Let's Talk About: Abortion

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by peter12

How about nobody gets to draw a line around this issue and we allow women to make the decision for themselves without judgement in the privacy of a doctor's office?

This is what I'm generally in favour of but he asked what point I would see a fetus as a person and that's sort of the area I'm at. Luckily it's not a situation I've ever or will ever find myself in.

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Yeah, I'm just asking why you want to draw the line at heartbeat? What is it about a heartbeat that contains essential qualities of personhood that other organs/vital signs don't?

Seemed like a good place to draw the line, perhaps emotional. I'd say any sort of neurological function would also be a better line.

Originally Posted by peter12

How about nobody gets to draw a line around this issue and we allow women to make the decision for themselves without judgement in the privacy of a doctor's office?

God I hate this argument. It's all the left pushes. LET THE WOMEN DECIDE. Well guess what, this isn't your life you're taking, its the unborn's, so we damn well better have some guidelines on cut-off points and then, sure, within that, leave it to the woman and her doctor.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by rubecube

This is what I'm generally in favour of but he asked what point I would see a fetus as a person and that's sort of the area I'm at. Luckily it's not a situation I've ever or will ever find myself in.

I'm not sure that I see it is a strict delineation and I believe that once we start focusing on what makes a person, we fall into a very ugly type of argument with all kinds of holes for eugenicists and their ilk to crawl in and out of.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Ducay

Seemed like a good place to draw the line, perhaps emotional. I'd say any sort of neurological function would also be a better line.



God I hate this argument. It's all the left pushes. LET THE WOMEN DECIDE. Well guess what, this isn't your life you're taking, its the unborn's, so we damn well better have some guidelines on cut-off points and then, sure, within that, leave it to the woman and her doctor.

The guidelines aren't necessary. They already exist within the medical community.

[rubecube]

EDIT: Nm, crude analogy.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Ducay

God I hate this argument. It's all the left pushes. LET THE WOMEN DECIDE. Well guess what, this isn't your life you're taking, its the unborn's, so we damn well better have some guidelines on cut-off points and then, sure, within that, leave it to the woman and her doctor.

Aren't you glad that your wife chose to have your child and there wasn't a bureaucrat telling you under what circumstances that child would allow to be born?

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by zamler

That's not definitive either, define immediate. I think you see where I'm going with this as I said a consensus will never happen. What will continue to happen is the issue will be a never ending political football.

There is actually a statistically significant consensus on this. 26 weeks is probably actually closer to what the number should be however, as that's where certain defects are least likely to occur.

I recommend reading Expecting Better by Emily Oster for a good comprehensive analysis and compendium of study around the issue.

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by rubecube

So are you also against DNRs or pulling the plug on someone as long as they have a hearbeat and some signs of brain activity?

Fuccccc lets not go on that tangent. I'm far too unqualified.

Originally Posted by peter12

The guidelines aren't necessary. They already exist within the medical community.

So the guidelines aren't needed because there are guidelines?

[zamler]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I think what Psycnet posted is a good start. Can the fetus survive on its own outside the mother's womb? I think it's also an argument that fails to grasp the realities of the situation. How many people find out they're pregnant and then wait months before finally deciding to have an abortion if it's not something that is medically-related?

I don't know. I do know that using abortion as a form of contraception is at best irresponsible it's not unheard of for a woman to have had 3-4 abortions before they are 21 years old.

On the notion that men should have zero say I strongly disagree with this, once a baby is born a man is instantly held accountable for child support but somehow has no say on abortion?

[AFireInside]

I really don't understand why this is so difficult. If I'm not mistaken they generally aren't done after 20 - 22 weeks. So keep that timeframe.

That's it.

If you want to be pro life great you do what you feel is right. Everyone else can also make their own decision.

I'm pro choice, the best part about being pro-choice is that I'm ok with someone's decision to not do it or to do it if they feel the need.

Pro lifers can keep being pro life and not get an abortion.

How is this so tough?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Ducay

Fuccccc lets not go on that tangent. I'm far too unqualified.

Yeah, I'm rescinding the question. Too many different variables to be a like-for-like analogy.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by zamler

I don't know. I do know that using abortion as a form of contraception is at best irresponsible it's not unheard of for a woman to have had 3-4 abortions before they are 21 years old.

On the notion that men should have zero say I strongly disagree with this, once a baby is born a man is instantly held accountable for child support but somehow has no say on abortion?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by zamler

On the notion that men should have zero say I strongly disagree with this, once a baby is born a man is instantly held accountable for child support but somehow has no say on abortion?

Because forcing someone to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term at the behest of someone else is pretty much reproductive slavery.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Do the non-religious believe in souls?

Sure, why not? When does a fetus begin learning? Gaining "intelligence"?

I actually think it's pretty easy for people to find common ground on this issue, there's just arguments over extremes and misconceptions that make people think they disagree.

Let's take the most extreme possible example. A perfectly healthy woman with a solid support system decides late in her pregnancy she does not want to have the child and is invoking her right to choose. Her reason is moot. It does not matter. She will have this abortion with or without our help and we need to first and foremost recognize that as a reality. So, yes there probably do need laws based around this (SUPER RIDICULOUSLY UNLIKELY SCENARIO) should it ever actually arise. What should we, as a state, do? I would say have her undergo an emergency c-section and do everything possible to keep both parties as healthy as possible, and then give the child up for adoption. This is really her only choice, unless she wants to carry it to full term and then give it up for adoption, which if she had access to proper healthcare and medical advice would probably be suggested and what would happen.

Now, there are two questions here. 1) If that child dies, was a crime committed and by who? 2) Is this a situation that happens?
I'm pretty sure the answer to 2 is no, pretty much never. So is the answer to number 1 relevant?

Originally Posted by zamler

I don't know. I do know that using abortion as a form of contraception is at best irresponsible it's not unheard of for a woman to have had 3-4 abortions before they are 21 years old.

Okay I think this is an important point to address, because it's one of these extreme cases that people get caught up on. If abortion is free and readily available, will there be people that do this? Yes. Probably. Like a few. You'd probably hear about it because it's crazy. Much crazier than the thousands of other cases where it helped everyone involved, including you as a taxpayer (which, however abhorrent you may find it, so did those 3-4. They prevented 3-4 children from being born into situations where they would continue to be a drain on society and likely have very little chance of breaking a similar cycle). There will always be outliers taking advantage of a system. If a person is have multiple abortions they have more problems than that, and offering them a full support system for whatever health issues they may be having is the best way to prevent further instances.

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Because forcing someone to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term at the behest of someone else is pretty much reproductive slavery.

It's always an easy argument to make when you make it about the woman. But again, I'll caution there is an unborn fetus there that doesn't have a voice in the matter, and thus, needs the laws on gestational age to protect it at a certain point. This thread is basically to discuss that point.

Originally Posted by AFireInside

I really don't understand why this is so difficult. If I'm not mistaken they generally aren't done after 20 - 22 weeks. So keep that timeframe.

Damn man, I hate playing the parent card (as much as I hate people playing the woman card), but 22 weeks is insane. Its a full on person at that point. Look at the devastation that parents go through when they lose children at that point. (Heck, for a relevent example, look at what Evander Kane went through at just 26 weeks). The kid is starting to kick and punch around.

https://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthread.php?t=173382

That and even further late term abortions is exactly why people are starting to push for even early cutoffs given these late term abortions (again, non-medical) are insanity in my view.

This is 22 weeks.

[Ducay]

This is from the Evander Kane thread. How can you argue it is tragic on one hand, yet totally acceptable on the other when it is done for convenience?

Originally Posted by Coach

Awful. Thoughts with their family.

https://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthread.php?t=173382

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Ducay

This is from the Evander Kane thread. How can you argue it is tragic on one hand, yet totally acceptable on the other when it is done for convenience?



https://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthread.php?t=173382

The tragedy is for Kane, the mother and his family, all of whom were happily expecting a child.

No one is arguing that abortion isn't sad, or hard, or even moral. It's just a reality that has to be dealt with the safest way possible. And as noted, 90+% are done before 12 weeks. So is it really worth arguing about this 10%? Most of which are health related reasons?

And, for future advice, I'd probably avoid comparing miscarriages to abortions in actual settings where people can see and hear you.

[puckedoff]

I am strongly against abortion except in the specific instance where my girlfriend needs one.

[TorqueDog]

I was in a similar spot to the OP when I was in my very early 20s, and she also chose to terminate the pregnancy. As soon as she found out, she chose to consult me first -- not that it was necessary, but out of courtesy -- and we both agreed that it was not the right decision for us to have a child at that time in our lives.

Her having the choice meant that we both got the opportunity to live our lives how we wanted to, and were empowered to make a conscious decision whether to have children (or not) when we were ready to, instead of letting a contraceptive mishap choose for us.



… That said, had we seen it through, that child would have been coming up on thirteen years old, and probably would have grown up to be a successful adult and also a candidate for Sexiest Man / Woman of the Year.

So yeah, we lowered the bar for your kids. You're welcome.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Ducay

It's always an easy argument to make when you make it about the woman. But again, I'll caution there is an unborn fetus there that doesn't have a voice in the matter, and thus, needs the laws on gestational age to protect it at a certain point. This thread is basically to discuss that point.



Damn man, I hate playing the parent card (as much as I hate people playing the woman card), but 22 weeks is insane. Its a full on person at that point. Look at the devastation that parents go through when they lose children at that point. (Heck, for a relevent example, look at what Evander Kane went through at just 26 weeks). The kid is starting to kick and punch around.

https://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthread.php?t=173382

That and even further late term abortions is exactly why people are starting to push for even early cutoffs given these late term abortions (again, non-medical) are insanity in my view.

This is 22 weeks.

The reason that pro-choice always opposes limits is that the limits aren’t being suggested in good faith like they are in this thread. The next step is limiting access to abortions to run out the clock.

So before you put a cap on when abortions can occur you need to fix health care, access, funding, birth control and sex Ed. One you arm people with the ability to make a decision early you eliminate the need for non-medically necessary late term abortions.