Joined: 18 Nov 2004 Posts: 1797 Location: Upper Midwest
Posted: 02-12-05 14:16pm
The iud actually falls kind of in between.
In medicine, the pregnancy doesn't begin
until implantation. Thus, the iud does
not prevent implantation, but it also is
not an abortifacient.
|
FISHX
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 27 Dec 2004 Posts: 920 Location: UK
Posted: 02-13-05 06:22am
So have I or have I not inadvertantly
terminated hundreds of my potential
children by having the mirena iud
fitted?
Just something I need to know.
|
steen
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 18 Nov 2004 Posts: 1797 Location: Upper Midwest
Posted: 02-13-05 09:31am
fishx
wrote:
so have I or have I not
inadvertantly terminated hundreds of my
potential children by having the mirena
iud fitted?
Just something I need to
know.
an iud works by
irritating the lining of the uterus to the
point where it is not receptive for
implantation. Thus, even if there is a
fertilized egg (at that point a
blastocyst), it can't implant.
As such, as you post it, to the best of my
knowledge, yes that is possible. I
don't have any specific knowledge of the
brand you mention, but unless its function
is radically different than other iud that
is a possibility.
You could ask in the birthcontrol forum.
Somebody there might know the specifics of
that brand
|
FISHX
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 27 Dec 2004 Posts: 920 Location: UK
Posted: 02-13-05 10:56am
steen
wrote:
fishx
wrote:
so have I or have I not
inadvertantly terminated hundreds of my
potential children by having the mirena
iud fitted?
Just something I need to
know.
an iud works by
irritating the lining of the uterus to the
point where it is not receptive for
implantation. Thus, even if there is a
fertilized egg (at that point a
blastocyst), it can't implant.
As such, as you post it, to the best of my
knowledge, yes that is possible. I
don't have any specific knowledge of the
brand you mention, but unless its function
is radically different than other iud that
is a possibility.
You could ask in the birthcontrol forum.
Somebody there might know the specifics
of that brand
thank you much appreciated.
|
sandyallen
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 02 Feb 2004 Posts: 4580
Posted: 02-13-05 15:21pm
I ended up micarrying with an iud, the iud
was in the fetus that I was miscarrying, I
am sure they work for others but it wasn't
very comfortable for me.
Sincerely,
sandy
I think abortion is either
wrong or it isn't. The reason behind it
doesn't change whether or not it is
wrong.. The same thing happens either
way. I know you all will think i'm
shallow but I don't care.. I just saw the
worst marks on somebody ever and I am not
scarring my body up just to give the kid
up in the end.. Especially when I don't
feel morally compelled to, and I will not
do it for anybody else's morals. Like I
said.. Abortion is either wrong or it
isn't... The fetus aborted because of
rape and the fetus aborted because of
whatever "selfish" reason are no different
and one does not deserve.. Life or
whatever more than the other and the forth
fetus isn't any more special then the
first.
Completely agree. Abortion most definitely
is
not a circumstancial issue. Many,
many people agree with abortion if the
circumstances are 'bad enough' (i.e. rape,
incest, foetal abnormalities etc.), which
I think is a ludicrous comment because no
single abortion is more or less (im)moral
than another. I am pro-choice, therefore I
fully support the right to abortion; this
means that I would not desire any
restrictions on it because as long as the
foetus occupies the body of another person
it is that host's decision what to do
(yes, I fully support late-term
abortions). It is not my right to dictate
a woman and say "Hang on here, you've
already had four abortions because you
refused to go on the Pill - I'm not
letting you have another one". I would
rather a woman have her eighteenth
abortion than force her to give birth.
Abortions, in my eyes, are not immoral, so
one abortion is no different than five. I
would strongly urge anybody to use
protection and contraception if they do
not wish to get pregnant but I am not
obliged to force them, so if they
choose to continuously use abortion
frivolously and carelessly than that is
their rightful decision. I personally
support that, after three social
abortions (I need to stress that), the
National Health System should have the
right to refuse them another termination
funded by them if the doctor doesn't
desire to allow another abortion by this
woman, so she can go private if she really
wants to terminate.
No abortion is worse than another - it
just means that a person who has had eight
abortons due to failure to use
contraception is far more irresponsible
and careless than someone who has had two
abortions with both pregnancies resulting
from the Pill failure.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 03-30-07 16:01pm
FISHX
wrote:
Steen shouldnt birth control
actualy stop conception?
I don't see how you can class termination
as birth control myself.
Birth control: to stop
conception.
No,
birth control: to stop birth.
COntraception: to stop conception.
This is one of the more fundamental issues
with "abortion as birth control" because
it brings up confusing wordings.
Technically, a contraceptive device not
only prevents conception, but also
inadvertantly prevents birth (if you
prevent the concetption, you also prevent
the birth). That's why contraceptive
devices are also called "birth control".
However, abortion is not a contraceptive;
it is "birth control" in the strictest
sense. That's why the phrase "i
dissaporive of abortion as a form of birth
control" doesn't make any sense. Obviously
the people who say this (and I'm one of
them) mean that they dissaprove of
abortion being used very often, and as the
only form of birth control
that a woman chooses.
I am pro-choice, so in the end, abortion
is the woman's choice. However, I do have
personal opinions about it.
I believe in viability. Once a fetus could
be born and survive without too many
problems, even if it needed life support
for a while, I consider it to be viable
and thus, it cannot be aborted unless
there are extenuating circumstances.
I also consider the accidental death of a
fetus of any age by someone aside from the
mother, to be murder or at least accidental
man-slaughter, depending on the situation
and the age of the fetus.
People may not like the fact that I don't
view abortion as a black or white issue.
Well, I'm not going to apoligize for being
comfortable with moral ambiguity, for
understanding that one rule does not
always apply to all situations.
Steen shouldnt birth control
actualy stop conception?
I don't see how you can class termination
as birth control myself.
Birth control: to stop
conception.
No,
birth control: to stop birth.
COntraception: to stop conception.
This is one of the more fundamental issues
with "abortion as birth control" because
it brings up confusing wordings.
Technically, a contraceptive device not
only prevents conception, but also
inadvertantly prevents birth (if you
prevent the concetption, you also prevent
the birth). That's why contraceptive
devices are also called "birth control".
However, abortion is not a contraceptive;
it is "birth control" in the strictest
sense. That's why the phrase "i
dissaporive of abortion as a form of birth
control" doesn't make any sense. Obviously
the people who say this (and I'm one of
them) mean that they dissaprove of
abortion being used very often, and as the
only form of birth control
that a woman chooses.
I am pro-choice, so in the end, abortion
is the woman's choice. However, I do have
personal opinions about it.
I believe in viability. Once a fetus could
be born and survive without too many
problems, even if it needed life support
for a while, I consider it to be viable
and thus, it cannot be aborted unless
there are extenuating circumstances.
I also consider the accidental death of a
fetus of any age by someone aside from the
mother, to be murder or at least accidental
man-slaughter, depending on the situation
and the age of the fetus.
People may not like the fact that I don't
view abortion as a black or white issue.
Well, I'm not going to apoligize for being
comfortable with moral ambiguity, for
understanding that one rule does not
always apply to all
situations.
Eiri, although I respect your opinions
totally, I would still like to challenge
them; I think there are some issues which
can be black and white and others which
can't (it really does depend on what the
issue and the main question is). The
abortion debate's main question is "Does a
woman's right to control her body override
that of a foetus to live?" or something
similar. My personal view is that yes, a
woman's right to abort is more important
than a foetus's 'right' to live. Simple as
that. Who am I to say "Hang on a sec, you
can have an abortion if ... {enter
circumstance} but not if ... {enter
circumstance}"? In fact, I do not have
that right. A foetus is a foetus. It is
literally impossible to homicide a foetus
via terminating a pregnancy, since
abortions are not illegal; so, I support
unrestricted abortions right up until the
end of the pregnancy, for whatever reason
(after all, the pregnant individual in
question decides, in the end, if the
reasons for terminating are good enough).
I know that foetal viability is a grey
issue for many pro-choicers, but I take
the view that, because I believe in
women's rights to control their own body,
I see no solid reason to object to
late-term abortions. If I did, I would
pertain to an anti-human rights opinion
(although I am not saying that some of my
other opinions vis-à-vis abortion are
also anti-rights). A foetus is an unborn
human, no distinction is made in the
meaning of the word from an eight-month
old foetus to a three-month old, hence one
of the reasons I can't comprehend why
somebody should make a distinction. Even
though foetuses after a certain
gestational period are viable, it really
makes no difference, in my eyes, because
it is still parasitic in nature, holds no
legal rights, is not an identified person,
and still occupies the womb of another
(exactly as a three-month old foetus). I
regard viability as just another
development in the pregnancy (as the
forming of limbs, hair, facial features
etc.) and still struggle to understand why
it matters as much as it does to some
people, when my much more important
aforementioned facts exist from day one of
the pregnancy and don't change until
birth. Again, to be anti-late-term
abortion is pro-forced birth
(nevertheless this person may also hold
very anti-forced birth attitudes, but I am
just saying that, per se, being
anti-late-term abortion is pro-forced
birth). The unborn hold no
rights whatsoever, so it is unethical, in
my honest point of view, to give viable
foetuses higher value. Totally pointless.
Anyway that is on a personal level (as
you, Eiri, have a personal disagreement
with late-term abortions) and such things
are usually irrelevant to the legal side
of the issue. My only concern, shall we
say, is when pro-choicers disagree with
the legal right to terminate
pregnancies, regardless of gestation. I
see pro-choicers everywhere telling
pro-lifers "Fair enough if you disagree
with abortion, but you can't make your
opinion law, because it should be left
open for women to make their own
decisions", yet they will say "Late-term
abortions should be illegal! It is wrong
to homicide a viable foetus!". That's
very hypocritical. All I
can say to them is the same thing they
preach to everybody else: "You may
personally disagree with late-term
abortions, which is fair enough, but don't
enforce it as law. Despite your view, you
still have the intelligence to recognise
that foetuses of all gestational periods
have no legal rights as individual
persons, which is why the law should be
left open for women to come to their own
decisions". If you are pro-choice and you
think that there should be a legal
restriction on late-term abortions, then I
would find it quite difficult to call you
'fully' pro-choice (as it currently
stands, I have never heard a term to
denote a person adhering to both
pro-choice and pro-life views).
With respect to abortions used as the
sole form of birth control,
well it's quite hard to put my feelings
into words. Similarly to my stance on
late-term abortions, I cannot see how any
one abortion is more or less immoral than
another. A foetus is a foetus, a parasite
containing human DNA with no legal rights
as a person, so aborting six foetuses is
not worse than aborting one. The
circumstances surrounding the pregnancies
may be different, but each termination is
of the same worth. I would rather a woman
continually abort than be refused and
forced to bear the child. At the end of
the day, it is still the woman's
choice to use her body
in that way. In fact I can't even say that
abortions as the sole form of birth
control are irresponsible (they take care
of a situation (pregnancy) in which the
bearer does not desire to be found).
'Careless' and 'frivolous' are much more
accurate terms to describe a person who
does this. I would strongly advise any
person to use regularly
contraception/birth control (other than
abortion) so they are trying their best
not to find themselves pregnant, and if
these methods fail (multiple times and she
consequently aborts), I do not think she
is careless (our very own Carifairy),
although carelessness is definitely not
the issue. No woman should be refused an
abortion and I would definitely not force
The Pill down their throats or ram an IUD
up their 'mary-quite-contraries', as
advice is the only thing you can really
give to these people.
Kypros.
|
Guest
Posted: 04-01-07 15:22pm
Kypros
wrote:
Eiri
wrote:
FISHX
wrote:
Steen shouldnt birth control
actualy stop conception?
I don't see how you can class termination
as birth control myself.
Birth control: to stop
conception.
No,
birth control: to stop birth.
COntraception: to stop conception.
This is one of the more fundamental issues
with "abortion as birth control" because
it brings up confusing wordings.
Technically, a contraceptive device not
only prevents conception, but also
inadvertantly prevents birth (if you
prevent the concetption, you also prevent
the birth). That's why contraceptive
devices are also called "birth control".
However, abortion is not a contraceptive;
it is "birth control" in the strictest
sense. That's why the phrase "i
dissaporive of abortion as a form of birth
control" doesn't make any sense. Obviously
the people who say this (and I'm one of
them) mean that they dissaprove of
abortion being used very often, and as the
only form of birth control
that a woman chooses.
I am pro-choice, so in the end, abortion
is the woman's choice. However, I do have
personal opinions about it.
I believe in viability. Once a fetus could
be born and survive without too many
problems, even if it needed life support
for a while, I consider it to be viable
and thus, it cannot be aborted unless
there are extenuating circumstances.
I also consider the accidental death of a
fetus of any age by someone aside from the
mother, to be murder or at least accidental
man-slaughter, depending on the situation
and the age of the fetus.
People may not like the fact that I don't
view abortion as a black or white issue.
Well, I'm not going to apoligize for being
comfortable with moral ambiguity, for
understanding that one rule does not
always apply to all
situations.
Eiri, although I respect your opinions
totally, I would still like to challenge
them; I think there are some issues which
can be black and white and others which
can't (it really does depend on what the
issue and the main question is). The
abortion debate's main question is "Does a
woman's right to control her body override
that of a foetus to live?" or something
similar. My personal view is that yes, a
woman's right to abort is more important
than a foetus's 'right' to live. Simple as
that. Who am I to say "Hang on a sec, you
can have an abortion if ... {enter
circumstance} but not if ... {enter
circumstance}"? In fact, I do not have
that right. A foetus is a foetus. It is
literally impossible to not a nice act a
foetus via terminating a pregnancy, since
abortions are not illegal; so, I support
unrestricted abortions right up until the
end of the pregnancy, for whatever reason
(after all, the pregnant individual in
question decides, in the end, if the
reasons for terminating are good
enough).
I agree, and I hope that I've said enough
times already that I am pro-choice, it's
the woman's choice no matter what, but, I
have my own opinions that more apply to
myself personally, and are ideals for a
more perfect world. Normally I just say
"yes it's the woman's choice no matter
what, but personally I feel..."
I don't dissagree with it being the
woman's choice in the end.
However!!
This is how I view things:
pro-life wants no or almost no abortion.
Pro-choice wants all abortions.
However, aren't all extremes bad? I guess
I need to know if you agree with extremes
being bad first, before I can go further
on that train of thought.
Quote:
I know that
foetal viability is a grey issue for many
pro-choicers, but I take the view that,
because I believe in women's rights to
control their own body, I see no solid
reason to object to late-term
abortions.
Oh come now, even you have got to be
against a woman who is eight months
pregnant "aborting" simply because she
feels like it. This is a woman who has
money, and has no excuse for not aborting
sooner; she just suddenly feels like
killing her baby. I'm sorry, but that
fetus is 8 months old!! That's wrong!
Quote:
If I did, I
would pertain to an anti-human rights
opinion (although I am not saying that
some of my other opinions vis-à-vis
abortion are also anti-rights). A foetus
is an unborn human, no distinction is made
in the meaning of the word from an
eight-month old foetus to a three-month
old, hence one of the reasons I can't
comprehend why somebody should make a
distinction.
I make a distinction because of the
viability. it is innately connected in my
views.
Quote:
Even though
foetuses after a certain gestational
period are viable, it really makes no
difference, in my eyes, because it is
still parasitic in nature, holds no legal
rights, is not an identified person, and
still occupies the womb of another
(exactly as a three-month old foetus).
I know; and this is the hard part for me.
I know the fetus can survive
if taken from the womb and for me that
bestows upon it, something far more
important than just being a parasite.
Because at this point, yes, it is a
parasite, but, it can actually survive and
not be a parasite.
Quote:
I regard
viability as just another development in
the pregnancy (as the forming of limbs,
hair, facial features etc.) and still
struggle to understand why it matters as
much as it does to some people, when my
much more important aforementioned facts
exist from day one of the pregnancy and
don't change until
birth.
Because once it reaches viability that
means that the fetus' parasitic state can
be changed; it no longer totally depends
on the mother because it can be removed.
That in ym opinion is what makes the
difference.
Quote:
Again, to be
anti-late-term abortion is
pro-forced birth
What the hell?
I don't see how the two are related.
However, I am anti-mur[/i]der and in a
late term abortion, unless there is a good
reason for the abortion, I consider it to
be mur[i]der. That fetus does not
have to be a parasite. If that fetus was
shot, it is considered murder.
But again, this is a grey area as well.
Nothing is an absolute for me.
Yes, I'm against late term abortion and
consider it murder. It is against the law
anyway, but even if it was legal, I
wouldn't do anything to change the law. if
I had a friend who was going to abort her
7 month fetus, for absolutely no reason
whatsoever, I would heavily suggest her
not to. She can give it up for adoption,
but at this stage, it's just too damn
late. Why the hell didn't she abort
before? She doesn't have a reason.
Sometimes, women do have a reason to abort
this late. Complications with a rape case,
lack of money, deformed fetus, maternal
danger, etc.
The only time I'm against late term
abortion is when it is a purely social
abortion, by a woman who took no
precaution, and waited around for a long
time for no reason, and who suddenly
decided in month 8 to abort.
Now obviously, that doesn't happen a heck
of a lot, which is why it doesn't really
matter. People get their panties in a
bunch when I say "anti-late-term-abortion"
but in the first place, they don't happen
a lot! Most abortions happen before 20
weeks, and my concerns don't even start
becoming very strong until week 30.
Quote:
(nevertheless
this person may also hold very anti-forced
birth attitudes, but I am just saying
that, per se, being anti-late-term
abortion is pro-forced birth). The unborn
hold no rights whatsoever, so it
is unethical, in my honest point of view,
to give viable foetuses higher value.
Totally
pointless.
But why doesn't viability matter to you?
Quote:
Anyway that is on
a personal level (as you, Eiri, have a
personal disagreement with late-term
abortions) and such things are usually
irrelevant to the legal side of the issue.
My only concern, shall we say, is when
pro-choicers disagree with the legal
right to terminate pregnancies, regardless
of gestation. I see pro-choicers
everywhere telling pro-lifers "Fair enough
if you disagree with abortion, but you
can't make your opinion law, because it
should be left open for women to make
their own decisions", yet they will say
"Late-term abortions should be illegal! It
is wrong to not a nice act a viable
foetus!".
yeah, I agree. Unfortunately, I can't and
wouldn't make it law, that would be a
slipperly slope towards losing our rights
all together.
Quote:
That's very
hypocritical. All I can say to them is the
same thing they preach to everybody else:
"You may personally disagree with
late-term abortions, which is fair enough,
but don't enforce it as law. Despite your
view, you still have the intelligence to
recognise that foetuses of all gestational
periods have no legal rights as individual
persons, which is why the law should be
left open for women to come to their own
decisions". If you are pro-choice and you
think that there should be a legal
restriction on late-term abortions, then I
would find it quite difficult to call you
'fully' pro-choice (as it currently
stands, I have never heard a term to
denote a person adhering to both
pro-choice and pro-life
views).
Pro-moderation? lmao
Quote:
With respect to
abortions used as the sole
form of birth control, well it's quite
hard to put my feelings into words.
Similarly to my stance on late-term
abortions, I cannot see how any one
abortion is more or less immoral than
another. A foetus is a foetus, a parasite
containing human DNA with no legal rights
as a person, so aborting six foetuses is
not worse than aborting
one.
Not everyone views it as badly as you do,
that's why. Even among pro-choice, some of
us have a sense of responsibilty towards
fetuses and feel that once they are
viable, they mean more than a non-viabl
fetus.
Quote:
The
circumstances surrounding the pregnancies
may be different, but each termination is
of the same worth. I would rather a woman
continually abort than be refused and
forced to bear the child.
As long as they were early term abortions,
I wouldn't have an ethical problem with
it.
Quote:
At the end of the
day, it is still the woman's
choice to use her body
in that way. In fact I can't even say that
abortions as the sole form of birth
control are irresponsible (they take care
of a situation (pregnancy) in which the
bearer does not desire to be found).
'Careless' and 'frivolous' are much more
accurate terms to describe a person who
does this. I would strongly advise any
person to use regularly
contraception/birth control (other than
abortion) so they are trying their best
not to find themselves pregnant, and if
these methods fail (multiple times and she
consequently aborts), I do not think she
is careless (our very own Carifairy),
although carelessness is definitely not
the issue.
Well that's another case that is a gry
area. WOmen like carifairy are of course,
in my mind, expempt.
Quote:
No woman should
be refused an abortion and I would
definitely not force The Pill down their
throats or ram an IUD up their
'mary-quite-contraries', as advice is the
only thing you can really give to these
people.
Kypros.
Do you believe these people have the right
to have children?
However, aren't all extremes
bad? I guess I need to know if you agree
with extremes being bad
first
No, I wouldn't say that all extremes are
bad. If you are an extremist for human
rights (which is one way of summing up the
pro-choice movement), where is the bad?
Eiri
wrote:
Oh come now, even you have
got to be against a woman who is eight
months pregnant "aborting" simply because
she feels like it. This is a woman who has
money, and has no excuse for not aborting
sooner; she just suddenly feels like
killing her baby. I'm sorry, but that
fetus is 8 months old!! That's
wrong!
I can't be against it because I am
knowledgeable enough to understand that it
isn't my choice, but I would strongly
discourage it. It isn't wrong, either, in
my eyes, just plain stupid.
Eiri
wrote:
I know; and this is the hard
part for me. I know the fetus can survive
if taken from the womb and for me that
bestows upon it, something far more
important than just being a parasite.
Because at this point, yes, it is a
parasite, but, it can actually survive and
not be a
parasite.
It's still a pointless argument, in my
view. What does it matter what it can do?
The fact is, it isn't doing it now. This
reminds me so much of the pro-life comment
"Well, it's a potential person" - yeah,
and? The same applies to viable foetuses -
OK, it's possible for you to live outside
of your mother's body, but you aren't, so
what?! Just as the foetus will eventually
become a person, but it isn't one right at
this moment.
Eiri
wrote:
Kypros
wrote:
Again, to be anti-late-term abortion is
pro-forced
birth
What the hell?
I don't see how the two are
related.
They couldn't be more related; it's
simple: if you don't believe somebody has
the right to abort (in this case it's
late-term), then you support that this
person should be forced into giving
birth.
Eiri
wrote:
if I had a friend who was
going to abort her 7 month fetus, for
absolutely no reason whatsoever, I would
heavily suggest her not to. She can give
it up for adoption, but at this stage,
it's just too damn late. Why the hell
didn't she abort before? She doesn't have
a reason.
Yes, I would agree that it is a very
rational decision and I would definitely
question my friend as to why she suddenly
took this route, but whether or not she
has a reason is none of my business: she
isn't obliged to give me one. If the
reasons for aborting are good enough for
her, then the ulterior motive is dealt
with. She - and only she - should have to
give herself a reason with which she is
comfortable. Of course I would do my best
to dissuade somebody to terminate for a
social cause that late on, however if my
friend was dead set on going through with
it I would support her all the way to the
hospital bed!
Eiri
wrote:
The only time I'm against
late term abortion is when it is a purely
social abortion, by a woman who took no
precaution, and waited around for a long
time for no reason, and who suddenly
decided in month 8 to
abort.
Why should the reasons behind it matter to
you? If you are not the pregnant woman in
question, why should you feel the need to
interfere and set your opinions on that
woman? Also, as you have mentioned before,
you consider the termination of a
late-term foetus homicide, so what makes
the abortion of a late-term foetus because
of a worsening economic situation more
acceptable a homicide than a social one?
In fact, this reminds me somewhat of a
storyline currently going on on a British
soap, EastEnders. A character
called Dawn began a relationship with a
man but ended it as soon as she discovered
he was still together with his wife (and
not separated, as Rob, her lover, had led
her to believe). She then discovered she
was pregnant by him and May (Rob's wife),
who is desperate for a child of her own,
approached Dawn to buy the baby for a some
of money. Dawn agreed, while May
pressurised Rob to restart his affair to
keep Dawn sweet until the cut off point
for a termination, when May revealed the
sick truth to Dawn that the affair was
concocted by her to make sure she got her
hands on the baby. Dawn immediately went
for an abortion but she was a few days
late and, in desperation, downed a bottle
of vodka and prepared to take a hot bath
to rid herself of the foetus.
Now, although her reasons for aborting are
definitely social, I would strongly
support her decision to have a
termination.
Eiri
wrote:
But why doesn't viability
matter to
you?
Because it is just another stage in
development for the foetus. It's illogical
to dwell on what the foetus can and can't
do. It's just a foetus, from eight weeks
gestation to nine months, and I have no
right to place restrictions on bodily
control. Like I explained above,
pro-lifers say "It is a potential person
because it carries human DNA", but it is
completely unrelated. As long as the
foetus occupies it's mother's body, it
is/should be her choice to act as she
pleases if the reasons for doing so are
good enough to her because, essentially,
she is the one primarily affected by the
decisions she makes.
Eiri
wrote:
Kypros
wrote:
No woman should be refused an abortion and
I would definitely not force The Pill down
their throats or ram an IUD up their
'mary-quite-contraries', as advice is the
only thing you can really give to these
people.
Kypros.
Do you believe these people have the right
to have
children?
Of course I do. Do you?
Kypros.
|
nightangel73
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 Posts: 2460 Location: ,
Thanks: 14
Thanked:7
Posted: 04-02-07 18:28pm
late term abortion? Don't fight over this
guys, typically any normal human being
would be quite traumatized by doing this.
It is not common to see people with
homicide instincts like that. And don't
fight over the women who use abortion as
birth control because unless the woman is
rich and can afford so many abortions she
will have to something. Abortions are not
cheap. Would you like to have a cop give
ticket of $500 bucks often? I don't think
so.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 04-02-07 22:40pm
Kypros
wrote:
Eiri
wrote:
However, aren't all extremes
bad? I guess I need to know if you agree
with extremes being bad
first
No, I wouldn't say that all extremes are
bad. If you are an extremist for human
rights (which is one way of summing up the
pro-choice movement), where is the bad?
Eiri
wrote:
Oh come now, even you have
got to be against a woman who is eight
months pregnant "aborting" simply because
she feels like it. This is a woman who has
money, and has no excuse for not aborting
sooner; she just suddenly feels like
killing her baby. I'm sorry, but that
fetus is 8 months old!! That's
wrong!
I can't be against it because I am
knowledgeable enough to understand that it
isn't my choice, but I would strongly
discourage it. It isn't wrong, either, in
my eyes, just plain
stupid.
That's an interesting way to interpret it;
I suppose that although I still have
reservations, I do respect your point of
view.
Quote:
Eiri
wrote:
I know; and this is the hard
part for me. I know the fetus can survive
if taken from the womb and for me that
bestows upon it, something far more
important than just being a parasite.
Because at this point, yes, it is a
parasite, but, it can actually survive and
not be a
parasite.
It's still a pointless argument, in my
view. What does it matter what it can do?
The fact is, it isn't doing it now. This
reminds me so much of the pro-life comment
"Well, it's a potential person" - yeah,
and?
I feel it's slightly different from the
"potential-human" argument because it has
reached the point of being able to be a
person. I guess at this point, for me, it
isn't a "potential person". It is a
person, just unconcsious and with no
expereinces. Again, don't get twitchy with
the wording of that
Quote:
Quote:
The same applies
to viable foetuses - OK, it's possible for
you to live outside of your mother's body,
but you aren't, so what?! Just as the
foetus will eventually become a person,
but it isn't one right at this moment.
[quote="Eiri"]
Kypros
wrote:
Again, to be anti-late-term abortion is
pro-forced
birth
What the hell?
I don't see how the two are
related.
They couldn't be more related; it's
simple: if you don't believe somebody has
the right to abort (in this case it's
late-term), then you support that this
person should be forced into giving
birth.
You make it sound like I'm (or anyone) for
forced-birth throughout the whole
pregnancy though.
Quote:
Eiri
wrote:
if I had a friend who was
going to abort her 7 month fetus, for
absolutely no reason whatsoever, I would
heavily suggest her not to. She can give
it up for adoption, but at this stage,
it's just too damn late. Why the hell
didn't she abort before? She doesn't have
a reason.
Yes, I would agree that it is a very
rational decision and I would definitely
question my friend as to why she suddenly
took this route, but whether or not she
has a reason is none of my business: she
isn't obliged to give me one. If the
reasons for aborting are good enough for
her, then the ulterior motive is dealt
with. She - and only she - should have to
give herself a reason with which she is
comfortable. Of course I would do my best
to dissuade somebody to terminate for a
social cause that late on, however if my
friend was dead set on going through with
it I would support her all the way to the
hospital bed!
I guess everyone has lines they draw.
Quote:
Eiri
wrote:
The only time I'm against
late term abortion is when it is a purely
social abortion, by a woman who took no
precaution, and waited around for a long
time for no reason, and who suddenly
decided in month 8 to
abort.
Why should the reasons behind it matter to
you? If you are not the pregnant woman in
question, why should you feel the need to
interfere and set your opinions on that
woman?
Because I believe the fetus is a person at
the time of a late term abortion; like I
said above. Again, don't get nit-picky
with the wording; there's just not a
better word for it. It is different from a
3 week old fetus, and it is worth more in
my mind. But then again, it is not a born
child. I feel it is far closer to a born
child than a 3 week old fetus, however.
Quote:
Also, as you
have mentioned before, you consider the
termination of a late-term foetus not a
nice act, so what makes the abortion of a
late-term foetus because of a worsening
economic situation more acceptable a not a
nice act than a social
one?
I would not consider a worsening economic
situation to be the same thing as a purely
social abortion. However, At this point,
why can't the woman give birth and give
the child up for adoption, if thye can't
pay for it? If they had wanted the child
up to this point, but now suddenly can't
pay for it, I'd think that woman would
rather see the child end up with parents
that can pay for it, rather than die one
month before birth.
Quote:
In fact, this
reminds me somewhat of a storyline
currently going on on a British soap,
EastEnders. A character
called Dawn began a relationship with a
man but ended it as soon as she discovered
he was still together with his wife (and
not separated, as Rob, her lover, had led
her to believe). She then discovered she
was pregnant by him and May (Rob's wife),
who is desperate for a child of her own,
approached Dawn to buy the baby for a some
of money. Dawn agreed, while May
pressurised Rob to restart his affair to
keep Dawn sweet until the cut off point
for a termination, when May revealed the
sick truth to Dawn that the affair was
concocted by her to make sure she got her
hands on the baby. Dawn immediately went
for an abortion but she was a few days
late and, in desperation, downed a bottle
of vodka and prepared to take a hot bath
to rid herself of the foetus.
Again, that is a completely different case
than a pure social abortion in my mind.
However, the law is the law. Still, would
I feel sympathetic and help this woman?
Maybe. I think if I knew her personally, I
might try to help especially if it was so
close to the cut off date. There is the
sick fact that she signed for the baby to
go to the other woman; but as the birth
mother, doesn't she have the final say in
were the baby ends up? I know in america
that a birth mother can even decide to
keep the child within a few days of birth;
so this woman could always decide to have
the child given to someone else. I
understand she's trying to kill it to keep
it away from dawn; so why not go one step
further and put dawn through real pain; to
see the child alive but not in her arms? I
fully understand the pregnant woman's
position.
If you have a good reason then I don't
care! But I would not support a friend who
suddenly decides they don't want a child
at eight months to get an abortion. I
would call her a murderer,
and I wouldn't drive her there.
Quote:
Now, although her
reasons for aborting are definitely
social, I would strongly support her
decision to have a
termination.
Like I said, I don't feel her desicion is
that of a pure social abortion.
Quote:
Eiri
wrote:
But why doesn't viability
matter to
you?
Because it is just another stage in
development for the foetus.
So is birth.
Quote:
It's illogical to
dwell on what the foetus can and can't do.
It's just a foetus, from eight weeks
gestation to nine months, and I have no
right to place restrictions on bodily
control. Like I explained above,
pro-lifers say "It is a potential person
because it carries human DNA", but it is
completely unrelated. As long as the
foetus occupies it's mother's body, it
is/should be her choice to act as she
pleases if the reasons for doing so are
good enough to her because, essentially,
she is the one primarily affected by the
decisions she makes.
Eiri
wrote:
Kypros
wrote:
No woman should be refused an abortion and
I would definitely not force The Pill down
their throats or ram an IUD up their
'mary-quite-contraries', as advice is the
only thing you can really give to these
people.
Kypros.
Do you believe these people have the right
to have
children?
Of course I do. Do you?
Kypros.
So you believe that a woman who has
willing killed nine fetuses a day before
they were due to be born should have the
right to give birth? I think not.
|
Jules
Moderator
Joined: 19 Aug 2006 Posts: 3743 Location: Merrie Englande, UK
Thanks: 72
Thanked:65
Posted: 04-03-07 00:54am
nightangel73
wrote:
late term abortion? Don't
fight over this guys, typically any normal
human being would be quite traumatized by
doing this. It is not common to see people
with homicide instincts like that. And
don't fight over the women who use
abortion as birth control because unless
the woman is rich and can afford so many
abortions she will have to something.
Abortions are not cheap. Would you like to
have a cop give ticket of $500 bucks
often? I don't think
so.
Abortions are free in the .U.K and a woman
can have as many as she likes - as long as
she can find two doctors willing to sign.
Can't imagine it's very common for someone
to multiple abortions just for a laugh
though.
I feel it's slightly
different from the "potential-human"
argument because it has reached the point
of being able to be a person. I guess at
this point, for me, it isn't a "potential
person". It is a person, just unconcsious
and with no expereinces. Again, don't get
twitchy with the wording of
that
Yeah, I respect your opinion, although I
still reject your claim that it is a
person. Law says it isn't, and that's
that. I'm not trying to be nit-picky with
the wording; it's just that personhood is
defined by law, which says it starts at
birth, so saying "In my opinion personhood
starts at..." is invalid, since it is not
something affected by points of view, but
rather the law.
Eiri
wrote:
You make it sound like I'm
(or anyone) for forced-birth throughout
the whole pregnancy
though.
That's not what I meant though; you adhere
to views that are both anti- and
pro-forced birth. I'm not saying all
pro-forced birth attitudes are bad
because, for example, you don't think that
being against late-term abortions (for
social reasons) is a bad thing.
Eiri
wrote:
I would not consider a
worsening economic situation to be the
same thing as a purely social abortion.
However, At this point, why can't the
woman give birth and give the child up for
adoption, if thye can't pay for it? If
they had wanted the child up to this
point, but now suddenly can't pay for it,
I'd think that woman would rather see the
child end up with parents that can pay for
it, rather than die one month before
birth.
Because not all women are comfortable with
adoption. I have a pregnant friend who
regards adoption as pointless on the birth
mother's behalf because, as she puts it,
"What's the point in carrying a baby to
term and giving birth if you don't even
intend on keeping it". Of course, this is
her view; personally I advocate adoption
and believe that whatever the choice of
the three consequences of a pregnancy
(keeping the baby, aborting it, having it
adopted), it should be selected by the
pregnant individual because it is what she
feels most comfortable with.
Eiri
wrote:
There is the sick fact that
she signed for the baby to go to the other
woman; but as the birth mother, doesn't
she have the final say in were the baby
ends up? I know in america that a birth
mother can even decide to keep the child
within a few days of birth; so this woman
could always decide to have the child
given to someone else. I understand she's
trying to kill it to keep it away from
dawn; so why not go one step further and
put dawn through real pain; to see the
child alive but not in her arms? I fully
understand the pregnant woman's position.
If you have a good reason then I don't
care! But I would not support a friend who
suddenly decides they don't want a child
at eight months to get an abortion. I
would call her a murderer, and I wouldn't
drive her
there.
Well, I don't consider her signing over
her baby to another woman to be sick. In
my eyes, it is the same process and action
as adoption, just minus the legal
documents. At least the baby, in the case
of Dawn, would be living with its
biological father.
Fair enough if you wouldn't support your
friend because you disagree with what she
is doing, but I disagree with you calling
her a murderer. Law says she isn't a
murderer, so I guess the best thing that
you and anyone in the position of a close
friend could do is try your best to
dissuade her from going through with it.
Eiri
wrote:
Kypros
wrote:
Eiri
wrote:
But why doesn't viability matter to
you?
Because it is just another stage in
development for the
foetus.
So is birth.
But birth creates a legal person free of a
parasitic status; foetal viability
doesn't.
Eiri
wrote:
So you believe that a woman
who has willing killed nine fetuses a day
before they were due to be born should
have the right to give birth? I think
not.
Well, firstly, I thought you were
referring to somebody who had had several
normal (i.e. early) social abortions; but
anyway, I still believe that somebody who
has aborted several late-term foetuses for
social reasons has the right to have a
child. Why does she not? It is none of
your business how many
abortions she's had and why. If you
advocate the right to control your own
body then you would support any woman to
have a child. The only women who don't
deserve children are those who have had
history of serious child abuse (and
especially somebody like Rose West and
Maxine Carr) and should, in my eyes, be
forcefully sterilised or, better still,
because they have the right to reproduce,
should be very closely monitored up until
two years after the birth and have regular
visits until the child is 16/18. In cases
where women who have now left prison have
knowingly not reformed find themselves
pregnant and decide against abortion, the
child should be immediately given up for
adoption (and I believe in all of this
because I support that the [b]right of any
potential children to have an abuse-free
upbringing overrides that of a previous
offender to potentially abuse their
baby).
It is ridiculous to say that somebody who
has continually aborted in the past (for
whatever reasons at whatever stage in the
pregnancy) doesn't deserve children. Give
me a good reason why.
Oh and a final word or two: thanks for a
great debate .
Kypros.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 04-03-07 21:17pm
Kypros
wrote:
Eiri
wrote:
I feel it's slightly
different from the "potential-human"
argument because it has reached the point
of being able to be a person. I guess at
this point, for me, it isn't a "potential
person". It is a person, just unconcsious
and with no expereinces. Again, don't get
twitchy with the wording of
that
Yeah, I respect your opinion, although I
still reject your claim that it is a
person. Law says it isn't, and that's
that. I'm not trying to be nit-picky with
the wording; it's just that personhood is
defined by law, which says it starts at
birth, so saying "In my opinion personhood
starts at..." is invalid, since it is not
something affected by points of view, but
rather the
law.
No, I do agree that the law is the law.
Fortunately for me, the law currently
agrees with what I happen to believe, and
most late-term social abortions are
illegal.
Quote:
Eiri
wrote:
You make it sound like I'm
(or anyone) for forced-birth throughout
the whole pregnancy
though.
That's not what I meant though; you adhere
to views that are both anti- and
pro-forced birth. I'm not saying all
pro-forced birth attitudes are bad
because, for example, you don't think that
being against late-term abortions (for
social reasons) is a bad thing.
I think my point was that forced-birth is
a negative term and we try to stay away
from those. If you'd like, I can call you
anti-life and pro-death; but we know these
names are no more accurate than
pro-forced-birth.
Quote:
Eiri
wrote:
I would not consider a
worsening economic situation to be the
same thing as a purely social abortion.
However, At this point, why can't the
woman give birth and give the child up for
adoption, if thye can't pay for it? If
they had wanted the child up to this
point, but now suddenly can't pay for it,
I'd think that woman would rather see the
child end up with parents that can pay for
it, rather than die one month before
birth.
Because not all women are comfortable with
adoption. I have a pregnant friend who
regards adoption as pointless on the birth
mother's behalf because, as she puts it,
"What's the point in carrying a baby to
term and giving birth if you don't even
intend on keeping it".
Well I agree to an extent: why would you
carry to term if you didn't want to keep
it? Shouldn't you have aborted a long,
long time ago? There are points when one
crosses a line in any aspect of life.
Quote:
Of course, this
is her view; personally I advocate
adoption and believe that whatever the
choice of the three consequences of a
pregnancy (keeping the baby, aborting it,
having it adopted), it should be selected
by the pregnant individual because it is
what she feels most comfortable
with.
I agree it is her choice, but that choice
should be made early on, not later.
Quote:
Eiri
wrote:
There is the sick fact that
she signed for the baby to go to the other
woman; but as the birth mother, doesn't
she have the final say in were the baby
ends up? I know in america that a birth
mother can even decide to keep the child
within a few days of birth; so this woman
could always decide to have the child
given to someone else. I understand she's
trying to kill it to keep it away from
dawn; so why not go one step further and
put dawn through real pain; to see the
child alive but not in her arms? I fully
understand the pregnant woman's position.
If you have a good reason then I don't
care! But I would not support a friend who
suddenly decides they don't want a child
at eight months to get an abortion. I
would call her a not a nice person, and I
wouldn't drive her
there.
Well, I don't consider her signing over
her baby to another woman to be sick.
No no no... I mean it was sick in the
sense that she was lied to and decieved
and duped into keeping the fetus just so
another woman could steal it.
Quote:
In my eyes, it is
the same process and action as adoption,
just minus the legal documents. At least
the baby, in the case of Dawn, would be
living with its biological father.
Fair enough if you wouldn't support your
friend because you disagree with what she
is doing, but I disagree with you calling
her a not a nice
person.
I don't know if I'd call her that to her
face, but I'd be thinking it and it would
be on my face.
Quote:
Law says she
isn't a not a nice person, so I guess the
best thing that you and anyone in the
position of a close friend could do is try
your best to dissuade her from going
through with it.
Eiri
wrote:
Kypros
wrote:
Eiri
wrote:
But why doesn't viability matter to
you?
Because it is just another stage in
development for the
foetus.
So is birth.
But birth creates a legal person free of a
parasitic status; foetal viability
doesn't.
I think that's my point; but at least my
sense of when it becomes a person makes
scientific sense, unlike the pro-life
views.
Quote:
Eiri
wrote:
So you believe that a woman
who has willing killed nine fetuses a day
before they were due to be born should
have the right to give birth? I think
not.
Well, firstly, I thought you were
referring to somebody who had had several
normal (i.e. early) social abortions; but
anyway, I still believe that somebody who
has aborted several late-term foetuses for
social reasons has the right to have a
child. Why does she not? It is none of
your business how many
abortions she's had and why.
I'd be worried that she would be abusive
to the child/ren and not respect their
rights to live...
Quote:
If you advocate
the right to control your own body then
you would support any woman to have a
child.
Unfortunately, I don't support the right
of rapists to have families either, or for
people who chronically abuse drugs, or
have shown themselves to be violent,
horrible people. But there's no way to
determine these things and they're purely
social interpretations, so that's
something I just have to live with.
Quote:
The only women
who don't deserve children are those who
have had history of serious child abuse
(and especially somebody like Rose West
and Maxine Carr) and should, in my eyes,
be forcefully sterilised or, better still,
because they have the right to reproduce,
should be very closely monitored up until
two years after the birth and have regular
visits until the child is
16/18.
Right on!!
Quote:
In cases where
women who have now left prison have
knowingly not reformed find themselves
pregnant and decide against abortion, the
child should be immediately given up for
adoption (and I believe in all of this
because I support that the [b]right of any
potential children to have an abuse-free
upbringing overrides that of a previous
offender to potentially abuse their
baby).
It is ridiculous to say that somebody who
has continually aborted in the past (for
whatever reasons at whatever stage in the
pregnancy) doesn't deserve children. Give
me a good reason
why.
The one where (again, we're talking
super-late term abortions done for no good
reason) she has no respect for life.
Quote:
Oh and a final
word or two: thanks for a great debate
.
.
I'm enjoying it
too.