Abortion Discussion

Turtwig

Jan T. wrote: »

No more or less than in the case of siamese twins, as there are two patients not one. I don't see how being an adult confers special rights to kill a child. You don't kill one patient because another patient desires it so.

But can you force a patient to keep another patient alive? That's ultimately one of the issues here.

Jan T.

Jack Kyle wrote: »

A woman's right to do as she sees fit with her own body does not supercede a baby's right to life.

That's the salient point that the pro-choice lobby miss.

I don't think that gives people the right to kill a child

MrPudding

Jack Kyle wrote: »

A woman's right to do as she sees fit with her own body does not supercede a baby's right to life.

Fortunately, in most developed countries it does exactly that.

MrP

Jack Kyle

Jan T. wrote: »

I don't think that gives people the right to kill a child

Sorry, what?

My point is that they don't have the right to kill a child.

The mother and child both have rights.

Cabaal

Jan T. wrote: »

You treat both patients as best you can, but in the case of Savita they did not diagnose her condition correctly or remove the already non viable child in time.

If only it were so simple, but 95% of abortions in the UK and USA are carried out where there is no risk of life to the mother. So in 95% of abortion cases its not a justification. That's a lot of dead children that were killed and could be alive today.

I wasn't talking about savita,

In my real life example there was no two patients to treat either,

There was only one and that was the women, the pregnancy caused her death due to stresses on her body, this was something she knew was likely to happen after she got pregnant.

For the record she died, an avoidable death.

Cabaal

Jack Kyle wrote: »

A woman's right to do as she sees fit with her own body does not supercede a baby's right to life.

That's the salient point that the pro-choice lobby miss.

So, do you propose that all pregnant women be banned from
- smoking
- drinking
- eating fast food
Etc
?

These all have an affect on the fetus, they can also have very long term affects later in life.

Jack Kyle

Cabaal wrote: »

So, do you propose that all pregnant women be banned from
- smoking
- drinking
- eating fast food
Etc
?

These all have an affect on the fetus, they can also have very long term affects later in life.

That's a ludicrous argument.

A mother eating fast food and a mother systematically ending the life of her baby are clearly worlds apart.

It's akin to comparing letting your kids eat fast food and strangling them.

Frito

Jack Kyle wrote: »

A woman's right to do as she sees fit with her own body does not supercede a baby's right to life.

That's the salient point that the pro-choice lobby miss.

I'd be interested if you could point out the very conspicuous examples, excepting pregnancy, of people's organs being used to support the life of other people.

Cabaal

Jack Kyle wrote: »

That's a ludicrous argument.

A mother eating fast food and a mother systematically ending the life of her baby are clearly worlds apart.

It none the less has a impact on the fetus and baby if born,

I notice you've not mentioned the smoking and drinking points I included....Guess it suited your response to ignore them? if it helps I can also include drug use.

Enough drink or drugs could just as easily end a fetus life, even if it didn't it likely will affect growth and development.

If somebody plans on trying to drink or drug on that level I'd rather they have an abortion, life at any cost and on any level isn't ok in all cases I'm afraid.

Jack Kyle

Cabaal wrote: »

It none the less has a impact on the fetus and baby if born,

I notice you've not mentioned the smoking and drinking points I included....Guess it suited your response to ignore them? if it helps I can also include drug use.

Enough drink or drugs could just as easily end a fetus life, even if it didn't it likely will affect growth and development.

If somebody plans on trying to drink or drug on that level I'd rather they have an abortion, life at any cost and on any level isn't ok in all cases I'm afraid.

Not at all.

You're trying to contaminate what's a straightforward point with bizarre examples.

An expectant mother smoking or drinking and an expectant mother terminating the life of her baby aren't just worlds apart...they're galaxies apart.

Sarky

Jernal wrote: »

That's a nice rant but really you did nothing to address the point that you were replying to. Even if a person believes you can get sick from a computer virus it doesn't mean that a single viewpoint they have on virology is necessarily incorrect. Deal with the point, not the pointer. For the pedants, your post fell under the poisoning the well fallacy .

Ugh, fine.

Looking through all the tables on that page, there are a bunch of varied reasons given for the abortions mentioned. Most of reasons fall under "elective" or "unknown", which is a very poor base on which to make any assumptions as to why those abortions were sought. For the sake of brevity, let's just jump straight to the "compiled estimates". Of the "elective" category, which Mr. Johnson estimates as 87-99% of the total (I'm just going to assume he's done the numbers properly, because I have no desire to wade through all of them tonight), we have:

"too young/immature/not ready for responsibility":
This covers about a third of the number, and really, if one is going to claim that these reasons don't involve risk to the life of the woman, then I can stop now. Pregancy is dangerous at the best of times, and foisting it on someone who's physically/mentally too young or otherwise not emotionally equipped to handle it is going to lead to big increases in risk.


Then we have "economic", again about a third of the total. And again, this category includes risks to the life of the woman by its very nature. If you can't afford a kid and you have it anyway, at least one person is going to suffer for it. I suppose you could just have the whole family malnourished, that'd keep everyone happy, right?


Big drop then to 16% of people who said it was "to avoid adjusting life ". That's horrendously vague, isn't it? Covers everything from not being able to afford that third yacht to completely changing where you live, how you make a living, and whether you get treated like sh*t for being dirt poor. We'll be generous, and grant this as a valid "no risk to the life of the woman" reason.


"mother single or in poor relationship" at 12-13% is similarly vague. Ok, I'll admit there's no direct medical risk (aside from the various risks every pregnancy always includes), although forcing a child to live in an unhappy family isn't going to do anyone any favours. Let's throw that on the "no risk" pile for the sake of argument.


"enough children already" (4-8%) is again vague. Plenty of women who have enough children already because the next one is likely to kill them. We have a few on this very forum. They're not rare.

Finally, "sex selection" is a tiny percentage of a percentage (he does his best to speculate that it's way higher though), but I'll grant you, as reasons to seek an abortion go, it's pretty poor. Unless you're living in China, maybe, but let's assume not. Onto the "no risk" pile with it.



From those reasons, you can probably argue that at best, about 30-40% of these abortions that "pose no risk to the life of the woman" are genuinely so. The rest? Way too vague to infer anything concrete. The stats just aren't good enough. Wrong questions asked, not enough clarity, loads of overlap between several categories, you'd want a way more qualified statistician to even think of using most of these numbers to make any solid claims. To cherry pick 95% and claim none of those cases posed a risk to the health of the woman is pretty disingenuous, to put it mildly.

Conclusion: These stats are blurry enough to let you prove almost anything you want. They are a poor source for anyone. I don't know why anyone would use that site for anything besides astronomy resources, and even then, I don't think I'd give much credence to an astronomy PhD who laments the demotion of Pluto. There's buggerall on the site that isn't opinion piece or vague. When you can do a decent job refuting statistics on abortion with those same statistics, something has gone wrong. I'd discount it when looking for credible statistics. The WHO are probably a better bet.

Jack Kyle

Frito wrote: »

I'd be interested if you could point out the very conspicuous examples, excepting pregnancy, of people's organs being used to support the life of other people.

What are you referring to...Siamese twins or something?

iwantmydinner

I have a quick question for Jack Kyle and Jan T. (and anyone else who cares to add their two cents):

When a woman finds herself pregnant, approximately how much of her bodily autonomy does she lose, would you say?

None of it, some of it, a large portion of it...? Is it possible to put a percentage on how much she loses?

And if she does lose some or all of her bodily autonomy, when does she get it back?

Frito

How many cases exist of one conjoined twin being fifteen plus years older than the other?

Jack Kyle

iwantmydinner wrote: »

I have a quick question for Jack Kyle and Jan T. (and anyone else who cares to add their two cents):

When a woman finds herself pregnant, approximately how much of her bodily autonomy does she lose, would you say?

None of it, some of it, a large portion of it...? Is it possible to put a percentage on how much she loses?

And if she does lose some or all of her bodily autonomy, when does she get it back?

She just doesn't have the right to murder the child inside her. Its life is human life and must be protected. Some people might feel annoyed about men sticking their oar in but the baby has nobody to fight for his/her rights other than pro-lifers.

iwantmydinner

Jack Kyle wrote: »

She just doesn't have the right to murder the child inside her. Its life is human life and must be protected. Some people might feel annoyed about men sticking their oar in but the baby has nobody to fight for his/her rights other than pro-lifers.

I'm clear on your views on abortion.

My question was fairly specific, if you'd like to address it?

Jack Kyle

iwantmydinner wrote: »

I'm clear on your views on abortion.

My question was fairly specific, if you'd like to address it?

Your question is far from specific. It's ludicrous.

I would have thought that she loses no autonomy - She just can't systematically murder the child inside her.

How does one put a percentage on that?

This comes back to the salient point re abortion - A woman's right to autonomy in respect of her body does not supercede or override a baby's right to life.

aloyisious

@Jan T & Jack Kyle: when do you believe the child begin's? is it at the zygote, blastocyst, enbryo, foetus stage, or even later, at the baby-stage after birth?

When do you believe that the above nascent being (for want of a better word) forming up inside a woman's womb get's to have equal, or more, rights than that of it's host (which already has stated and recognized rights)?

Brian Shanahan

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You failed.

No suprise there. He always fails.

Sierra 117

Jack Kyle wrote: »

A woman's right to autonomy in respect of her body does not supercede or override a baby's right to life.

A lot of people feel differently.

gaynorvader

Jack Kyle wrote: »

...
This comes back to the salient point re abortion - A woman's right to autonomy in respect of her body does not supercede or override a baby's right to life.

What, in your opinion, should be the punishment for a woman having an illegal abortion?

Jack Kyle

aloyisious wrote: »

@Jan T & Jack Kyle: when do you believe the child begin's? is it at the zygote, blastocyst, enbryo, foetus stage, or even later, at the baby-stage after birth?

When do you believe that the above nascent being (for want of a better word) forming up inside a woman's womb get's to have equal, or more, rights than that of it's host (which already has stated and recognized rights)?

That is a tough question.

What percentage of each of the above are viable human beings.

I would think sometime in the embryo or foetus stages.

Jack Kyle

Sierra 117 wrote: »

A lot of people feel differently.

Which is why I feel that other people must "speak out" regarding the babies' rights.

jill_valentine

Jack Kyle wrote: »

I would have thought that she loses no autonomy

Then you haven't thought very hard about what a pregnancy is.

Jan T.

aloyisious wrote: »

@Jan T & Jack Kyle: when do you believe the child begin's? is it at the zygote, blastocyst, enbryo, foetus stage, or even later, at the baby-stage after birth?

When do you believe that the above nascent being (for want of a better word) forming up inside a woman's womb get's to have equal, or more, rights than that of it's host (which already has stated and recognized rights)?

Human life begins at conception and ends at death, and if you kill a human life at any point between, it ceases to exist. No one has a superiour right to life over another, it's an equal right to life, whatever your age happens to be.

Jack Kyle

gaynorvader wrote: »

What, in your opinion, should be the punishment for a woman having an illegal abortion?

Again, a tough question.

On balance, I think that it's the illegal termination of another being's life...on that basis you'd have to be talking about the usual sanction for that...custodial sentence etc.

Jack Kyle

jill_valentine wrote: »

Then you haven't thought very hard about what a pregnancy is.

You've selectively quoted my post.

What autonomy does she lose?

Frito

Jack Kyle wrote: »

What are you referring to...Siamese twins or something?

I'd like to come back to this. My opinion would be that conjoined twins have equal rights to said organs due to their fraternal relationship, neither can claim ownership over and above the other.
In the case of pregnancy, a woman can claim prior ownership of her organs.
If your argument of the right to life superseding all other rights, then why aren't we all being forced to donate a kidney to those who need them? Sure we have two of them.

Nodin

Jack Kyle wrote: »

You've selectively quoted my post.

What autonomy does she lose?

....control over her womb. Being subject to the effects of pregnancy involuntarily.

iwantmydinner

Jack Kyle wrote: »

Your question is far from specific. It's ludicrous.

I would have thought that she loses no autonomy - She just can't systematically murder the child inside her.

How does one put a percentage on that?

This comes back to the salient point re abortion - A woman's right to autonomy in respect of her body does not supercede or override a baby's right to life.

Well, to be a pedant about it, if she loses none of her autonomy, then its very easy to put a percentage on it (i.e., 0%).

But the thing is, if the foetus' right to life completely overrides the pregnant woman's right to exercise bodily autonomy (by preventing her from removing the unwanted foetus from her uterus), then how can you say her right to bodily autonomy is 100% intact?