveats. Still, the question remains: should people never have sex despite taking complete care with their contraceptives just because of the miniscule chance a child might come from it anyway?

If the possibility of abortion never existed I believe people would be a lot more careful about who they choose to have sex with.

Abortion does exist in the UK and other parts of the world so people always have the option. Would a lack of abortion world wide lead to less risky behaviour..personally I think it would.

Again the only reason I'm throwing in my own 2 cents on this is because some of the cavalier attitudes towards it. Maybe I was more affected by the Bodies exhibition than I thought...after 2 weeks the child is forming. It's not just a bunch of cells, you can see a little body. A lot of mens attitudes here towards abortion e.g. if she gets pregnant I'll have her on the first plane to London etc. are pretty sh!t too. I don't agree with them. If you are having an abortion, realize what you're doing, don't play it down. It is significant, it is a life and it should be respected. Some of the responses on here aren't respectful and are just self centered.

iguana

metrovelvet wrote: »

Right. Its a baby in the bereavement forum and a bunch of cells in the LL.

Ok then.:rolleyes:

So, it's a baby when the mother says so.

Exactly. It's a baby if it's her baby, if those are the emotions she has imbued in it. Her grief will be for the loss of her potential child. Grief is an emotional issue, therefore emotion is all that counts. But that doesn't make it clinically a baby.

K-9

A bunch of cells with the potential of human life!

Anyway, don't want to drag it to OT, but I sense a need to define it as such by the more "pro choice" element and say sure science says so, how could it a "bunch of cells" be offensive, it's Fhact! It may offend some so personally I wouldn't use it, same as I wouldn't say "you are killing potential life". It just seems a higher standard is expected of one side of the debate.

metrovelvet

K-9 wrote: »

A bunch of cells with the potential of human life!

Anyway, don't want to drag it to OT, but I sense a need to define it as such by the more "pro choice" element and say sure science says so, how could it a "bunch of cells" be offensive, it's Fhact! It may offend some so personally I wouldn't use it, same as I wouldn't say "you are killing potential life". It just seems a higher standard is expected of one side of the debate.

Me and you are also a bunch of cells. So what?

Wompa1

anybody else find this discussion fascinating? I didn't think I really had a real opinion on it until now. If friends had asked me before I'd be sheepish about it...

drkpower

Wompa1 wrote: »

Would a lack of abortion world wide lead to less risky behaviour..personally I think it would.

Would a lack of medical treatments to stabilise fractures lead to a lot less sports-related injuries...personally I think it would.....:rolleyes:

Where does that get you?

No offence, but you have a great knack for trying to be constructive, but actually adding nothing to the debate:P.

iguana

metrovelvet wrote: »

Week 11? Viability?

I had a viability scan at 8 weeks, or what they thought was 8 weeks. A lima bean, with a big booming heartbeat.

So? Heartbeat doesn't mean viability. Heartbeat is detectable at 6 weeks, but at that point 15-25% of embryos spontaneously abort. At the time of your scan, you still had a 15% chance of miscarriage. That's not terribly viable.

fatmammycat

Wompa1 wrote: »

If the possibility of abortion never existed I believe people would be a lot more careful about who they choose to have sex with.

Abortion does exist in the UK and other parts of the world so people always have the option. Would a lack of abortion world wide lead to less risky behaviour..personally I think it would.

Again the only reason I'm throwing in my own 2 cents on this is because some of the cavalier attitudes towards it. Maybe I was more affected by the Bodies exhibition than I thought...after 2 weeks the child is forming. It's not just a bunch of cells, you can see a little body. A lot of mens attitudes here towards abortion e.g. if she gets pregnant I'll have her on the first plane to London etc. are pretty sh!t too. I don't agree with them. If you are having an abortion, realize what you're doing, don't play it down. It is significant, it is a life and it should be respected. Some of the responses on here aren't respectful and are just self centered.

You know why I didn't go to the exhibition you keep talking about? Respect. There was a huge question mark over where those bodies came from, with a great deal of evidence to suggest they were donated by the chinese from deceased prisoners. Did you look into that before you went along and paid your money?
You talk about respect, how about respecting women to know if and when they want to be pregnant.

Malari

Wompa1 wrote: »

If the possibility of abortion never existed I believe people would be a lot more careful about who they choose to have sex with.

Abortion does exist in the UK and other parts of the world so people always have the option. Would a lack of abortion world wide lead to less risky behaviour..personally I think it would.

Again the only reason I'm throwing in my own 2 cents on this is because some of the cavalier attitudes towards it. Maybe I was more affected by the Bodies exhibition than I thought...after 2 weeks the child is forming. It's not just a bunch of cells, you can see a little body. A lot of mens attitudes here towards abortion e.g. if she gets pregnant I'll have her on the first plane to London etc. are pretty sh!t too. I don't agree with them. If you are having an abortion, realize what you're doing, don't play it down. It is significant, it is a life and it should be respected. Some of the responses on here aren't respectful and are just self centered.

Absolutely it would change things. I would think there would be a lot more unwanted children, a lot more contraceptive choices for both men and women. I certainly think most women would have to think carefully before having sex if it wasn't possible to terminate a pregnancy once it began.

But what is your point?

Fluorescence

Wompa1 wrote: »

Again the only reason I'm throwing in my own 2 cents on this is because some of the cavalier attitudes towards it. Maybe I was more affected by the Bodies exhibition than I thought...after 2 weeks the child is forming. It's not just a bunch of cells, you can see a little body. A lot of mens attitudes here towards abortion e.g. if she gets pregnant I'll have her on the first plane to London etc. are pretty sh!t too. I don't agree with them. If you are having an abortion, realize what you're doing, don't play it down. It is significant, it is a life and it should be respected. Some of the responses on here aren't respectful and are just self centered.

Quote me one post where any man here made such a claim, because I've obviously missed it. I don't think anyone's taking this lightly. Abortion hasn't become some sort of contraceptive either - it's far too expensive for that.

Yes it's a life, but how much importance that life holds and what value we can attribute to it is the whole crux of the issue here. Many, including myself, believe that any time before it has developed into a fetus should be permissible to abort. That's because at that extremely early stage it has such a low viability.

Is it self-centered to put one's own life before that of an insentient embryo?

Wompa1

drkpower wrote: »

Would a lack of medical treatments to stabilise fractures lead to a lot less sports-related injuries...personally I think it would.....:rolleyes:

Where does that get you?

No offence, but you have a great knack for trying to be constructive, but actually adding nothing to the debate:P.

I'm actually adding a lot. You are just looking for me to give a definitive response which I won't because I'm not sure what I agree with. The only thing I fully disagree with and reason I've responded at all is the cavalier attitude.

Funny you should mention it, I was so paranoid about getting injured playing soccer that I stopped playing for 2 years until I could afford health insurance...If for example there was no treatment for a broken bone and I could potentially get a bad infection and die like back in the dark old days, If I had that information and could make an informed decision then You'd bet your ass I wouldn't play sports!!

Ickle Magoo

K-9 wrote: »

A bunch of cells with the potential of human life!

Anyway, don't want to drag it to OT, but I sense a need to define it as such by the more "pro choice" element and say sure science says so, how could it a "bunch of cells" be offensive, it's Fhact! It may offend some so personally I wouldn't use it, same as I wouldn't say "you are killing potential life". It just seems a higher standard is expected of one side of the debate.

Sure, but we are all just a bunch of cells. On a discussion about where in the grey mire life begins or takes on intrinsic value then specific terminology is required. Personally, I think calling anyone a baby-killer for not agreeing that life begins at conception or giving a foetus or embryo the same value as a full-term baby is just deliberately ignoring the crux to the whole complex issue in lieu of cheap emotional appeal.

iguana

K-9 wrote: »

A bunch of cells with the potential of human life!

Anyway, don't want to drag it to OT, but I sense a need to define it as such by the more "pro choice" element and say sure science says so, how could it a "bunch of cells" be offensive, it's Fhact! It may offend some so personally I wouldn't use it, same as I wouldn't say "you are killing potential life". It just seems a higher standard is expected of one side of the debate.

The fact that we evolved rather than were made of dust and ribs offends an awful lot of people. But quite frankly, tough! If people don't like facts, that's their own issue. Nobody is under any sort of social obligation to mince around with facts just because they don't suit someone else's agenda.

And the bunch of cells has very limited potential for human life, which is about as far away from my own personal agenda as you can get. Still doesn't change the facts though.

fatmammycat

Back in the good old sex free pre-abortion days, women with unwanted pregnancies often just killed the babies; often it wasn't even considered a crime.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/brizzlebornandbred/3411744452/