|
Post by The Lazy One on Apr 28, 2011 15:52:40 GMT -5
I still don't think they should be done unless it's an emergency, though. If the mother is going to die if she doesn't abort, it's ugly, but you really cannot say "Fuck you you're going to die." That's just as wrong as killing someone. But if she's just, "Oh, I decided I don't want to have a baby anymore and I'm due in a few weeks," then no.
And yeah, I can see how you'd be confused- I don't think I've ever heard of anyone surviving a back-alley abortion either.
|
|
|
Post by Rat Of Steel on Apr 28, 2011 15:55:25 GMT -5
Cait, you and I see a clump of cells, they see a thing with a soul, and thus, a person. They basically view a fetus the same way they view a 3 year old. And that's messed up. And that's terrible.Fixed. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Caitshidhe on Apr 28, 2011 15:56:08 GMT -5
...okay, that IS when women get late-term abortions. When the fetus is badly compromised or the woman might not survive. Late-term abortions are not something you can go to your Planned Parenthood and ask for--women don't just decide eight months in that they don't want to be pregnant anymore. As Sim said, they're even illegal in most states.
Late term abortion is seen as a last resort when something has been discovered going horribly wrong.
|
|
|
Post by The Lazy One on Apr 28, 2011 15:59:31 GMT -5
...okay, that IS when women get late-term abortions. When the fetus is badly compromised or the woman might not survive. Late-term abortions are not something you can go to your Planned Parenthood and ask for--women don't just decide eight months in that they don't want to be pregnant anymore. As Sim said, they're even illegal in most states. Late term abortion is seen as a last resort when something has been discovered going horribly wrong. I didn't know that, I had heard stories of women deciding they didn't want to have a baby anymore and just deciding to get a late-term abortion. Like I said, I don't have a problem with it if it's legitimately needed. What I have a problem with is what I've laid out already.
|
|
|
Post by Caitshidhe on Apr 28, 2011 16:03:03 GMT -5
Yeah, well, you should be careful believing stories like that. There's a little common sense involved.
In the United States, the ONLY time a third trimester abortion is performed is when the alternative is death--for the mother or the fetus or both. I don't know how it is in other countries but I suspect it might be similar.
|
|
|
Post by SimSim on Apr 28, 2011 16:10:21 GMT -5
Lazy, for the most part those stories are BS talking points, much like those billboards that show a several month old fetus that say things like, "what about my right to choose?". I'm sure somewhere there are people that irresponsible, but by far the vast majority of abortions happen during the first trimester. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_abortion_by_gestational_age_2004_histogram.svgThose few that do occur during the third trimester are medically needed, or pregancies caused by rape or incest. I should clarify that even in the 36 states where third trimester abortions are illegal, they are legal for those circumstances. However, it's very hard to find a doctor willing to perform them. Edit:can't get the damn pic to load, so a link it is.
|
|
|
Post by brendanjd on Apr 28, 2011 16:10:43 GMT -5
In Canada abortion is unrestricted in the 1st and 2nd trimesters. A woman may procure an abortion during the 3rd if it's for health reasons with the consent of two doctors.
Which seems fairly reasonable, although I'd do away with the two doctor rule.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Apr 28, 2011 16:18:39 GMT -5
Cait, you and I see a clump of cells, they see a thing with a soul, and thus, a person. They basically view a fetus the same way they view a 3 year old. And that's messed up. And that's terrible.Fixed. ;D What The Hell, Hero?
|
|
|
Post by Caitshidhe on Apr 28, 2011 16:20:12 GMT -5
Those few that do occur during the third trimester are medically needed, or pregancies caused by rape or incest. I should clarify that even in the 36 states where third trimester abortions are illegal, they are legal for those circumstances. However, it's very hard to find a doctor willing to perform them. This story is really worth the read. It was written shortly after Dr Tiller was murdered and is about the hardships faced by his colleague and friend, Warren Hern, who is one of the only doctors in the United States willing to perform late-term abortions. It's a wonderfully sensitive piece and shows how difficult and emotionally draining it sometimes is for even the doctors themselves to do their jobs.
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon the Clown on Apr 28, 2011 17:39:17 GMT -5
Playing Devil's advocate here... Imagine it would be legal for parents to euthanise their children up to an age of, let's say, three years. There may be some restrictions, but in the end "I finally got a job an another town, but I can find no one willing to rent me an apartment after I say that I have a tantrum-prone two-year old. So I decided to get an appointment at the doctor and have him put to sleep. I don't like it, but I'm jobless otherwise and couldn't feed him." would be a realistic scenario. After all, it's legal for pets, too. A few thousand children are euthanised that way every year. Would you be okay with this? Would you accept it as the way it is, or would you take steps to stop these (to you) horrifying events? Try to convince parents contemplation such an action to not do it and choose another way? Lobby politicians to outlaw that practice? That's about the situation Anti-abortion activists are in. As I see it, they (the sane ones) don't specifically want to constrict a woman's right to choose, they just think that the fetus' right to live supersedes his mother's right to self-determination. And some of them are growing increasingly fanatical after a while. Or it might be that I'm an idealist. Corollary: Those opposing abortions due to medical emergency (to save the mother's life) are just nuts. I was unaware apartments were legally allowed to discriminate on the basis of having crotch monkeys. Something having to do with not being able to discriminate against blacks or the disabled.
|
|
|
Post by Yla on Apr 29, 2011 3:20:27 GMT -5
I was unaware apartments were legally allowed to discriminate on the basis of having crotch monkeys. Something having to do with not being able to discriminate against blacks or the disabled. Then you can go and think of a better analogy. Yla: I've heard that comparison before and it just smacks of rubbish. No matter how loudly the people screech about it, at the end of the day a fetus isn't a person. It has no right to 'live' over an adult's freedom of choice. A three-year-old IS a person and DOES have the right to live no matter what their parent wants to do. Put another way, in some places house pets are seen as the 'property' of their owners and I think it's completely legal for the owner to decide to take the pet to the vet and have it put down for exactly the reasons you used in your example. I don't think people should have the right to do that. But that's because pets and children are living, breathing, sentient creatures that another person doesn't have the right to kill. A fetus isn't comparable with a toddler, no matter what the anti-choicers or pro-lifers or anti-abortionists say. I should have left that precautionary disclaimer in my post. You're missing my point. (Good point about the pets, though.) Cait, you and I see a clump of cells, they see a thing with a soul, and thus, a person. They basically view a fetus the same way they view a 3 year old. And that's messed up. That was the point I was making. It's about their perception. We might disagree with their presupposition, but from their point of view, abortion is a terrible crime, and their protest is legitimate. You were essentially calling them a bunch of misogynists looking for a pretext, and that I disagree with.
|
|
|
Post by wmdkitty on Apr 29, 2011 5:10:51 GMT -5
Yla: I've heard that comparison before and it just smacks of rubbish. No matter how loudly the people screech about it, at the end of the day a fetus isn't a person. It has no right to 'live' over an adult's freedom of choice. A three-year-old IS a person and DOES have the right to live no matter what their parent wants to do. Put another way, in some places house pets are seen as the 'property' of their owners and I think it's completely legal for the owner to decide to take the pet to the vet and have it put down for exactly the reasons you used in your example. I don't think people should have the right to do that. But that's because pets and children are living, breathing, sentient creatures that another person doesn't have the right to kill. A fetus isn't comparable with a toddler, no matter what the anti-choicers or pro-lifers or anti-abortionists say. But what about late third-trimester fetuses, that could potentially survive outside of its mother? That pretty much is a person. Unless there is some dire medical emergency that would kill the mother, it's not right to abort that. You hear stories of babies surviving botched late-term abortions, albeit badly hurt. That is just fucked up. I honestly don't care what anyone on the pro-choice side has to say- unless there's a very good medical reason for it, aborting a viable fetus just doesn't seem right. Add to that the fact that "viability" is being pushed further and further back by medical technology... I was a preemie, and if it weren't for medical technology, I wouldn't be alive. Time was, preemies were pretty much doomed, but now we're surviving earlier and earlier deliveries. I'm not sure how I feel about that, though, because the earlier a baby is born, the higher the chances of a severe disability. I got off lucky, with a moderate case of Cerebral Palsy (and probably some other brain damage), but others... well... others haven't been so lucky. I don't think it's okay to abort a viable late-term fetus when the fetus is healthy. If it has some kind of condition that is incompatible with life, sure. If the mother's life is in danger, I assume she'd have gotten the abortion earlier in the pregnancy, instead of letting it go near full-term. (At least, that's what I would do. I can't speak for everyone.) I guess, if it's a sudden-onset thing that puts the mother's life in danger late in pregnancy... well... couldn't they just do an emergency C-section, and save both lives? I don't know, I'm kinda "thinking out loud", here, so I apologise if this is a bit disjointed. (It's also late, and I'm on Vicodin, so...) I'm completely pro-choice, though, so as far as I'm concerned the decision is between a woman, her doctor, and (if any) her god. As far as house-pets go, I consider my fur-kids to be just as much family as the humans, so I would never have a pet put down for convenience. To end his or her suffering, yeah, but... even then... I'd have a hard time doing it.
|
|
|
Post by Yaezakura on Apr 29, 2011 5:27:30 GMT -5
Playing Devil's advocate here... Imagine it would be legal for parents to euthanise their children up to an age of, let's say, three years. There may be some restrictions, but in the end "I finally got a job an another town, but I can find no one willing to rent me an apartment after I say that I have a tantrum-prone two-year old. So I decided to get an appointment at the doctor and have him put to sleep. I don't like it, but I'm jobless otherwise and couldn't feed him." would be a realistic scenario. After all, it's legal for pets, too. A few thousand children are euthanised that way every year. Would you be okay with this? Would you accept it as the way it is, or would you take steps to stop these (to you) horrifying events? Try to convince parents contemplation such an action to not do it and choose another way? Lobby politicians to outlaw that practice? That's about the situation Anti-abortion activists are in. As I see it, they (the sane ones) don't specifically want to constrict a woman's right to choose, they just think that the fetus' right to live supersedes his mother's right to self-determination. And some of them are growing increasingly fanatical after a while. Or it might be that I'm an idealist. Corollary: Those opposing abortions due to medical emergency (to save the mother's life) are just nuts. I was unaware apartments were legally allowed to discriminate on the basis of having crotch monkeys. Something having to do with not being able to discriminate against blacks or the disabled. Well, there are places that discriminate on housing based on age. Stuff like "55 and up" communities, where no one under a certain age is allowed to move in.
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Apr 29, 2011 5:29:22 GMT -5
I was unaware apartments were legally allowed to discriminate on the basis of having crotch monkeys. Something having to do with not being able to discriminate against blacks or the disabled. Well, there are places that discriminate on housing based on age. Stuff like "55 and up" communities, where no one under a certain age is allowed to move in. They can't legally do it. It's more of one of those 'we'd prefer if you are but we can't legally prevent you from living here...' It's like when people segregate themselves willingly in New York and such. Only staying to their own communities.
|
|