Abortion for 'medical reasons' 'legalised' in Tasmania

[formergothardite]

It is really hard to claim that you value the life of a woman when you also claim you are okay making them die for the sake of a fetus. And if you are not going to allow women to have abortions, then you are risking that you will force them to die for a fetus. There is really no way to get around it, which is why the anti-choicers usually opt for ignoring it.

[the 4th survivor]

I can't get past the possible world where one would ask one's mother "would you have aborted me?" With abortion legal, I don't know why one would even think of that question. And even supposing the mother had contempated it, wouldn't the conversation following say "but I didn't because..." (I decided I wanted a child is the best possible ending. The worst would be because sky daddy didn't want me to, with a close second being ' I thought it would be the most unselfish thing I could ever do, raising a child I don't want and can't afford. Hugs!)

And 4th Survivor you really need to read Mary Ann Warren's classic essay on abortion. http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ ... ortion.htm

Fetuses aren't people. They haven't achieved personhood. Granted, Singer takes this even farther but he misunderstands newborns, and the abilities of newborns.

I read your essay although the three commentary links didn't work. Anyway I thought there were a ton of problems with it. Firstly, it says that even if a fetus is a person she thinks abortion is "morally permissible" in the majority of cases and although she gives some examples, she gives no reasoning as to why she thinks so. Obviously I can understand a girl getting an abortion if her life is in danger or if she is raped but what makes it morally okay to have an abortion if the condom breaks or birth control fails? And keep in mind she was assuming a fetus is a person for that argument. The idea that it is morally acceptable to abort a fetus you believe to be a person (unless of course you have a legitimate reason like a medical problem) is nonsense. Legally if a fetus was considered a person then having an abortion would be murder. Secondly, and this is exactly why I don't like getting into debates about fetal personhood, neither side will ever win the debate. The paragraph under "What if a fetus isn't a person?" explains why.

Also, there are some issues that article doesn't talk about. If all five of those conditions are necessary for personhood, that means that a newborn wouldn't meet the criteria, nor would a person who is in a coma and requires artificial life support, whether permanent or temporary, and doctors generally can't say when, if ever, a person will snap out of a coma. If only one or more of those conditions are necessary for personhood, then a fetus would qualify as a person at some point during development.

For me the bottom line is if we were aborted we wouldn't be alive right now. It doesn't go any further than that for me. I feel no difference between abortion and killing a newborn. It is not the same thing as simply not getting pregnant because if you're not pregnant there is nothing and no one to abort.

[the 4th survivor]

Naah, I wouldn't say your beliefs are ignorant. To me they come across as irrational, but that word "irrational" doesn't mean much, does it? That would imply you could just think harder and study more to come to the conclusions I have come to. I'm not so sure about that. That doesn't mean you are irrational. It just means you were not so lucky in the circumstances of your upbringing, since you lack something very essential: the ability to sympathize with people in very difficult circumstances.

Likewise I don't think you're uneducated either. Rather, I think you guys just don't put the same value on life as most people do. When I pointed out that you wouldn't be here if your parents aborted you I got answers like "Well so what? It's not like the world would be any better or worse if I wasn't in it!" or "Well yeah but think how much more money they would have had if I wasn't born!" That just sounds very self-hating to me.

It shouldn't have to be required of you to actually be put in the shoes of a suicidal teen who has been impregnated by her step-brother, or a severely abused and disabled 6-year-old who has been brought up in the foster care system. You should be able to sympathize with them, even if you haven't experienced something similar. You should be able to imagine yourself in their situation. Otherwise you are morally deprived, and no knowledge is going to fix that.

But I do understand that. Didn't I agree that there should be exceptions? However you seem to think that any reason is good enough.

Oh, and saying you are willing to take a chance when it comes to putting a child up for adoption, while knowing you are subjecting this child to the flaws of the adoption system, doesn't make you stand on some kind of moral high ground. I would never take a chance when it comes to the well-being of a child. The upbringing of a child is not a fucking hazard-game.

I was talking about myself. If it came down to me being aborted or put up for adoption I'd choose that. Wouldn't you?

Considering you don't seem to care much about the quality of the living (the chance-thing again), what do you have to offer a potential human being? What kind of life do you have to offer her/him? A life of survival? Anything better than "death", right? A life where you get constantly abused and mistreated? A life in poverty and starvation? What do you have to tell all the abused kids in the foster-care-system? "Hey kiddo, you are alive - aren't you lucky." Lucky, right?

Well like I told ya, if everyone used protection when they didn't want a child, there'd be a lot less unwanted pregnancies and so the issues you mentioned wouldn't be as big of a problem. As for abused and neglected children, I would tell them that while things are hard now, they have a chance to turn their life around. Granted many of them won't but many of them will.

[the 4th survivor]

the 4th survivor, do you know what overpopulation actually is? It's when there aren't enough animals to feed people because there are more people than animals. So yes; it is being selfish to bring a child into a world where overpopulation is becoming common and when conservatives think that the 1 percent deserve food because they have "worked" for it instead of the world's children who can't afford it who are already out of their mother's uteruses. Since you believe that life begins at conception, you don't have a birthday, you have a conception day. How would you count the "unborn babies" into the population census? How would you punish the people who've had and perfomed abortions?

Overpopulation is a real issue no doubt. Can you believe in the 1600's there were only about 300-400 million people? Now here we are 400 years later and we've exploded to almost 7 billion. That's just crazy. Obviously we can't keep going on like this and something will have to give eventually. Personally I see governments in the future putting a limit on the number of babies a couple is allowed to have if we don't calm it down with the baby making. I don't agree with that being a legit reason to get an abortion though. I think the problem is so many people having sex and not enough people using protection, especially in developing countries and if you deal with that issue you fix the problem.

Can I have a conception day and a birthday? Then I get two gifts! :D

If they belong in jail, how would your ilk address the issue of the overflowing of jails, and when there aren't enough rooms in them because because baby-killers are in there who wouldn't harm the already born, but killers who can't be put in there because of the overflow would be free to commit more crimes? Why do you want me tolerate your opinions if you want your opinions to become law? For example; "In my opinion, I don't like abortion and vote against it" overrides somebody's else's opinion that abortion is a-ok. You scream for tolerance, but won't tolerate others. Why should I tolerate your forced intolerance on others through voting?

Well for one I would stop putting so many people in jail. Way too many people convicted of non-violent crimes that are going to jail imo. And no, it's not just a matter of opinions, we're talking about unborn babies being aborted here. That's extremely serious and goes way beyond one group of people disagreeing with another's opinion.

[Anxious Girl]

Overpopulation is a real issue no doubt. Can you believe in the 1600's there were only about 300-400 million people? Now here we are 400 years later and we've exploded to almost 7 billion. That's just crazy. Obviously we can't keep going on like this and something will have to give eventually. Personally I see governments in the future putting a limit on the number of babies a couple is allowed to have if we don't calm it down with the baby making. I don't agree with that being a legit reason to get an abortion though. I think the problem is so many people having sex and not enough people using protection, especially in developing countries and if you deal with that issue you fix the problem.

Can I have a conception day and a birthday? Then I get two gifts! :D

Well for one I would stop putting so many people in jail. Way too many people convicted of non-violent crimes that are going to jail imo. And no, it's not just a matter of opinions, we're talking about unborn babies being aborted here. That's extremely serious and goes way beyond one group of people disagreeing with another's opinion.

How do you plan on gaining political power to make your opinions law? Do you know the difference between states and fed rights? Doesn't contraception stop babies from being concepted? How would it be loving if a person found out that their mother didn't choose to have them; but was forced to and told their child that she would have had an abortion but had to pretend to love them because she didn't want them? So you would just let people who kill others loose on the street? :lol:

[samurai_sarah]

(snip)

I read your essay although the three commentary links didn't work. Anyway I thought there were a ton of problems with it. Firstly, it says that even if a fetus is a person she thinks abortion is "morally permissible" in the majority of cases and although she gives some examples, she gives no reasoning as to why she thinks so. Obviously I can understand a girl getting an abortion if her life is in danger or if she is raped but what makes it morally okay to have an abortion if the condom breaks or birth control fails? And keep in mind she was assuming a fetus is a person for that argument. The idea that it is morally acceptable to abort a fetus you believe to be a person (unless of course you have a legitimate reason like a medical problem) is nonsense. Legally if a fetus was considered a person then having an abortion would be murder. Secondly, and this is exactly why I don't like getting into debates about fetal personhood, neither side will ever win the debate. The paragraph under "What if a fetus isn't a person?" explains why.

(snip)

To the bolded: Why is it understandable and morally less questionable to kill an unborn baby - in your terminology- when the mother was raped? According to your logic, it's still an unborn baby, so consequently there should be no exception.

[the 4th survivor]

To the bolded: Why is it understandable and morally less questionable to kill an unborn baby - in your terminology- when the mother was raped? According to your logic, it's still an unborn baby, so consequently there should be no exception.

That is something I'm conflicted about. It is an unborn baby and really, just as innocent as the mother in that situation. And you never know, that baby could grow up to do great things. Then again rape is such a traumatic experience I could never expect a woman to deal with that and carry the rapist's kid for 9 months.

[formergothardite]

So, I guess 4th survivor isn't going to address how she can claim to value the life of a woman while at that same time forcing them to risk dying, having a traumatic 9 months of suffering that ends with a what can be a pretty painful delivery, and(as studies have show) have their lives pretty much ruined?

[Anxious Girl]

It could also grow up to do terrible things. Pro-birthers like you don't seem to realize this.

[Minerva]

Rather, I think you guys just don't put the same value on life as most people do.

Most people.

f everyone used protection when they didn't want a child, there'd be a lot less unwanted pregnancies and so the issues you mentioned wouldn't be as big of a problem.

But all of those kids wouldn't be alive right now! And that would be a terrible thing, you've said it yourself!

That is something I'm conflicted about. It is an unborn baby and really, just as innocent as the mother in that situation. And you never know, that baby could grow up to do great things. Then again rape is such a traumatic experience I could never expect a woman to deal with that and carry the rapist's kid for 9 months.

1. Saying that someone who didn't consent to sex is "innocent" (so innocent, in fact, that they have your permission to kill a child) implies that consenting to sex makes one guilty. What is so wrong about sex that one can be guilty of it?

2. What is so special about rape survivors that you wouldn't make them deal with the trauma of a forced pregnancy but would make, for example, me deal with the trauma of a forced pregnancy?

You've made it very clear that you believe in fetal personhood. I've asked you several times to defend that belief. What qualities does a fetus possess that make it worthy of rights?

[Anxious Girl]

the 4th survivor, why is it bad to be emotional? How come it's ok to be emotional about abortions, but not about abortions being denied? Or do pro-birthers' like your emotions mean more than mine? You're not being misread here. If you don't want people to think of you as an entitled asshole, then don't type like 1. It's as simple as that.

You didn't answer these questions.

[Anxious Girl]

* bumping up this thread 'cause she's back *

[formergothardite]

She's back and will still ignore that she is okay with forcing women to do something that can kill them or at least ruin their life forever. She places that low of a value on the life of a woman. They are disposable to people like her.

So is this SWL? Because it sounds the same IME.

[Anxious Girl]

She's a disgusting human being who expects us to respect her right to own guns that kill people who are already out of the womb; but won't respect others' rights to to get abortions? Puh-lease.

[formergothardite]

I suspect that since she is being challenged in all of those threads with very difficult questions, she will flounce for a little bit and come back when she sees another chance to show us liberals how wrong we are.

Forget SWL, this reminds me of jericho. Was he banned? I think that the 4th survivor has had another account here and either got banned or was so troll like that they wanted to start over.

[the 4th survivor]

She's back and will still ignore that she is okay with forcing women to do something that can kill them or at least ruin their life forever. She places that low of a value on the life of a woman. They are disposable to people like her.

So is this SWL? Because it sounds the same IME.

I already answered your questions on the last page didn't I? I said there are exceptions. I wouldn't expect a woman with health issues that could harm them to continue on with a pregnancy but you seem to think any reason for abortion is good enough even if it's as simple as "I don't feel like having a kid." If you don't want a kid put them up for adoption. I'd rather be adopted than aborted, wouldn't you?

[Anxious Girl]

I already answered your questions on the last page didn't I? I said there are exceptions. I wouldn't expect a woman with health issues that could harm them to continue on with a pregnancy but you seem to think any reason for abortion is good enough even if it's as simple as "I don't feel like having a kid." If you don't want a kid put them up for adoption. I'd rather be adopted than aborted, wouldn't you?

Answer all of the questions on this forum that people have asked of you, then we'll consider taking you seriously. Just like you neo-cons gloat when the voting system works in your favor for anti-abortion candidates, we can express our emotions about the political climate because freedom of speech allows people who disagree with your opinions to critique you. Goes both ways. If I found out that my bio mother didn't want me but somebody forced her to and stayed in the adoption center for eons because I wasn't somebody's dream baby, then yes, I would rather have been aborted. Why would you want a child to live with the fact that they were born not out of want, but of force? You're sick in the head.

[formergothardite]

I already answered your questions on the last page didn't I? I said there are exceptions. I wouldn't expect a woman with health issues that could harm them to continue on with a pregnancy but you seem to think any reason for abortion is good enough even if it's as simple as "I don't feel like having a kid." If you don't want a kid put them up for adoption. I'd rather be adopted than aborted, wouldn't you?

You missed the rest of my posts, every single pregnancy can cause death. Even healthy women can and do die because of being pregnant. So are you going to deny that women ever die in pregnancy, even with medical care, or will you admit that, yes, you do want to force women to do something that can kill them?

And if you value women so much, what about the fact that being denied an abortion has been proven to pretty much fuck up a woman's life forever? Is it that you don't care about the quality of their life, just the fact that they are alive(well they might be alive, if they don't die due to pregnancy).

[Anxious Girl]

You missed the rest of my posts, every single pregnancy can cause death. Even healthy women can and do die because of being pregnant. So are you going to deny that women ever die in pregnancy, even with medical care, or will you admit that, yes, you do want to force women to do something that can kill them?

And if you value women so much, what about the fact that being denied an abortion has been proven to pretty much fuck up a woman's life forever? Is it that you don't care about the quality of their life, just the fact that they are alive(well they might be alive, if they don't die due to pregnancy).

Fundies and neo-cons think that dying in pregnancy is a noble way to die, like Christians fighting in the army to protect domionism!!!11!! It's a sick mindset.

[formergothardite]

This is what the study(that is still following these women it will be interesting how their later lives turn out) shows happens to women denied abortions:

Ninety percent of those women carried the pregnancy to term and began raising the kid—a pro-lifer’s dream.

So these children were not being given up for adoption and going to happy homes.

They found that a year after the event, the women who were turned away from an abortion were more likely to rely on government assistance, more likely to be living beneath the poverty line, and less likely to have a full-time job than the women in the study who had obtained abortions. They also registered more anxiety a week after they were denied an abortion and reported more stress a year out.

And women who gave birth suffered from more serious health complications—from hemorrhaging to a fractured pelvis—than the women who aborted, even later in their pregnancies.

So tell me how you value women and want to force them to go through this torture. This article leaves out that one of the women in the study died because of the pregnancy. And she was receiving medical care, they just couldn't save her. So yes, you are forcing women into death.

Happy home lives also failed to materialize. The women who were turned away were more than twice as likely to be a victim of domestic violence as those who were able to abort. The researchers found that “a year after being denied an abortion, 7 percent reported an incident of domestic violence in the last six months,†compared to 3 percent of the women who received abortions. The researchers concluded that this “wasn't because the turnaways were more likely to get into abusive relationships,†but that “getting abortions allowed women to get out of such relationships more easily.†Carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term helped abusive men stay in these women’s lives, but it didn’t encourage delinquent new dads to stick around

So women denied abortions are more likely to be raising their children in abusive, poverty stricken homes where the mother is stressed and being abuses. So I take it that you don't give a shit about the quality of life these children live, you just want them alive, even if their lives are suffering.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/20 ... tions.html

[Anxious Girl]

She'll probably say that's just media propaganda when all the pro-birthers side use is propaganda. Or that the link wouldn't work, but her links miraculously will.

[formergothardite]

It is still pretty hard to deny that pregnancy is risky and can kill you even with the best of medical care. So even if she denies the study, she will have to admit that she wants to force women to do something that can kill them.

[Anxious Girl]

It is still pretty hard to deny that pregnancy is risky and can kill you even with the best of medical care. So even if she denies the study, she will have to admit that she wants to force women to do something that can kill them.

Like I said in 1 of my above posts, she probably views birth as a noble death; even if a woman is dying for somebody she doesn't want to love.

[So Says I]

All I can add is that if I was aborted, I wouldn't know the difference, so I wouldn't care. I'd just hope that my mother, at 41, did what was best for her health and well being. I believe she did.

[August]

I already answered your questions on the last page didn't I? I said there are exceptions. I wouldn't expect a woman with health issues that could harm them to continue on with a pregnancy but you seem to think any reason for abortion is good enough even if it's as simple as "I don't feel like having a kid." If you don't want a kid put them up for adoption. I'd rather be adopted than aborted, wouldn't you?

Your position is logically inconsistent. If a clump of cells is a person, then that person's right to exist is stronger than the right of another person not to face serious inconvenience, discomfort and a slight risk of death.

If you think that terminating is a lesser evil than forcing a woman to birth a child conceived in rape or incest, then you are admitting that the clump of cells is not a person.

Likewise if you think terminating because a pregnancy is bad for your health is acceptible, then the value of that fetus is less than the value of the comfort of the woman, which means you don't equate it with a baby.

What level, ethically, is a fetus at? Is it more valuable than a chicken? A cow? We kill those animals for no more reason than to have a nice steak. Or maybe it's above that, more like a companion animal like a dog or a cat or a horse - we don't kill them to eat, but we don't hesitate to put them down when they're in pain. Or is a fetus really alive at all, since it can't breathe independently? If it's not alive, then how is it different from our appendix? Or an egg cell, or a dermoid tumor?

If a terminated pregnancy is a tragedy of an unrealised life, how about all the trillions of unconceived people? Gertrund Schneider would have been the first woman on the moon, but the phone rang and her mother went to answer it and totally killed the mood. John Bateman - most beautiful paintings on the planet, but due to PID his mother's tubes were utterly blocked. etc.