Abortion for 'medical reasons' 'legalised' in Tasmania

[Full enough quiver]

The "rape exception" crap drives me nuts. Either every fetus deserves to live, or they don't. It's hypocritical. Oh, I'm so pro life, save the beybees! Unless they're already born, and are poor, then who gives a shit, right? Pro life my ass. The "rape exception" is just their way of trying to make themselves look compassionate. Yeah, not working.

[Mama Mia]

The "rape exception" crap drives me nuts. Either every fetus deserves to live, or they don't. It's hypocritical. Oh, I'm so pro life, save the beybees! Unless they're already born, and are poor, then who gives a shit, right? Pro life my ass. The "rape exception" is just their way of trying to make themselves look compassionate. Yeah, not working.

I really don't think you can prove that everyone who is anti-abortion, or moderate on abortion is also against things like social supports and financial assistance and health care once the child is born. It may be generally true, but there are definitely many people who would like to provide the supports and services that would make choosing abortion for economic or social reasons far less likely.

Just like you can't really say that everyone who is against financial and social supports and health care is anti-abortion - many of the libertarian types are against government intervening in issues of abortion, and are also against most government support systems.

While people tend to conform more or less to a general ideological viewpoint - there is huge variation on each particular issue.

Also I don't see why people think there is a disconnect between being ok with abortion in certain circumstances, like rape, but not in others.

There is a range of acceptableness that people believe regarding many issues. An example would be pornography: You might feel that all porn is okay except kiddie porn for example. Or drug laws, many people would be fine with marijuana being legal, but not heroin. I'm tired or I could probably think up better examples. My point is that on most social issues people have some sort of shades of gray in their moral compass, not a complete black and white viewpoint. And the legal system works the same way. If you shoplift a candy bar you won't face the same penalty as if you steal a car.

[2xx1xy1JD]

ANY pregnancy comes with some inherent risks.

Yes, death is relatively rare these days in western countries - but it still happens. Serious physical consequences are not uncommon. I know women who had morning sickness so severe that they needed to be hospitalized, women who have had gestational diabetes, women who became anemic, women who broken their tailbone while giving birth, women who had the anesthesia wear off in the middle of a c-section, women who have had a spinal anesthetic paralyze their diaphragm and leave them gasping for breath (that would be me during my son's birth), women had have had their uterus rip open during the birth, women who've had a sudden gush of blood due to subchorionic hemorrhage, women who have suddenly been placed on bedrest, women who have had infected incisions, women who have torn so badly that the tear went right through the rectum, etc.

In no other situation are people required to place their lives at risk without their consent (aside from a military draft).

Would you support compulsory organ donation? There are tons of folks waiting for kidneys and livers, and you can be a living donor for either of these. It's not any riskier than giving birth. We don't, however, force people to donate, even though it would save lives, because we respect the fact that there is some degree of discomfort and risk, and that someone's right to control their body is so important that it doesn't disappear even if someone else's life is at stake.

[Guest Anonymous]

I really don't think you can prove that everyone who is anti-abortion, or moderate on abortion is also against things like social supports and financial assistance and health care once the child is born. It may be generally true, but there are definitely many people who would like to provide the supports and services that would make choosing abortion for economic or social reasons far less likely.

Just like you can't really say that everyone who is against financial and social supports and health care is anti-abortion - many of the libertarian types are against government intervening in issues of abortion, and are also against most government support systems.

While people tend to conform more or less to a general ideological viewpoint - there is huge variation on each particular issue.

Also I don't see why people think there is a disconnect between being ok with abortion in certain circumstances, like rape, but not in others.

There is a range of acceptableness that people believe regarding many issues. An example would be pornography: You might feel that all porn is okay except kiddie porn for example. Or drug laws, many people would be fine with marijuana being legal, but not heroin. I'm tired or I could probably think up better examples. My point is that on most social issues people have some sort of shades of gray in their moral compass, not a complete black and white viewpoint. And the legal system works the same way. If you shoplift a candy bar you won't face the same penalty as if you steal a car.

This is the 'disconnect' as I see it: The one argument commonly used against abortion is that a foetus is "a life" (as in: life begins at conception), ending that life is morally wrong and this should be reflected in the law. That's the argument as I understand it. A pregnancy being the result of rape does not change whether or not you perceive that foetus as a life, nor does it change whether ending a life is seen as right or wrong.

If the only reason abortion is wrong is because a foetus is a life, and you wouldn't want to end that life, then it doesn't really make sense to make an exception for something that has absolutely no influence on your only argument.

Also, the idea that rape should be one of the very few legal exceptions totally ignores the experience of the woman involved. It seems to be saying: No matter how badly a woman wants an abortion, no matter how distressed a woman is by the idea of continuing her pregnancy, the only legitimate exception is this one pre-prepared reason decided by someone else. If a woman becomes pregnant as a result of consensual sex then it doesn't matter how devastating the idea of continuing the pregnancy is to her, she's not allowed to have a choice. Why? Why are the practical, psychological and emotional effects of an unwanted pregnancy considered so insignificant?

I would be interested to know what your idea of a 'moderate' position on abortion is?

ETA: "you" is the general you.

[Full enough quiver]

I don't know anyone that's for abortion. I think most people agree that it would be better to prevent the unplanned pregnancy in the first place, with comprehensive sex education, and easily available contraception. Failing that, improved social supports for those that want to parent. Unfortunately, it seems that most (not all, but a significant number) of those that claim to be pro life are against the very things that would lower the abortion rate. Nobody is saying the fetus isn't alive, or isn't human. Of course it is. The question is, not whether the fetus is a life, but whether it's rights trump the rights of its mother, an actual fully realized person with the right to choose what to do with her own body. If abortion is murder because the fetus is a life, then it's murder whether the mother is 12, has been the victim of rape, the father is her uncle, or she is on welfare, or even if her health is at risk. It shouldn't make a difference. I think the owner of the uterus gets to decide. I may not like the decisions other women make, but it isn't my choice.

[samurai_sarah]

(snip) Also, the idea that rape should be one of the very few legal exceptions totally ignores the experience of the woman involved. It seems to be saying: No matter how badly a woman wants an abortion, no matter how distressed a woman is by the idea of continuing her pregnancy, the only legitimate exception is this one pre-prepared reason decided by someone else. If a woman becomes pregnant as a result of consensual sex then it doesn't matter how devastating the idea of continuing the pregnancy is to her, she's not allowed to have a choice. Why? Why are the practical, psychological and emotional effects of an unwanted pregnancy considered so insignificant?

I would be interested to know what your idea of a 'moderate' position on abortion is?

ETA: "you" is the general you.

To the bolded: sarcasm on/ don'tcha know what this is all about? If a woman get's raped she isn't a SLUT! A woman who willingly spreads her legs takes into account the possibility that she might get knocked up, and she has to pay for just jumping into bed with...yeah, well, whoever. Her body and will stop counting, because she WILLINGLY opened herself up to the possibility of pregnancy. Geddit? It's all her FAULT!!!111!

A NON-SLUTTY woman getting raped is totes different. She never opened herself up to the possibility of pregnancy, so she's totally FINE if she gets an abortion. Because the PREMISE was different! Don't you pro-choicers get that?!?! It's all about the woman's consent, hence totally FEMINIST!!! So, if you have consensual sex, and don't want to be pregnant, you're a slut. If you get raped, abortion is okay.

Simples, right? /off

Okay, I just gave myself a headache, trying to follow that line of reasoning, and playing devil's advocate. Sadly, it seems to me that some people really do operate that way. But the interesting thing - to me - is that it seems to all come down to whether or not a woman chooses sex. Don't - abortion is fine. Enjoy it- don't you dare.

That makes no sense. Either life is sacred, or it isn't. If all life is sacred, a woman's consent logically shouldn't matter. Then logically, all foetuses, including ectopic pregnancies should be carried to their logical conclusions. Sorry, but if you start with "all life is sacred", then that's the only logical conclusion. Also, please give up eating meat, vegetarianism and veganism. Kill one, kill all, right? :roll:

[August]

Most people.

You were an egg at one point. Therefore ovulating and not getting pregnant is a very selfish thing to do. How would you like it if your mom had decided not to fuck your dad the month she got pregnant with you? How would you feel knowing that your mom considered not conceiving you?

Did you ovulate this month, 4th survivor? If so, then by your own logic, it'd be extremely selfish of you not to find someone with a dick and get busy. Go on. Don't be a hypocrite now. The world is full of willing sperm donors.

Because things that aren't conscious, that can't think, feel or experience aren't inherently entitled to consideration.

Answer me this: what makes the existence of something no more conscious than a blade of grass more important than my comfort, my health, my plans, and my safety? Why should I put myself at any risk or inconvenience for something no more special than my left tonsil?

And the plans, health, comfort, safety of my actual existing children.

[Mama Mia]

This is the 'disconnect' as I see it: The one argument commonly used against abortion is that a foetus is "a life" (as in: life begins at conception), ending that life is morally wrong and this should be reflected in the law. That's the argument as I understand it. A pregnancy being the result of rape does not change whether or not you perceive that foetus as a life, nor does it change whether ending a life is seen as right or wrong.

If the only reason abortion is wrong is because a foetus is a life, and you wouldn't want to end that life, then it doesn't really make sense to make an exception for something that has absolutely no influence on your only argument.

Also, the idea that rape should be one of the very few legal exceptions totally ignores the experience of the woman involved. It seems to be saying: No matter how badly a woman wants an abortion, no matter how distressed a woman is by the idea of continuing her pregnancy, the only legitimate exception is this one pre-prepared reason decided by someone else. If a woman becomes pregnant as a result of consensual sex then it doesn't matter how devastating the idea of continuing the pregnancy is to her, she's not allowed to have a choice. Why? Why are the practical, psychological and emotional effects of an unwanted pregnancy considered so insignificant?

I would be interested to know what your idea of a 'moderate' position on abortion is?

ETA: "you" is the general you.

My personal view of a moderate position is legal and free abortion on demand during the first trimester. legal, safe and free abortion after the first trimester up to the point of viability for health or life of the mother, or if the fetus is not viable/will suffer from severe disabilities. After the point of viability only if there is no other option and either the mother or the child would not survive if carried to term. I absolutely think that if the child was going to die or suffer terribly if born alive, than the mother should be able to use whatever option is likely to give the child a less painful death.

I don't think the parents of a pregnant girl should need to be informed/give consent. But I do think that there should be a waiting period and objective counseling ( not planned parenthood and not a crises pregnancy center ) -- I understand from reading here that can be an undue burden as in many areas there are access issues to begin with, so maybe the requirement of a waiting period would maybe be waived if someone had to travel more than a certain distance.

I got reemed for this before, but I think ideally there would be a way for a father who wanted to keep and raise the baby would have some way of doing so. I do understand that there might not be viable ways to implement that though.

I don't think it has anything to do with slut shaming or thinking people shouldn't have sex with their boyfriend, or husband or one-night stand or gigilo off craigslist, but I think that there is nothing wrong with having different regulations for activities engaged in willingly, and actions forced upon you.

My two cents, since you asked. And I have to say that reading on fj has made me more conservative on abortion than I was previously ( with the exception of finding out that waiting periods might not be feasible everywhere )

[Salamander]

This is the 'disconnect' as I see it: The one argument commonly used against abortion is that a foetus is "a life" (as in: life begins at conception), ending that life is morally wrong and this should be reflected in the law. That's the argument as I understand it. A pregnancy being the result of rape does not change whether or not you perceive that foetus as a life, nor does it change whether ending a life is seen as right or wrong.

If the only reason abortion is wrong is because a foetus is a life, and you wouldn't want to end that life, then it doesn't really make sense to make an exception for something that has absolutely no influence on your only argument.

Also, the idea that rape should be one of the very few legal exceptions totally ignores the experience of the woman involved. It seems to be saying: No matter how badly a woman wants an abortion, no matter how distressed a woman is by the idea of continuing her pregnancy, the only legitimate exception is this one pre-prepared reason decided by someone else. If a woman becomes pregnant as a result of consensual sex then it doesn't matter how devastating the idea of continuing the pregnancy is to her, she's not allowed to have a choice. Why? Why are the practical, psychological and emotional effects of an unwanted pregnancy considered so insignificant?

I would be interested to know what your idea of a 'moderate' position on abortion is?

ETA: "you" is the general you.

I agree with all of your response, Shosholoza. I'll add that the exception for rape only "works" if you're willing to take women at their word that they were a victim of assault and became pregnant because of it. If you (general you) need a conviction as "proof" that a woman was assaulted, which is what it takes for some people to believe a victim (unfortunately there are those who will still deny a crime ever took place, or who will refuse to believe that the victim's claim was legitimate), well, [link=http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/reporting-rates]few rapists are ever convicted[/link], and the time it takes for a case to go to trial and be resolved is time that the fetus is gestating, making it harder to seek an abortion in a later trimester. And if she's given birth by the end of the judicial process, getting an abortion would be a non-issue anyway.

I see similarities in the thought processes of people who are okay with abortion for this reason but not that one and people who engage in rape apologia (oldies but [not] goodies include: "It Wasn't Really Rape," "Yeah It Was Rape but She Shouldn't Have Done/Worn/Drank That," "Okay You Were Raped Now Could You Just Stop Talking About It It's Making Me Uncomfortable"). These groups often, but don't always, overlap. Yet both lines of thinking rely on questioning the legitimacy of women's lived experiences and the end result - telling us what we can or should do and judging us if we make the "wrong" decision - is demeaning.

[Minerva]

My personal view of a moderate position is legal and free abortion on demand during the first trimester. legal, safe and free abortion after the first trimester up to the point of viability for health or life of the mother, or if the fetus is not viable/will suffer from severe disabilities. After the point of viability only if there is no other option and either the mother or the child would not survive if carried to term. I absolutely think that if the child was going to die or suffer terribly if born alive, than the mother should be able to use whatever option is likely to give the child a less painful death.

I don't think the parents of a pregnant girl should need to be informed/give consent. But I do think that there should be a waiting period and objective counseling ( not planned parenthood and not a crises pregnancy center ) -- I understand from reading here that can be an undue burden as in many areas there are access issues to begin with, so maybe the requirement of a waiting period would maybe be waived if someone had to travel more than a certain distance.

I got reemed for this before, but I think ideally there would be a way for a father who wanted to keep and raise the baby would have some way of doing so. I do understand that there might not be viable ways to implement that though.

I don't think it has anything to do with slut shaming or thinking people shouldn't have sex with their boyfriend, or husband or one-night stand or gigilo off craigslist, but I think that there is nothing wrong with having different regulations for activities engaged in willingly, and actions forced upon you.

My two cents, since you asked. And I have to say that reading on fj has made me more conservative on abortion than I was previously ( with the exception of finding out that waiting periods might not be feasible everywhere )

I think there's a difference between a moderate position and an illogical position, too. Wanting to wait until a certain point in fetal development before you give the fetus rights is logical (though people can be stupid about it e.g. requiring "pain management" for fetuses under 22 weeks), whereas wanting to treat fetuses differently depending on whether the sex that created them was consensual is illogical.

I do think it's absurd, however, to expect someone to be a surrogate for their ex when they've already decided they're not ok with being a surrogate for a carefully selected adoptive couple. If it's not ok for two strangers to commandeer my uterus because they want what's inside, it's certainly not ok for someone who probably has hard feelings towards me.

ETA another thing about waiting periods is that by the time a patient makes it to their appointment, they've usually already been on a waiting list for days or weeks. Clinic counsellors will tell you that when there's a long waiting list, they hardly ever have to counsel undecided patients, so it seems redundant to have a waiting period in those instances.

[Mama Mia]

I think there's a difference between a moderate position and an illogical position, too. Wanting to wait until a certain point in fetal development before you give the fetus rights is logical (though people can be stupid about it e.g. requiring "pain management" for fetuses under 22 weeks), whereas wanting to treat fetuses differently depending on whether the sex that created them was consensual is illogical.

I do think it's absurd, however, to expect someone to be a surrogate for their ex when they've already decided they're not ok with being a surrogate for a carefully selected adoptive couple. If it's not ok for two strangers to commandeer my uterus because they want what's inside, it's certainly not ok for someone who probably has hard feelings towards me.

ETA another thing about waiting periods is that by the time a patient makes it to their appointment, they've usually already been on a waiting list for days or weeks. Clinic counsellors will tell you that when there's a long waiting list, they hardly ever have to counsel undecided patients, so it seems redundant to have a waiting period in those instances.

To the bolded, yes I admit that my views are based on the particular area I live in, where abortion is very readily available. I do understand that is not the case in a great deal of the country ( or other countries for that matter ).

I don't see it as the same situation as being a 'surrogate". I think ideally the father would have some rights as it is just as much his biological child as the mother. However, I do know that there are a lot of barriers to making that feasible, not the least of which is that the mother obviously has the health risks that the father does not. I don't think whether the father is an ex or current partner should have any more to do with it than any other child custody situation.

As far as it being illogical to treat rape as an extenuating circumstance -- the way I see it is that the woman might be too traumatized, or in denial, to access an early abortion, so more lee-way regarding time limits should be allowed. And may things are illogical on the surface but are laws for emotional reasons- for example you can go hunt a deer but not a cat - no logical reason since they are both living animals, but there it is.

[2xx1xy1JD]

My personal view of a moderate position is legal and free abortion on demand during the first trimester. legal, safe and free abortion after the first trimester up to the point of viability for health or life of the mother, or if the fetus is not viable/will suffer from severe disabilities. After the point of viability only if there is no other option and either the mother or the child would not survive if carried to term. I absolutely think that if the child was going to die or suffer terribly if born alive, than the mother should be able to use whatever option is likely to give the child a less painful death.

I don't think the parents of a pregnant girl should need to be informed/give consent. But I do think that there should be a waiting period and objective counseling ( not planned parenthood and not a crises pregnancy center ) -- I understand from reading here that can be an undue burden as in many areas there are access issues to begin with, so maybe the requirement of a waiting period would maybe be waived if someone had to travel more than a certain distance.

I got reemed for this before, but I think ideally there would be a way for a father who wanted to keep and raise the baby would have some way of doing so. I do understand that there might not be viable ways to implement that though.

I don't think it has anything to do with slut shaming or thinking people shouldn't have sex with their boyfriend, or husband or one-night stand or gigilo off craigslist, but I think that there is nothing wrong with having different regulations for activities engaged in willingly, and actions forced upon you.

My two cents, since you asked. And I have to say that reading on fj has made me more conservative on abortion than I was previously ( with the exception of finding out that waiting periods might not be feasible everywhere )

I appreciate your honest statement of your position and willingness to discuss it.

My issues with/questions about your position would be:

1. Definition of threat to life/health: How is this defined? Who decides? I've given examples before of situations where it really isn't cut-and-dry. Nobody can say with certainty whether a disease like lupus will flare, or whether someone like Trish with CF would be able to carry to term, or whether premature rupture of membranes will lead to death if labor is not induced, or whether you can wait an extra few days to induce with severe pre-eclampsia, or whether cancer will kill the woman if she delays chemo until after delivery. In situations where there are no easy answers and lives are on the line, the woman and her doctor need room to make these decisions.

2. What would be discussed during counselling? What would be the purpose of the waiting period, other than to make the process longer and less convenient? Would a counselor be able to say anything or offer any options that the average pregnant woman wouldn't already know? Would any genuinely helpful services be available? [i have heard of an organization in Israel which gets clients who are referred by social workers who are told by pregnant women that they are seeking an abortion due to financial pressures, and many of those women seem willing to continue their pregnancies when they get financial support. Is that the sort of thing that you would have in mind?]

3. Re fathers: Wouldn't most women already have a good sense of whether the would-be father would actually be a good parent? If a man really want to be a father, he can communicate that to his partner. My husband got to be the father of my children because he made it 100% clear that he wanted to be a father and would be damn good at it. OTOH, we also know that many women first experience domestic violence during pregnancy. Plus, how does any woman know that the pleas and promises won't fade into thin air after the birth?

[Minerva]

To the bolded, yes I admit that my views are based on the particular area I live in, where abortion is very readily available. I do understand that is not the case in a great deal of the country ( or other countries for that matter ).

I don't see it as the same situation as being a 'surrogate". I think ideally the father would have some rights as it is just as much his biological child as the mother. However, I do know that there are a lot of barriers to making that feasible, not the least of which is that the mother obviously has the health risks that the father does not. I don't think whether the father is an ex or current partner should have any more to do with it than any other child custody situation.

As far as it being illogical to treat rape as an extenuating circumstance -- the way I see it is that the woman might be too traumatized, or in denial, to access an early abortion, so more lee-way regarding time limits should be allowed. And may things are illogical on the surface but are laws for emotional reasons- for example you can go hunt a deer but not a cat - no logical reason since they are both living animals, but there it is.

You're right, surrogacy is technically when the agreement has been made before the pregnancy was created. However, birth mothers and surrogates are still going hugely out of their way to provide a service to the adoptive parents, which is why I used the term.

You touched on an interesting point about fathers technically having rights to the fetuses that share their DNA. Obviously you can't make someone donate their body to something just because you a) view it as a baby and b) are related to it. But in an abstract sense, people have legal rights to their genetic material. Giving away your eggs or sperm involves signing a contract, and people fight custody battles over frozen embryos.

I agree with you that a lot of our laws are based on emotion rather than logic, but my understanding of the world is that we're trying to improve it by injecting logic in society's rules. That doesn't mean we don't bend over backwards to make sexual assault survivors' experiences easier. But it does mean we should think critically about the value we assign to fetuses if we're willing to throw them under the bus to make sexual assault survivors' lives easier. There's nothing wrong with doing so, but it's illogical for people to clamour for equality for fetuses while supporting killing them in situations where they wouldn't support killing a person. They're better off admitting that they see fetus' value as less than that of a human being but more than that of other objects. The problem with that is it involves admitting that the question of a fetus' value is ambiguous, from which they would have to conclude that there is more than one valid opinion and that theirs therefore shouldn't be law. And then they'd be pro-choice.

[Mama Mia]

I appreciate your honest statement of your position and willingness to discuss it.

My issues with/questions about your position would be:

1. Definition of threat to life/health: How is this defined? Who decides? I've given examples before of situations where it really isn't cut-and-dry. Nobody can say with certainty whether a disease like lupus will flare, or whether someone like Trish with CF would be able to carry to term, or whether premature rupture of membranes will lead to death if labor is not induced, or whether you can wait an extra few days to induce with severe pre-eclampsia, or whether cancer will kill the woman if she delays chemo until after delivery. In situations where there are no easy answers and lives are on the line, the woman and her doctor need room to make these decisions. I think this should be decided by the woman and her doctor. If her doctor feels it is a severe health risk than that is what they should go by. If the woman disagrees if her doctor says it's not a significant health risk she should be able to get a second opinion. Of course this is my ideal world, so health care costs are covered

2. What would be discussed during counselling? What would be the purpose of the waiting period, other than to make the process longer and less convenient? Would a counselor be able to say anything or offer any options that the average pregnant woman wouldn't already know? Would any genuinely helpful services be available? [i have heard of an organization in Israel which gets clients who are referred by social workers who are told by pregnant women that they are seeking an abortion due to financial pressures, and many of those women seem willing to continue their pregnancies when they get financial support. Is that the sort of thing that you would have in mind?] Counseling would cover the various options and would provide genuinely helpful resources - in particular economic resources and social support ( again, this is in my ideal world) I don't think lack of economic, health care, child care or social service supports should ever have to be the deciding factor - and the government should provide resources to make sure it isn't. The waiting period would be so someone could consider those options and information before having the procedure

3. Re fathers: Wouldn't most women already have a good sense of whether the would-be father would actually be a good parent? If a man really want to be a father, he can communicate that to his partner. My husband got to be the father of my children because he made it 100% clear that he wanted to be a father and would be damn good at it. OTOH, we also know that many women first experience domestic violence during pregnancy. Plus, how does any woman know that the pleas and promises won't fade into thin air after the birth?

I do understand the problems with father involvement, but do feel men can be just as good as a parent as a woman, and should have the option of caring for his child. In cases of abuse the woman should not have to consult with the father. The biggest problem with giving men this option is that they don't have to face the health risks of pregnancy and delivery. He could, of course, flake out after the baby is born - so maybe some sort of legally binding order for support and custody if he decides he wants to pursue this. Like I said, I do know this is a very sticky and difficult subject. I mostly feel strongly about this because I have known more than a few young men who were absolutely devastated by their partners decision to abort when they would have willingly taken custody of the child.

I'm not very good with the quote features, but I'll try to respond in bold to your questions and feedback above.

Thank you for the discussion, I enjoy intelligent debate on important issues.

[GodsKnickers]

.... I have to say that reading on fj has made me more conservative on abortion than I was previously

We are polar opposites. The more I read anywhere, on abortion, the more I become convinced that abortion should be allowed any time, any where. To me it comes down to choice - if the choice is the woman's, it should come without any 'ok fine but(s)....' attached to it, otherwise, it isn't truly the definition of choice.

[desertvixen]

I mostly feel strongly about this because I have known more than a few young men who were absolutely devastated by their partners decision to abort when they would have willingly taken custody of the child.

This is one of the reasons why we need to encourage people who are having sex to TALK about this stuff. Just like I would NOT sleep with someone who couldn't understand that I will control my own body, and that should this decision come up, he gets a vote but not a veto.

I don't know the young men you do, but sometimes there is a reason that women decide this. My younger brother's ex-gf did it, because she knew she was not ready to give up her lifestyle, which included drugs, and no way that he was going to change his lifestyle, EVEN if he said he would.

[Minerva]

This is one of the reasons why we need to encourage people who are having sex to TALK about this stuff. Just like I would NOT sleep with someone who couldn't understand that I will control my own body, and that should this decision come up, he gets a vote but not a veto.

I don't know the young men you do, but sometimes there is a reason that women decide this. My younger brother's ex-gf did it, because she knew she was not ready to give up her lifestyle, which included drugs, and no way that he was going to change his lifestyle, EVEN if he said he would.

I'm not convinced potentially being devastated by someone's abortion should mean someone should have a say in someone else's medical decisions. My mother, for instance, would be devastated if I had an abortion because she's anti-choice and would consider the fetus her grandchild, and people are usually devastated when their grandchild dies. By that logic, my mom should get a say in whether or not I have an abortion. And like hell am I handing a child over to that woman.

If I'm willing to carry a pregnancy to term for someone else's benefit, and if I'm comfortable handing over a child to that person, then I don't need a law pushing be towards making that decision. And if I'm not willing and comfortable with it, then it's unconscionable to have a law pressuring me to make that decision against my better judgement. If people in my life don't want me to abort, they're free to make offers such as "I'll pay for all of the baby's expenses" or "You can have the baby and move into my house" or "I'll adopt the baby and raise it as my own." I'm obviously going to factor those offers into my final decision, so it's redundant to have a law that makes me take them into account. Anything more forceful constitutes making me stay pregnant and then making me give up my child which, history has shown many times, is a horrifyingly cruel thing to do to a person.

[Mama Mia]

I agree with you that a lot of our laws are based on emotion rather than logic, but my understanding of the world is that we're trying to improve it by injecting logic in society's rules. That doesn't mean we don't bend over backwards to make sexual assault survivors' experiences easier. But it does mean we should think critically about the value we assign to fetuses if we're willing to throw them under the bus to make sexual assault survivors' lives easier. There's nothing wrong with doing so, but it's illogical for people to clamour for equality for fetuses while supporting killing them in situations where they wouldn't support killing a person. They're better off admitting that they see fetus' value as less than that of a human being but more than that of other objects. The problem with that is it involves admitting that the question of a fetus' value is ambiguous, from which they would have to conclude that there is more than one valid opinion and that theirs therefore shouldn't be law. And then they'd be pro-choice.

I don't have any problem at all with bending over backwards to make sexual assault survivor's experiences easier.

To the bolded - I think as the zygote moves to embryo moves to fetus moves to viability it advances on the scale of "human being" and has a value that may be slightly less than born humans, and definitely more than other objects. But that doesn't make me conclude that there shouldn't be laws regulating abortion at various points or for various reasons.

For example if you take a living human being - and their death is caused by another human being there can be a range of reactions and consequences - both moral and legal. If the person is killed by another person with a gun in a robbery it's murder, if they are killed by someone defending themselves from the robber with a gun it's self-defense. If they are hit by a car it could be an accident if they walked in front of the car, or manslaughter if the driver was drunk, or suicide if they jumped in front of the car on purpose. If a soldier kills someone in a war it's considered good by their country. If someone is in unbearable pain from a terminal illness they might be helped by their Dr. to take medication to help them slip away which may or may not be legal depending where you live--- there a huge range of situations involving life and death that have legal ramifications.

[Ruby Slippers]

You have this thing bookmarked don't you Anxious Girl?

Anyway I'm really not sure what else to say. Like I said you guys don't seem to put the same value on life that most people do. When I said none of you would be here if you were aborted I was told "so what?" as if it wasn't a big deal. You accuse right wingers of not caring about people after they are born but you are equally bad because you think a fetus is just an object that can be thrown away on a whim. All of us were fetuses at one point so that mindset doesn't make any sense to me. I can understand getting an abortion for a medical reason (or rape) but otherwise it is just a very selfish thing to do.

Before you give me the whole "you want to force a woman to do something that can kill her" shtick, death from pregnancy in the US is pretty rare. 14.5 out of 100,000 live births (http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/12/ ... P220101202) and that includes the women that had prior health conditions as well. If you only counted women who were totally healthy the death rate would be even lower. Besides, most abortions are not done out of health concerns, but rather because the woman doesn't want a child. This is selfish and could be solved by simply putting the baby up for adoption. An imperfect solution yes, but much better than not being alive.

You're offering an article that specifies that maternal deaths are on the rise and are trying to serve a smackdown with it? Yeahno.

Just because a woman doesn't die doesn't mean her health was never compromised: consider the real and common risks of hemorrhaging, pre-eclampsia / eclampsia, HELLP, and gestational diabetes. Also consider that women over 35 are at increased risk for pregnancy complications like the ones above and more likely to experience adverse outcomes of pregnancy. They have higher mortality rates, etc. More women die in childbirth than as a result of abortion: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22270271 . And let's not forget that with a roughly 25 or 30% c-section rate, that leaves the door wide open for dangers to a woman's health. Throw in a little Bell's Palsy for fun. Not to mention the sometimes lifelong effects of pregnancy and birth: pelvic damage, back damage, bladder damage, post-partum depression, and the recurrence of the conditions I already stated earlier in subsequent *desired* pregnancies where a woman *chooses* to open herself up to these risks willingly.

We don't consider a fetus an object. We simply recognize that a fetus is not and cannot be a legally defined person. The minute it becomes a person, the mother becomes something LESS than a person because otherwise, their rights are at odds with each other, and 2 people cannot legally occupy the same body. We also recognize that adoption does not exempt a woman from the health, financial, and indeed discrimination risks of pregnancy, only provides an alternative to parenting. (see: health insurance and paid time off for other pregnancy-associated risks.)

You wonder why we view you as ignorant and misogynist? Review your use of "on a whim." Do you really believe that women who abort are acting on a whim, without thought, without consultation, without research, without consideration? If you answer is "yes," then indeed-- you are simply anti-woman.

What you deem as selfishness, I call self-preservation and self-assertion. What you call selfishness, I call agency. In turn, what you call "SAVING THE BABIEZ," I call fetishizing them.

Finally, given that at least 25% of pregnancies end in miscarriage, there is only a 75% or less chance that it's murder!

Incidentally, I am one of those genuine, bona-fide life-of-the-mother cases. I almost bled out as a result of placental abruption and was saved by transfusion. Not that you care--as long as the baby made it, amirite?

[GodsKnickers]

You're offering an article that specifies that maternal deaths are on the rise and trying to serve a smackdown with it? Yeahno.

Just because a woman doesn't die doesn't mean her health was never compromised: consider the real and common risks of hemorrhaging, pre-eclampsia / eclampsia, HELLP, and gestational diabetes. Also consider that women over 35 are at increased risk for pregnancy complications like the ones above and more likely to experience adverse outcomes of pregnancy. They have higher mortality rates, etc. More women die in childbirth than as a result of abortion: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22270271 . And let's not forget that with a roughly 25 or 30% c-section rate, that leaves the door wide open for dangers to a woman's health. Throw in a little Bell's Palsy for fun. Not to mention the sometimes lifelong effects of pregnancy and birth: pelvic damage, back damage, bladder damage, post-partum depression, and the recurrence of the conditions I already stated earlier in subsequent *desired* pregnancies where a woman *chooses* to open herself up to these risks willingly.

We don't consider a fetus an object. We simply recognize that a fetus is not and cannot be a legally defined person. The minute it becomes a person, the mother becomes something LESS than a person because otherwise, their rights are at odds with each other, and 2 people cannot legally occupy the same body. We also recognize that adoption does not exempt a woman from the health, financial, and indeed discrimination risks of pregnancy, only provides an alternative to parenting. (see: health insurance and paid time off for other pregnancy-associated risks.)

You wonder why we view you as ignorant and misogynist? Review your use of "on a whim." Do you really believe that women who abort are acting on a whim, without thought, without consultation, without research, without consideration? If you answer is "yes," then indeed-- you are simply anti-woman.

What you deem as selfishness, I call self-preservation and self-assertion. What you call selfishness, I call agency. In turn, what you call "SAVING THE BABIEZ," I call fetishizing them.

Finally, given that at least 25% of pregnancies end in miscarriage, there is only a 75% or less chance that it's murder!

Incidentally, I am one of those genuine, bona-fide life-of-the-mother cases. I almost bled out as a result of placental abruption and was saved by transfusion. Not that you care--as long as the baby made it, amirite?

:clap: Well said.

Incidentally, the morning sickness issue that the Duchess of Cambridge dealt with - Hyperemesis Gravidarium, did I get that right? Is that not another that in its absolutely most severe form, can put the life of the mother at risk? I was a bit gobsmacked at the accusations of fakery against her, when it came to light she'd been dealing with that. It's freaking awful, from the little I know of it.

[Ruby Slippers]

Incidentally, the morning sickness issue that the Duchess of Cambridge dealt with - Hyperemesis Gravidarium, did I get that right? Is that not another that in its absolutely most severe form, can put the life of the mother at risk? I was a bit gobsmacked at the accusations of fakery against her, when it came to light she'd been dealing with that. It's freaking awful, from the little I know of it.

yes, it is considered an emergent condition.

[Anxious Girl]

I don't know anyone that's for abortion. I think most people agree that it would be better to prevent the unplanned pregnancy in the first place, with comprehensive sex education, and easily available contraception. Failing that, improved social supports for those that want to parent. Unfortunately, it seems that most (not all, but a significant number) of those that claim to be pro life are against the very things that would lower the abortion rate. Nobody is saying the fetus isn't alive, or isn't human. Of course it is. The question is, not whether the fetus is a life, but whether it's rights trump the rights of its mother, an actual fully realized person with the right to choose what to do with her own body. If abortion is murder because the fetus is a life, then it's murder whether the mother is 12, has been the victim of rape, the father is her uncle, or she is on welfare, or even if her health is at risk. It shouldn't make a difference. I think the owner of the uterus gets to decide. I may not like the decisions other women make, but it isn't my choice.

Fetuses aren't alive and human. If they were; then people wouldn't have birthdays, and God wouldn't have invented misscarriages. Thoughts like yours are what causes personhood laws in conservative states. You're pro-choice because you believe that it isn't your choice whether to tell women to get abortions or not. I'm for abortion. I'm for pregnancy, I'm for adoption.

I'm for any choice a woman makes concerning her body. I call troll on your bolded statements. I feel like FJ has gotten too soft.

[Ruby Slippers]

Fetuses aren't alive and human. If they were; then people wouldn't have birthdays, and God wouldn't have invented misscarriages. Thoughts like yours are what causes personhood laws in conservative states. You're pro-choice because you believe that it isn't your choice whether to tell women to get abortions or not. I'm for abortion. I'm for pregnancy, I'm for adoption.

I'm for any choice a woman makes concerning her body. I call troll on your bolded statements. I feel like FJ has

gotten too soft.

Eh, it is alive, in that cells are alive. And it is human in its DNA. I don't see anything particularly inflammatory or soft about those statements. If anything, "a life" in the following line is more problematic, as it seems to assign unique special snowflake indivualization.

[Mama Mia]

Fetuses aren't alive and human. If they were; then people wouldn't have birthdays, and God wouldn't have invented misscarriages. Thoughts like yours are what causes personhood laws in conservative states. You're pro-choice because you believe that it isn't your choice whether to tell women to get abortions or not. I'm for abortion. I'm for pregnancy, I'm for adoption.

I'm for any choice a woman makes concerning her body. I call troll on your bolded statements. I feel like FJ has gotten too soft.

Statements like that are what have made me more conservative regarding abortion. Of course fetuses are alive. You can see the heartbeat on the ultrasound at what -- 6 or 8 weeks ? And" if they were alive people wouldn't have birthdays" has got to be one of the most nonsensical statements I've ever read.-- Closely followed by "God wouldn't have invented miscarriages" -- Living people die every day, in fact everybody dies, so how would a miscarriage (the death of a fetus) prove anything relevant about life and death ? :angry-banghead:

[Anxious Girl]

Eh, it is alive, in that cells are alive. And it is human in its DNA. I don't see anything particularly inflammatory or soft about those statements. If anything, "a life" in the following line is more problematic, as it seems to assign unique special snowflake indivualization.

I thought she meant it this way. I apologize if she didn't. I have seen way too many people use pro-life terms such the fetus is alive and has human DNA to support their opinion that it indeed is a baby; and it makes me get all ragey inside.