abortion

concerro · Post by **concerro** » Sat Sep 11, 2004 9:39 am

Is it right that a woman can terminate a pregnancy without the father's consent even if her life is not endangered by the pregnancy but if the father does not want the child and the woman wants to keep it he cant do anything

Nyril · Post by **Nyril** » Sun Jun 12, 2005 10:40 pm

The consequences need not be those.

That's exactly my point. In the pro-life society where you suffer the consequences, they absolutely must be those otherwise you're getting out of them.

Maybe in the first case, if you were a wreckless hiker, you would have to pay a heavy fine to help cover the cost to society of expensive mountain rescue operations involving helicopters and other public resources. In the second case, maybe your health care premium would increase. (In the third case you're not wasting common resources).

You go on to list all of the things that could happen in my pro-choice society, but we're in a society where you have to live with the consequences of everything, remember?

Still think the system stinks?

Yes.

Dilettante · Post by **Dilettante** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 3:47 am

Nyril and steen:

The alternatives are not necessarily an "anything goes" system versus a "no treatment for you" system. That would be a false dilemma. But I think having to face some sort of consequences for our wrong decisions is absolutely essential for a healthy society. How dire the consequences should be probably should vary according to the particular circumstances. As an analogy, consider that when somebody kills somebody else, his/her punishment depends on the circumstances (intentionality, premeditation, etc). How else are we going to teach people to behave responsibly?

Perhaps a system where abortion was always punished severely (prison terms, etc) regardless of the circumstances would suck, but a system where no limits were established other than the will of the mother would be disastrous.

Lycan · Post by **Lycan** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 9:36 am

ST88 - That's a bit much to expect, isn't it? Assuming consequences means second-guessing everything you do. The impulse is the first thing that enters into your head. But we are conditioned to trust the impulse rather then count to ten and take a look at our choices. And I'm not talking exclusively about the media. Baby Boomer angst has created a class of children whose base motives are similar to the acquisition insitinct in the amboeba. Mine mine mine. I am here because I want to be here, not because I have a responsibility to be here.

I do not believe so... I am not talking about second guessing everything you do. If one thinks of what could happen in a given situation before the situation occurs they are not as apt to give in to certain impulses... Example. I was a virgin until 2 weeks before I was married because I knew I was not ready to have a baby and did not want a STD. Now, I had numerous impulsive moments up until that point, but knew what may happen if I gave in. It is not impossible, or too much to ask for people to think.

ST88 - There are too many irresponsible people to ignore, and there are too many signals that irresponsibility is a virtue to be strived for. Sure, it's like putting a bucket underneath a leak in the roof instead of fixing the roof, but you can't fix the roof while it's raining.

I agree, but why give them easy outs? Why not educate?

ST88 - You're right, I guess I was assuming that. I apologize. You get into a certain "groove" debating these things, and assumptions creep in while you aren't looking. I hope I didn't cause offense

I am not offended. I understand completely. I have done the same myself.

ST88 - But I don't think you can say that restricting access to legal abortion is a deterrent for irresponsible sex any more than the death penalty is a deterrent for murder. The consequence is just too far off and coldly clinical to override the immediate impulse. Lust is a very powerful motivator, more powerful than the conscious mind can handle.

I am not suggesting that illegalization of abortion be used as a deterrent. I believe in the illegaliztion of abortion because it is wrong... The only thing I can see for a deterrent for irresponsible sex is education... with self responsibility and self control being a few of the primary issues.

ST88 - If we are to assume that the father will automatically receive the resulting child, we should also be ready to assume that the father's right to the fetus would supercede the mother's right to do with her body as she wishes. This means that the court could side with the father if the mother is diagnosed with a condition whose treatment would conflict with the survival of the fetus. The court could also side with the father if the mother is faced with loss of employment due to her pregnancy. She could also be charged with homicide if something goes wrong with the pregnancy -- whether intentional or unintentional (motivation is hard to determine). The court could side with the father to force the mother to undergo surgery for any reason the court determines will protect the integrity of the fetus. In effect, the woman is powerless over her own body. You seem to be arguing that she is getting what was coming to her. But I would argue that the father does not have the right to exert this kind of control using the court as a proxy.

I will admit that there are millions of "if" scenerios, but as you are putting it, every single scenerio would be won only by the father. I am not saying this... I admit fully that the woman will have to go through more physically than the man, and that is life, but that does not mean that every single situation will end in the father full out winning every court battle involving a pregnancy...

Steen -
No different than smoking can end up with cancer surgery.

It is very different... if I have cancer and seek treatment it only involves my life or death if it should succeed or fail. In pregnancy the life of another is also involved. Cancer treatment is hardly a quick fix, not to mention, pregnancy is not a disease.

Steen - So we are legislating "responsibility" by forcing people to give up decision-making and control over their own bodies? That's like slavery.

First off, it would be the loss of one decision, not all, and that is hardly slavery... Secondly, it is not only their bodies...

Steen - Like smokers getting surgery to remove the tumor?

I addressed this above - it is a bad analogy...

Steen - Is it societal "coddling" to allow medical treatment of the unwanted outcomes of people's own actions?

Actually if the rest of the sentence had been address the context would be correct. Abortion is the easy out addressed in the other part of the sentence.... abortion is as much a "medical treatment" as a breast enlargement...

Nyril - I want to go off hiking by myself and become lost. Under your system, I would die as you've determined rescue teams would be preventing me from the consequences.

I hug a girl I know has the flu, because she's feeling depressed that nobody will be around her (because of the flu). Under your system, I cannot receive any sort of medical treatment, because that would be dealing with the consequences.

When I change my oil, I drop the plug into the vat of oil and have to fish it out with my fingers. Under your system, I can't wash my hands because that would be denying me the consequences of my actions.

So out of everything I have said, this is all you got out of it??? OK, let me explain again... I am talking about not taking responsibility for our decisions. Obviously by your post you do not understand that concept... getting help or treatment for an injury, preventative hygiene, treatment of illness, those things have nothing to do with what I am talking about...

Steen -
Not in a pro-choice society, yes. But in the society where you have to "suffer the consequenses," you would indeed not be able to seek help for things that ails you if you in any way had a hand in the outcome.

This is rediculous. No one has said anything about not being able to receive help. But help does not always come in a neatly wrapped package and why should it be worry free and easy? I guess it is just all about how those evil pro-lifers want to take all your rights away... it isn't always about that.

Steen - And in the case of an unwanted pregnancy, you can pay for the medical care needed to restore you to your pre-pregnant self. Not so in a "pro-life" world, where you can not be helped because you have to "face the consequenses

Because of course it is just so much easier to kill and be done with it than to actually be responsible... Oh, and there are those horrid pro-lifers again...

and the rest of your post isn't worth acknowledgement beyond this sentence...

steen · Post by **steen** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 6:53 pm

Dilettante wrote:Nyril and steen:

The alternatives are not necessarily an "anything goes" system versus a "no treatment for you" system. That would be a false dilemma.

However, you need to admit that in a "you must suffer the consequences" universe, the treatments you listed earlier would not be allowed. Right?

But I think having to face some sort of consequences for our wrong decisions is absolutely essential for a healthy society.

So what are the "consequences" you must suffer for smoking? And you also have yet to show that sex is a "wrong" decision, regardless of whether unwanted pregnancies result or not. Because that is not at all clear either.

How dire the consequences should be probably should vary according to the particular circumstances. As an analogy, consider that when somebody kills somebody else, his/her punishment depends on the circumstances (intentionality, premeditation, etc). How else are we going to teach people to behave responsibly?

Ah, "responsible" teaching through legislation? What are we going to do to those who eat irresponsible? Do we treat or not? That angina/chest pain from mostly-clogged arteries, do we treat them or not?

And I find it interesting that your analogy is to an illegal act. Do you have something with perhaps better relevance and not so insulting as a comparison?

Perhaps a system where abortion was always punished severely (prison terms, etc) regardless of the circumstances would suck,...

"perhaps"? Only "perhaps"? Are you at all in doubt that such a system would suck?

but a system where no limits were established other than the will of the mother would be disastrous.

Why? because you say so? What is "disastrous" about it? That some abortions will occur? I hope you are not going for the silly "continuation of the species" stuff.

steen · Post by **steen** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 7:24 pm

Lycan wrote:
Steen -
No different than smoking can end up with cancer surgery.
It is very different... if I have cancer and seek treatment it only involves my life or death if it should succeed or fail. In pregnancy the life of another is also involved.

There is no "another;" there is an "it." That you assume differently in no way makes it so. Your "because I say so" is merely an opinion, not a facts.

Cancer treatment is hardly a quick fix, not to mention, pregnancy is not a disease.

But both are unwanted outcomes of voluntary activities, both treatable through legal medical procedures.

Steen - So we are legislating "responsibility" by forcing people to give up decision-making and control over their own bodies? That's like slavery.
First off, it would be the loss of one decision, not all, and that is hardly slavery...

If you say to somebody that you are going to take control over how their bodily resources are used the next 9 months, then that very much is slavery.

Secondly, it is not only their bodies...

Yes it is.

Steen - Like smokers getting surgery to remove the tumor?
I addressed this above - it is a bad analogy...

Ah, just because you say so, right? From where my argument originates, it is a perfect analogy.

Steen - Is it societal "coddling" to allow medical treatment of the unwanted outcomes of people's own actions?
Actually if the rest of the sentence had been address the context would be correct. Abortion is the easy out addressed in the other part of the sentence....

Like cancer surgery is the easy way out of facing cancer. Yes, we already addressed that. Now, is the "easy way out" also wrong?

abortion is as much a "medical treatment" as a breast enlargement...

And as much as cancer surgery is a "medical treatment." And as much as appendectomy is a "medical treatment."

Nyril - I want to go off hiking by myself and become lost. Under your system, I would die as you've determined rescue teams would be preventing me from the consequences.

I hug a girl I know has the flu, because she's feeling depressed that nobody will be around her (because of the flu). Under your system, I cannot receive any sort of medical treatment, because that would be dealing with the consequences.

When I change my oil, I drop the plug into the vat of oil and have to fish it out with my fingers. Under your system, I can't wash my hands because that would be denying me the consequences of my actions.
So out of everything I have said, this is all you got out of it??? OK, let me explain again... I am talking about not taking responsibility for our decisions. Obviously by your post you do not understand that concept...

We understand how YOU present it. No need to get nasty. YOU are saying that if your own act has an unwanted outcome, you are not allowed to take action to rectify it to your own liking because you then are not "facing the consequenses." That is very clear from your post. You are saying that not "facing the consequenses" is wrong, and you should be forced to do so. It is all right there in your post.

getting help or treatment for an injury, preventative hygiene, treatment of illness, those things have nothing to do with what I am talking about...

Yes it does. Getting help in treating an unwanted outcome of your action has everything to do with it.

Steen -
Not in a pro-choice society, yes. But in the society where you have to "suffer the consequenses," you would indeed not be able to seek help for things that ails you if you in any way had a hand in the outcome.
This is rediculous.

No, it is what was in your post (I think it was yours, anyway). That you have not thought it through and pondered all the consequenses of your plan is not our fault.

No one has said anything about not being able to receive help.

So you are not going to restrict help to treat an unwanted pregnancy according to best medical practices. We appreciate your conversion to pro-choice.

But help does not always come in a neatly wrapped package and why should it be worry free and easy?

why should it NOT be as worry free and easy as possible. Are you saying that we are to use withholding of treatment and making treatment more difficult as "punishment" for not living up to your particular beliefs about what is moral or not?

I guess it is just all about how those evil pro-lifers want to take all your rights away... it isn't always about that.

Well, per your other remark about not making it easy, it kind of is turning out to be just that.

Steen - And in the case of an unwanted pregnancy, you can pay for the medical care needed to restore you to your pre-pregnant self. Not so in a "pro-life" world, where you can not be helped because you have to "face the consequenses
Because of course it is just so much easier to kill and be done with it than to actually be responsible...

There is that "responsible" again. It also is easier to have your lung tumor removed than to be "responsible" and face the consequenses of your smoking. Your argument hasnt changed, and thus it is still about you wanting to punish others for not living up to your views and beliefs.

Should we really legislate beliefs and morality like that? In that case, I of course get to impose my morality on you as well. Would you like that?

Oh, and there are those horrid pro-lifers again...

and the rest of your post isn't worth acknowledgement beyond this sentence...

Your derisive snideness is duly noted, lending to the conclusion that you are all about hyperbolic revisionist linguistics and impose your particular brand of slavery on women, while refusing to justify this with anything but "because I say so." That's rather lame on a discussion board and is highly uncivil to boot.

ST88 · Post by **ST88** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:59 am

Lycan wrote:If one thinks of what could happen in a given situation before the situation occurs they are not as apt to give in to certain impulses... Example. I was a virgin until 2 weeks before I was married because I knew I was not ready to have a baby and did not want a STD. Now, I had numerous impulsive moments up until that point, but knew what may happen if I gave in. It is not impossible, or too much to ask for people to think.

I'm glad that you were able to act in what you felt was an appropriate way. It must have been difficult for you. But I think you're suffering from an error in generalization -- i.e., what's good for me must be good for you. You must know that there are many decisions that we all make on a daily basis, and that we don't always make the right ones, and we shouldn't expect that everyone will make the right ones all the time, either. No matter how many lectures you give on why it's important to stay away from sex, no matter how many threats or punishments you put in front of people, they're going to do it. And your self-control notwithstanding, I don't think many people would be so clear-headed.

Lycan wrote:ST88 - There are too many irresponsible people to ignore, and there are too many signals that irresponsibility is a virtue to be strived for. Sure, it's like putting a bucket underneath a leak in the roof instead of fixing the roof, but you can't fix the roof while it's raining.

I agree, but why give them easy outs? Why not educate?

We must educate, yes, I totally agree. But education won't be enough.

Lycan wrote:ST88 - If we are to assume that the father will automatically receive the resulting child, we should also be ready to assume that the father's right to the fetus would supercede the mother's right to do with her body as she wishes. This means that the court could side with the father if the mother is diagnosed with a condition whose treatment would conflict with the survival of the fetus. The court could also side with the father if the mother is faced with loss of employment due to her pregnancy. She could also be charged with homicide if something goes wrong with the pregnancy -- whether intentional or unintentional (motivation is hard to determine). The court could side with the father to force the mother to undergo surgery for any reason the court determines will protect the integrity of the fetus. In effect, the woman is powerless over her own body. You seem to be arguing that she is getting what was coming to her. But I would argue that the father does not have the right to exert this kind of control using the court as a proxy.

I will admit that there are millions of "if" scenerios, but as you are putting it, every single scenerio would be won only by the father. I am not saying this... I admit fully that the woman will have to go through more physically than the man, and that is life, but that does not mean that every single situation will end in the father full out winning every court battle involving a pregnancy...

That wasn't my point. My point was that in each of the above "if" scenarios, the father has the right to dictate what kind of life the mother will lead. And these aren't just isolated cases picked out of nowhere. These situations logically follow under the "father knows best" strategy and the mother will be treated like a broodmare for the extent of her pregnancy. I don't believe this is true in reverse. Only the father can have this kind of control over the mother, not the other way around.

And, like you say, life isn't fair. The woman will always get the short stick in this situation. Examine why society has seen fit to have more different ways for a woman to use contraception than for a man. Is this because men are designing contraceptives? Or is it because woman have a special responsibility for avoiding sex, like a 70s bad afterschool special? Perhaps women should wear burqas so that those uncontrollable men won't be overcome with lust.

Lycan · Post by **Lycan** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 9:47 am

Your derisive snideness is duly noted, lending to the conclusion that you are all about hyperbolic revisionist linguistics and impose your particular brand of slavery on women, while refusing to justify this with anything but "because I say so." That's rather lame on a discussion board and is highly uncivil to boot.

ok, for a good half hour I was writing a reply to your last post and came to the realization that no matter what I say you will continue to refuse to actually see what I am saying. I have decided to only address the above. Everything else in your post has been addressed in my previous post and am being anti-redundate.

As far as my "snideness" goes, Hello pot, meet kettle....

Steen - What, you mean that you are allowed treatment? How un-prolife that you don't have to "take responsibility" for your own actions!

But you are not allowed to do anything to rectify the situation either? Would you like to wash your hands? Well, then you get to avoid the consequenses, so we can't have that, can we now?

I am sure I can find more but don't want to take the time.

The "because I say so" thing.... and you base your arguement on??? I am debating a point on my opinion, yes, but if you look around my dear, we all are. How many hard core facts have come out in this thread? Abortion is a subjective issue whether you want to acknowlegde that or not. That does not mean my point is not valid.

As for the rest, you really should read your own posts before you refer to anything being lame and uncivil.

Lycan · Post by **Lycan** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 10:21 am

I'm glad that you were able to act in what you felt was an appropriate way. It must have been difficult for you. But I think you're suffering from an error in generalization -- i.e., what's good for me must be good for you. You must know that there are many decisions that we all make on a daily basis, and that we don't always make the right ones, and we shouldn't expect that everyone will make the right ones all the time, either. No matter how many lectures you give on why it's important to stay away from sex, no matter how many threats or punishments you put in front of people, they're going to do it. And your self-control notwithstanding, I don't think many people would be so clear-headed.

I am not saying that people don't make mistakes. I am also not saying no one should ever receive help when they make those mistakes. Maybe I am idealistic in that I think people should think... Maybe I am asking too much for people to use common sense... but one thing I will stand behind is that an innocent person should not have to die because of that. Humans amaze me, how we can be so smart, yet so stupid all at the same time...

Abstention is not what I am avocating...

We must educate, yes, I totally agree. But education won't be enough.

As a solution no, but as a deterrent I believe it is a start.

That wasn't my point. My point was that in each of the above "if" scenarios, the father has the right to dictate what kind of life the mother will lead.

Not necessarily, but if so only for a few months.

And these aren't just isolated cases picked out of nowhere. These situations logically follow under the "father knows best" strategy and...

I disagree, if the mothers life is in danger, why is it assumed the father would win? or if there is the treatment needed as you suggested, why again is it assumed the father would win?

...the mother will be treated like a broodmare for the extent of her pregnancy

For the most part pregnancy is maybe a month and a half of discomfort. It is not some horrid affliction that includes 9 months of suffering... and fully worth a potential 70ish years of life.

ST88 · Post by **ST88** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 7:32 pm

Lycan wrote:I am not saying that people don't make mistakes. I am also not saying no one should ever receive help when they make those mistakes. Maybe I am idealistic in that I think people should think... Maybe I am asking too much for people to use common sense... but one thing I will stand behind is that an innocent person should not have to die because of that.

What do you do with someone like me, who does not see the fetus in the first trimester (and a little beyond) as a person? This is a completely different topic, but how do you reconcile the idea that there are people who do not recongize the blastula or the embryo as yet a person? They do not believe that abortion is murder. Again, setting aside the actual definitions in this case, do you assert your right to be correct about this beyond the rights of those others who define it differently?

Lycan wrote:Humans amaze me, how we can be so smart, yet so stupid all at the same time...

Not stupid, perhaps. Just careless.

Lycan wrote:
That wasn't my point. My point was that in each of the above "if" scenarios, the father has the right to dictate what kind of life the mother will lead.

Not necessarily, but if so only for a few months.
...the mother will be treated like a broodmare for the extent of her pregnancy
For the most part pregnancy is maybe a month and a half of discomfort. It is not some horrid affliction that includes 9 months of suffering... and fully worth a potential 70ish years of life.

Have you ever known anyone who has had a difficult pregnancy? Myself, I have. The mother can suffer horrific complications, from diabetes to pre-eclampsia. Being pregnant means accepting the possible conditions, complications, and just plain pain that is associated with it.

Lycan wrote:
And these aren't just isolated cases picked out of nowhere. These situations logically follow under the "father knows best" strategy and...

I disagree, if the mothers life is in danger, why is it assumed the father would win? or if there is the treatment needed as you suggested, why again is it assumed the father would win?

If it was determined in an earlier hearing that the father has the right to the fetus, then it becomes not just medically necessary to preserve the pregnancy, but also legally necessary. The standard of proof for maintaining the pregnancy changes once the law gets involved.

Consider the situation of the woman who has lupus. She fears complications and so wishes the abortion. The father then asserts his right to the fetus. Since it is possible and "normal" for a woman who has lupus to successfully complete a pregnancy (50% chance), there is a good chance that the court will side with the father. What does the court say when the woman has a flare up of her lupus symptoms and needs a medication that will undoubtedly harm the fetus? She won't die from the flare up, but she will be suffering intense pain and loss of motion in her joints unless she gets the treatment. This is an extreme case -- a "what if," if you will -- but I think it's indicative of the legal morass that this subject brings up. How much suffering is too much? How many months is too many for the woman to be suffering in this way? At what risk to the mother does the pregnancy continue, a 5% chance of death? 10%? 25%?

Again, the father has no medical exposure. But he would win because he has the law behind him. In effect, he has "guardianship" of the fetus, and is expected to do everything he can to see that no harm comes to it in the same way that we would expect someone to do everything they could to see that no harm would come to an actual child.

steen · Post by **steen** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 8:09 pm

Lycan wrote:ok, for a good half hour I was writing a reply to your last post and came to the realization that no matter what I say you will continue to refuse to actually see what I am saying.

TRANSLATION: The prolife argument is not good enough, so I won't deal with it, or how it exposes the poor idea of my original claim.

As for the rest, you really should read your own posts before you refer to anything being lame and uncivil.

Really? Disagreeing with you is lame and uncivil?