Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 CptJake wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 whembly wrote:


Just like you'd never hear of a pregnant woman says... "I'm with 'a blob of cells' ".

No, but are we calling it by a popular name, or are we calling it what it actually is? It is not a human, a baby, or a soul at that point. Claiming otherwise is simply untrue.

At what point would you assign it personhood and therefore have rights worth protecting? What would you base that on?

1. Earning potential.
2. Proven ability to get me a beer and then get the hell out of the house already. Fly little bird fly!

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Um...where is the "neither/both" option? Abortion shouldn't be a form of birth control: "whoops, I got pregnant from casual sex-off to vacuum it out" is disgusting.

It's not, really. That's just a handy pretend argument anti-abortion types like to throw around, but common sense will tell you no reasonable percentage of people will (or even could!) use a $500-$700 procedure, which won't be covered by almost any insurance plans, as a substitute for birth control which is around $25 a month and generally covered by insurance.

It's like claiming people shouldn't buy new cars just because they got a flat tire. Sure, they shouldn't, but also, they don't.

 Ouze wrote:
I see no problem with prohibiting abortion past the point where the fetus is viable outside of the womb- i.e. what our current laws already support.

I can't agree with calling a lump of cells the size of a grape "a baby" and granting it rights greater than the person within whom it resides. So, I guess I'm with the libertarians on this one, right?

Pretty much.

whembly wrote:Not because of the Mother's willful intent to cause the miscarriage... its due to nature's will.

So it's a theological thing? I mean, smallpox and polio are "nature's will", but we seemed to take exception to those.

Ouze wrote:I see no problem with prohibiting abortion past the point where the fetus is viable outside of the womb- i.e. what our current laws already support.

I can't agree with calling a lump of cells the size of a grape "a baby" and granting it rights greater than the person within whom it resides. So, I guess I'm with the libertarians on this one, right?

I'm actually thinking this is the most reasonable thing. I'm gonna go with this one for my answer as of this point.

 Ouze wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Um...where is the "neither/both" option? Abortion shouldn't be a form of birth control: "whoops, I got pregnant from casual sex-off to vacuum it out" is disgusting.

It's not, really. That's just a handy pretend argument anti-abortion types like to throw around, but common sense will tell you no reasonable percentage of people will (or even could!) use a $500-$700 procedure, which won't be covered by almost any insurance plans, as a substitute for birth control which is around $25 a month and generally covered by insurance.

It's like claiming people shouldn't buy new cars just because they got a flat tire. Sure, they shouldn't, but also, they don't.

I know people who do this and have done it in the past. As such, my opinion stands, based on my current knowledge.

As to the post "what is a life worth living" (can't multi-quote on my phone), if the ultrasounds show a seriously damaged fetus, that is likely to not be able to stand without its legs breaking, have to be hooked up to a machine to breathe, or be in an eternal coma, those are all grounds for "not worth it". However, that is an opinion, and as such it's a call each individual couple needs to make. It's a discretionary decision.

Your personal anecdotal experience may or may not scale with the hundreds of millions of other people in the nation.

 Frazzled wrote:
I like your use of "covilized countries" there.

Well, the important thing is you guys are trying, I guess

Again, define human. This may take awhile.

Not really. A sentient being belonging to the genus Homo, more specifically Homo Sapiens. A blob of cells isn't a human being any more than a factory full of components is a car, or a steak is a cow.

Mmmm,steak. Now this thread has taken a delicious turn.

 Ouze wrote:
Mmmm,steak. Now this thread has taken a delicious turn.

Eggs are better. I particularly like to eat Scrambled Eggs. Might have to go out and get some.

With the fried pickles in the other thread, and now steak, we can have ourselves a nice feast!

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
With the fried pickles in the other thread, and now steak, we can have ourselves a nice feast!

It will be a fancy feast?

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Um...where is the "neither/both" option? Abortion shouldn't be a form of birth control: "whoops, I got pregnant from casual sex-off to vacuum it out" is disgusting.

It's not, really. That's just a handy pretend argument anti-abortion types like to throw around, but common sense will tell you no reasonable percentage of people will (or even could!) use a $500-$700 procedure, which won't be covered by almost any insurance plans, as a substitute for birth control which is around $25 a month and generally covered by insurance.

It's like claiming people shouldn't buy new cars just because they got a flat tire. Sure, they shouldn't, but also, they don't.

I know people who do this and have done it in the past. As such, my opinion stands, based on my current knowledge.

The percentages assigned to reasons people have abortions I posted earlier tend to support that most abortions are for reasons of convenience, which really is close to using it because birth control did not get used or did not work, or just because the mother changed her mind. Assuming the study those came from is legit it is hard to argue it is a 'pretend argument'.

 CptJake wrote:


The percentages assigned to reasons people have abortions I posted earlier tend to support that most abortions are for reasons of convenience, which really is close to using it because birth control did not get used or did not work, or just because the mother changed her mind. Assuming the study those came from is legit it is hard to argue it is a 'pretend argument'.

KK was wondering early why that's necessarily automatically a bad thing.

 whembly wrote:
Do you even read what you just wrote there... why does "miscarriage" has to equate to "dead fetus"? It's a dead baby. Not because of the Mother's willful intent to cause the miscarriage... its due to nature's will.

Why does "will" matter? A dead baby is a dead baby, we don't say "well, no point in supporting cancer research, dying of cancer is just nature's will".

 CptJake wrote:
[The percentages assigned to reasons people have abortions I posted earlier tend to support that most abortions are for reasons of convenience, which really is close to using it because birth control did not get used or did not work, or just because the mother changed her mind. Assuming the study those came from is legit it is hard to argue it is a 'pretend argument'.

It is, in fact, a stupid pretend argument. If you want to take stats on abortion, break them down, and then use your own personal criteria to determine which ones are legitimate and which are not, you're welcome to do that, but I'm equally free to consider every single reason, 100% of them, to be totally great reasons for having an abortion, and all of which are protected rights. I don't think an abortion is particularly convenient in any scenario.

By a strict reading of your own post, none of them are "using an abortion as birth control", zero percent. In your own words, some are "pretty close". So, lets stop playing pretend.

 CptJake wrote:
The percentages assigned to reasons people have abortions I posted earlier tend to support that most abortions are for reasons of convenience, which really is close to using it because birth control did not get used or did not work, or just because the mother changed her mind. Assuming the study those came from is legit it is hard to argue it is a 'pretend argument'.

Given the percentages, it is certain that people ticked multiple options. And given that it is an emotional procedure, it is possible that some respondents identified their situation differently to how you may do. For example "Having a baby would dramatically change my life" to you may mean "I would have to buy new clothes to fit my stomach into!", whilst those responding could quite equally take that reply to mean "my life would be completely changed, I would not be able to make ends meet and would have to live on the street, my family would disown me, etc, etc..."

That is the problem with the answers given in your survey... one could legitimately take them to mean many different things.

 Ouze wrote:
It is, in fact, a stupid pretend argument. If you want to take stats on abortion, break them down, and then use your own personal criteria to determine which ones are legitimate and which are not, you're welcome to do that, but I'm equally free to consider every single reason, 100% of them, to be totally great reasons for having an abortion, and all of which are protected rights. I don't think an abortion is particularly convenient in any scenario.

Well, it's more convenient than some of the alternatives, such as caring for a child that is doomed to be bedridden its entire life.

I still don't understand why that's a "bad thing".

Social conservatives: Don't want women having easy access to birth control, don't want them having abortions, want the government to step in and make their medical decisions for them*, and after they have babies they don't want and can't afford, don't want them going on welfare.

The Aristocrats!

*unless it's Obamacare, in which case, they're jack-booted thugs.

 Ouze wrote:
*unless it's Obamacare, in which case, they're jack-booted thugs.

Don't they have Birth Panels to decide when a woman will become pregnant even if she doesn't want to be?

hah!

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
*unless it's Obamacare, in which case, they're jack-booted thugs.

Don't they have Birth Panels to decide when a woman will become pregnant even if she doesn't want to be?

Have an exalt!

Why is it that when it comes to Tabaco, Weed, or Alcohol, it's "OH LORDY, THESE NEED TO BE TAXED SO PEOPLE DON'T HARM THEIR BODIES OR OTHER PEOPLE!" and when it comes to abortion it's "Yeah sure, go ahead....."

 daedalus wrote:

 CptJake wrote:


The percentages assigned to reasons people have abortions I posted earlier tend to support that most abortions are for reasons of convenience, which really is close to using it because birth control did not get used or did not work, or just because the mother changed her mind. Assuming the study those came from is legit it is hard to argue it is a 'pretend argument'.

KK was wondering early why that's necessarily automatically a bad thing.

Where did I assign any 'good' or 'bad' to it? All I did was point out the reasons that study found after someone else claimed abortions were not mainly done for convenience (and now Ouze making a similar argument).

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Given the percentages, it is certain that people ticked multiple options. And given that it is an emotional procedure, it is possible that some respondents identified their situation differently to how you may do. For example "Having a baby would dramatically change my life" to you may mean "I would have to buy new clothes to fit my stomach into!", whilst those responding could quite equally take that reply to mean "my life would be completely changed, I would not be able to make ends meet and would have to live on the street, my family would disown me, etc, etc..."

That is the problem with the answers given in your survey... one could legitimately take them to mean many different things.

Even in your example, not being able to make ends meet, means aborting for convenience. You really cannot look at those reasons and claim that the majority of abortions done because the pregnancy was due to rape or incest, or that the mother's life is in danger (which tend to be reasons a lot of pro-choice give). So, pregnant women seem to have abortions because it is more convenient than having a baby would be. The severity of the results of actually having the baby (not being able to make ends meet/getting kick out of the house and so on) really just help define how convenient it is.

Personally I think someone needs to define when the fetus should be given personhood and given rights. I find it interesting that Scott Peterson was convicted of 2nd degree murder for killing the fetus inside his wife when he capped her, and is a large reason he was sentenced to death. That seems to indicate that at some point the state of CA considers the fetus a person.

 CptJake wrote:


Where did I assign any 'good' or 'bad' to it? All I did was point out the reasons that study found after someone else claimed abortions were not mainly done for convenience (and now Ouze making a similar argument).

Hey, fair enough. Thank you for clarifying.

 CptJake wrote:
The severity of the results of actually having the baby (not being able to make ends meet/getting kick out of the house and so on) really just help define how convenient it is.

And what is wrong with that? Do you really think forcing someone to have a baby they can't support is the higher road here?

I take the stance of if you don't like abortion then don't have one.

Same with gay marriage: if you don't like gay marriage then don't get gay married.

Iranna.

 daedalus wrote:

whembly wrote:Not because of the Mother's willful intent to cause the miscarriage... its due to nature's will.

So it's a theological thing? I mean, smallpox and polio are "nature's will", but we seemed to take exception to those.

Of course not... it's NATURE. You know, try as all you might... things happen in nature outside of our control.

It is man's hubris to believe we have complete control over our bodies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
Mmmm,steak. Now this thread has taken a delicious turn.

Have you seen Hemlock Groves yet?

You'll get it...

 Slarg232 wrote:
Why is it that when it comes to Tabaco, Weed, or Alcohol, it's "OH LORDY, THESE NEED TO BE TAXED SO PEOPLE DON'T HARM THEIR BODIES OR OTHER PEOPLE!" and when it comes to abortion it's "Yeah sure, go ahead....."

Well, I can only speak for myself, but I also don't really hold with "vice" or "morality taxes" on the items you describe. Either something is lawful, or it is not. If it is not lawful, then the tax issue is irrelevant, and if it is lawful, it should only be taxed at a rate commensurate with whatever the closest possible analogy is to that item.

There is nothing more hypocritical then the many states that love decrying the awful big tobacco companies that they also, coincidentally, need those giant-ass settlement payouts coming from, so they could toss them in their hookers, cocaine, and maybe sometimes an anti-smoking commercial slush fund.

But that's a different rant/thread.

 CptJake wrote:
Even in your example, not being able to make ends meet, means aborting for convenience. You really cannot look at those reasons and claim that the majority of abortions done because the pregnancy was due to rape or incest, or that the mother's life is in danger (which tend to be reasons a lot of pro-choice give). So, pregnant women seem to have abortions because it is more convenient than having a baby would be. The severity of the results of actually having the baby (not being able to make ends meet/getting kick out of the house and so on) really just help define how convenient it is.

Although I see where you are arguing from, I personally think (and believe that the majority of people, as well as the law (in the UK at least, not sure about the US) would be with me) that you are putting forward arguments that don't really reflect the reality of life. You are making some kind of ecological fallacy where you take what I have already mentioned are very ambiguous groupings of replies and look back towards what you determine the motives of individuals who gave that response "should be" according to some set of preconceived notions you have about the reasons why women might choose to have an abortion.

Personally I think someone needs to define when the fetus should be given personhood and given rights.

It is commonly determined to be the point at which a foetus is generally capable of existing outside the mother with no or minimal support. In the UK this is set to 24 weeks post conception, at which point abortions should not be performed unless there is some medical requirement. Again, I am not sure what things are like in the US so will not comment.

Just as a bit of trivia on the number of abortions performed after this 24 week point:

"Around 200,000 abortions are carried out each year in England and Wales. Less than 2 per cent of those were performed between 20 and 24 weeks and 136 after that time." - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9582428/Abortion-24-week-limit-QandA.html

I find it interesting that Scott Peterson was convicted of 2nd degree murder for killing the fetus inside his wife when he capped her, and is a large reason he was sentenced to death. That seems to indicate that at some point the state of CA considers the fetus a person.

I couldn't comment on this I am afraid.

 whembly wrote:
It is man's hubris to believe we have complete control over our bodies.

It is foolishness to believe we can't affect change in our lives either. If you've ever even taken aspirin for a headache you are negating your own argument.