Abortion.

[tkhayes 126]

Royreader8812

Agreed, but at what point does that human growing inside her become valuable enough that she cannot decide to what she likes with his or her body. Legally or morally.

Her body and another body inside her body, as in two bodies.

That is the issue here

and you said as well

Quote

There are in fact an alarming number of people aborting viable, healthy human beings.

The 'alarming number' is statistically insignificant.

And 'your issue' is not necessarily 'the issue', it is one of the issues, part of the issue, as are so many other things. There is no one thing that makes the case.

However, in saying that, I still believe EVEN IF there are 'two humans' that fit your definition that the women holds the final decision and right and that NO entity can nor should take that right away fro her under ANY circumstances. Including the death of that fetus prior to it being born.

But as well, I am also quite comfortable with the current laws from Roe v Wade, allowing the 1/2 trimester and restricting the 3rd trimester. They seem to be adequate, they seem to be 'righteous' and like has been posted so many times, 3rd trimester abortions are rare and almost always due to a medical issue.

350 kids under 5 years old die in pools every year, we do not ban pools. We might tighten some regulations and build better safety equipment, but we are not clamoring for super strict regulations taking away your right to play in the water.

so many people die every year is so many ways from negligence to shit-ass bad luck. I am not seeing the basis for an argument that so strictly turns a woman into a walking uterine factory at some point based on 'law' and 'definitions' of what life is.

We barely know what life is already, and we certainly do not know what death is yet. So arguably there is no perfect solution, hence I would choose then to try not to define one. Or at least one that preserves the rights of the existing person, not the 'probably person'.

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

Hi Roy,

Quote

selfishly tend to care only about their own views

Quote

This is my view

Pot meet kettle.

You started this thread; now, it seems as though you do not like the results.

C'est la vie,

Jerry Baumchen

[Bob_Church 7]

"Fortunately, they do not have to understand it; the only really important opinions were your girlfriend's and her doctor's, who (with your support, which is important) decided to get an abortion. "

I wonder how feelings about abortion would have developed if it had stayed that way. What I mean is, I remember the run up to Roe vs Wade and the constant refrain was 'this is nobody's business but the woman's. No one else has anything to do with it so mind your own business." And within a clear and pull's time after becoming legal we got "oh, and you're going to pay for it, right?"
I'm not arguing against abortion, just wondering about the affect on those people who were told it was none of their business, then being handed the bill.

[normiss 622]

I think you're confusing pro-life with anti-abortion.
They are clearly not the same.

[wmw999 2,123]

The current standard in the US is that substantive impositions against ability to have an abortion are illegal in the first two trimesters. That maps reasonably well, though not completely, to viability. There are late second-trimester babies born who survive due to technology, and there are third trimester babies who don't.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[wolfriverjoe 1,341]

Bob_Church

"Fortunately, they do not have to understand it; the only really important opinions were your girlfriend's and her doctor's, who (with your support, which is important) decided to get an abortion. "

I wonder how feelings about abortion would have developed if it had stayed that way. What I mean is, I remember the run up to Roe vs Wade and the constant refrain was 'this is nobody's business but the woman's. No one else has anything to do with it so mind your own business." And within a clear and pull's time after becoming legal we got "oh, and you're going to pay for it, right?"
I'm not arguing against abortion, just wondering about the affect on those people who were told it was none of their business, then being handed the bill.

What are you talking about?

Abortions aren't paid for by the "taxpayers".

Do you know what the Hyde Amendment is?

There are a lot of insurance companies that won't cover them either.

https://www.aclu.org/other/public-funding-abortion

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[Bob_Church 7]

"Do you know what the Hyde Amendment is? "

I know that it limits FEDERAL money for abortions. It does not prevent states from funding them.

[billvon 2,400]

>Nice try, an 8 week old embryo at 1-2 cm is not developed enough to have thoughts.

I didn't say it did - I said it will. And there are millions of people out there who will condemn you for killing that potential human being, and will do so with as much anger and righteousness as you use to condemn people who perform late term abortions.

[rehmwa 2]

billvon

I am anti-abortion. However, I do not feel I have the right to impose my will on everyone else when it comes to who gets an abortion. In the end, it is up to the woman and her doctor.

Delete the red bits and this is me. (Just leap frogging off of Bill's note, nothing particularly confrontative, Bill, just a good post to leverage from)

1 - If I don't consider that I have the right to tell someone else what to do, then my personal opinion on the topic is interesting, but moot (so if I'm personally anti or not is not part of my position on laws that affect others and I think the statement is more powerful/defined if I don't add that either way - YMMV. And if my position is leave it up to the fetus bearer, then my personal position as a man is moot, I'll never have a fetus, so it's a bit "so what" position)

2 - Choice comes down to one person. So that's the woman. She can consult with whoever she wants. the might include the doctor, but it can also include her family, friends, total strangers, a mumbling bum on the bus.....whoever. Saying the woman 'and the doctor' does two things - it gives an illusion of respectability to the woman's choice - it may or may not be true, either way, it's moot. It gives the 'chooser' a feeling that she has partially divested herself of a choice that is 100% hers, not 50/50, not 90/10, but 100% then we are fooling ourselves and doing a disservice to the concept of personal freedom. the doctor is a service provider and has some info she 'should' get - fine. With authority HAS to come ownership of the results and consequences. that's what choice of all kinds means. Responsibility/choice always comes down to ONE person.

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/337667-responsibility-is-a-unique-concept-you-may-share-it-with

where I divert from the choice crowd mainly is I don't think we should pay for it. But that's not really a choice aspect, it's a generalize public health care issue. But don't let that stop people from trying to bundle up issues to make them more complicated to debate. - and I don't believe in sugar coating it (you are killing 'something' that very well would become a baby. suck it up, that's the choice - and I still believe it's up to the woman)

Abortion is a difficult and hightly subjective (Situational?) topic, as such, trying to legislate it or fit it into a box that applies to everyone is just wrong. As such, you have to leave that decision to the individual - and the best individual has to be the woman carrying the (fetus, baby, whatever you want to call it). Leaving choices to the individual is pretty much the right decision for so many topics....too bad government and nosy know-iot-all citizens don't respect the individual enough to let them.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[NewGuy2005 51]

wmw999

The current standard in the US is that substantive impositions against ability to have an abortion are illegal in the first two trimesters. That maps reasonably well, though not completely, to viability. There are late second-trimester babies born who survive due to technology, and there are third trimester babies who don't.

Wendy P.

There you go. That's nice and simple. On what date, in each and every pregnancy, does the fetus become a person that has rights?

While we are at it, what characteristics or criteria define that conversion from tissue to person?

[normiss 622]

The birth date.

[NewGuy2005 51]

normiss

The birth date.

Really?

[normiss 622]

Well if you want to get technical, some rights won't happen until the person turns 18, and again at 21, but in general, yes.
Unless they are killed because the mother is murdered, then they have some rights as well, depending on the state.

[ryoder 1,384]

normiss

Well if you want to get technical, some rights won't happen until the person turns 18, and again at 21, but in general, yes.
Unless they are killed because the mother is murdered, then they have some rights as well, depending on the state.

And don't forget it can't become president until age 35...even if it still has the brain of a 5 year old.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[NewGuy2005 51]

ryoder

***Well if you want to get technical, some rights won't happen until the person turns 18, and again at 21, but in general, yes.
Unless they are killed because the mother is murdered, then they have some rights as well, depending on the state.

And don't forget it can't become president until age 35...even if it still has the brain of a 5 year old.

There are some cases where abortion could be justified.

[billvon 2,400]

Quote

Choice comes down to one person. So that's the woman. She can consult with whoever she wants. the might include the doctor, but it can also include her family, friends, total strangers, a mumbling bum on the bus.....whoever.

Well, that mumbling bum on the bus can't perform an abortion. The woman needs a doctor to perform the abortion, and so the doctor needs to agree as well.

If abortions were easy and could be done by the woman then I would remove "and her doctor." Maybe they will be someday. But outside of RU-486 (which has very limited applicability) the woman will always need a doctor to get an abortion, and he has to agree to do it - so he has to be included.

[rehmwa 2]

billvon

Quote

Choice comes down to one person. So that's the woman. She can consult with whoever she wants. the might include the doctor, but it can also include her family, friends, total strangers, a mumbling bum on the bus.....whoever.

Well, that mumbling bum on the bus can't perform an abortion. The woman needs a doctor to perform the abortion, and so the doctor needs to agree as well.

If abortions were easy and could be done by the woman then I would remove "and her doctor." Maybe they will be someday. But outside of RU-486 (which has very limited applicability) the woman will always need a doctor to get an abortion, and he has to agree to do it - so he has to be included.

she can find another doctor willing if he legally is able to refuse - that's not my point about 'who chooses' - everything in that paragraph after the part you quoted goes into that...

I'd hope you understand what I mean by who is making the choice - not providing the procedure, not consulting, just the choice. By your argument, I can't say I choose to buy a candy bar, I have to say my choice to buy a candy bar is between me and my cashier.

If we want to talk about the 'between' part, well, HER choice is also 'between' whoever the heck she WANTS to include. Includes her doctor? yes, but anyone else she chooses. Maybe the confusion is I'm talking about the act of choosing itself, maybe you are talking about the procedure specifically.... then I get you ('doctor' being shorthand for the entire crew needed for the procedure)

'and my doctor' also, to me, is a bit isolatory to the woman as well, as if it devalues her options to consult with anyone else about HER decision.

The doctor is the service provider - her 'choice' is not his business, his is solely just whether or not he takes her business. She can "choose" how much to value his input - but input isn't a decision. Else we'd have to include the support staff, nurse, clerks, insurance, the pharmacist, etc etc etc as her choice is between (everything else needed to conduct the procedure).....

let's simplify it and say the choice is 100% hers, and no one should insert themselves into that choice without her invitation or agreement....for any reason

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 2,400]

>she can find another doctor willing if he legally is able to refuse . . .

Yes, she usually can. It is her choice to seek an abortion; she must then see a doctor who actually does it.

>I'd hope you understand what I mean by who is making the choice - not providing
>the procedure, not consulting, just the choice. By your argument, I can't say I
>choose to buy a candy bar, I have to say my choice to buy a candy bar is between
>me and my cashier.

Yes, you choose to get a candy bar. But if the guy won't sell you your favorite, you can just go to the next store. And if enough people won't sell you one, then you won't get your favorite; it becomes basically impossible. So while you make the choice, the cashier has something to say about whether you get to make that choice.

However, the relationship between doctor and patient is not the same as the relationship between you and the cashier. If the cashier lectured you about the risks of eating the candy bar, you'd probably get annoyed and walk out - which is why almost no cashiers do that. If he decided you were too fat to sell that candy bar to, same thing.

Doctors have a _responsibility_ to do all that. They have an obligation to point out the risks of any procedure a patient asks for, and also make the determination that they are in their right mind requesting it. So the doctor has a lot more to do with getting an abortion than that cashier does in getting you your candy bar.

That's why the decision is between a woman and her doctor. She may go in determined to have an abortion - but after hearing about the risks of the procedure, she may decide not to. She may go in asking about her options for an unwanted pregnancy, and come out determined to have an abortion, and then later come back and have it. She may come in to have one and the doctor might tell her that they can't in good conscience perform the procedure - in which case she leaves without the abortion. (And to your point she can then seek another doctor.)

In all cases the final decision is hers. But that decision gets made after input from a doctor, who (if he or she is doing their jobs) makes sure that decision is an informed one.

[rehmwa 2]

billvon

In all cases the final decision is hers.

we're on the same page - just emphasizing different things. though I still think the phrase is a calculated thing in itself - attempting to drive inferences that may or may not be true on a case basis



though why you want to belittle hard working American cashiers is sad...

Quote

But that decision gets made after input from a doctor, who (if he or she is doing their jobs) makes sure that decision is an informed one.

and whoever else she wants to consult - her decision

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Bob_Church 7]

"where I divert from the choice crowd mainly is I don't think we should pay for it. But that's not really a choice aspect, it's a generalize public health care issue. But don't let that stop people from trying to bundle up issues to make them more complicated to debate. - and I don't believe in sugar coating it (you are killing 'something' that very well would become a baby. suck it up, that's the choice - and I still believe it's up to the woman) "


There's a lot of legitimate worry that the 8% or so of federal money used for abortions will now dry up. De Blasio has vowed that if New York residents lose their federally funded abortions he'll pay for them out of the city's coffers.

[normiss 622]

Saying "suck it up" is dismissing an opposing view without consideration, it comes off as "I'm right, abortions are wrong and so are you".

IIRC, the only federally funded abortions are for rape, incest, and risk of life of the mother.
Why would you force any of those situations on another human?
You would actually prefer a woman dies to not have a procedure that you disagree with?
How about you just not have the procedure and leave everyone else to their own decisions?

I've always had trouble understanding why people that feel forcing their views on others through laws and legislation are so obsessed with what other people do with their own lives and bodies.

[Bob_Church 7]

Who are you responding to?

[Bob_Church 7]

"IIRC, the only federally funded abortions are for rape, incest, and risk of life of the mother."

The only openly federally funded abortions may fall into those categories but a lot of federal money goes to states who then use it to either fund abortions or to replace money that had been earmarked for something else.
I don't have a problem with this, but a lot of people do and they're now in a position to do something about it. Fortunately some people are doing more than just denying that it could happen.

[normiss 622]

Emotional tuppence, nothing more.

[Bob_Church 7]

normiss

Emotional tuppence, nothing more.

I prefer Locomotive Breath.