What's your position on abortion? And why?

[Elrond]

Originally Posted by Angela

I'm not framing anything; I only explained to you how I interpreted what you said. Inri said she wouldn't feel entitled to infringe, and you said you disagree.

Yeah I should have seen it in the context of her post.

Originally Posted by Angela

I'm still not clear about what that disagreement entails, if not that you would feel entitled to infringe. What is it you disagree with her about, again?

I already posted a link to it. My interpretation of it.

Originally Posted by Angela

Yes, I understand that. I was questioning how far that value takes you -- to the point of physically taking alcohol away from a pregnant woman?

How would you like that?

Originally Posted by Angela

Perhaps you're grumpy because you're seeing that your actions and your values aren't congruent?

They aren't? Maybe they aren't "curegaus" (spelling I know) enough, but there's a thousand things that I would LIKE to do but for some reason at the moment might not be able to : like everyone else.


Any more questions?

[beast]

Originally Posted by Elrond

OK, I see how I've missed that.

Your response was very gracious, so I must apologize for my tone.

[Elrond]

If for some reason anyone believes that a woman should have the right to do whatever she wants with her body, no matter how it will affect the baby, I just can't agree with that on any level. Sure, there is the issue of having autonomy over ones body, but is it really such an inconvienience to not do any obviously damaging stuff, like getting hammered? I'm now talking about actually stopping other women from doing it... and not necessarily by physically removing the drink from her hand, but maybe by even making it illegal. Sure, I can't relate with the whole trauma (or lack) of getting an abortion or giving birth (I'm pro-choice anyway so what's it matter), but I can relate to something simple like being prohibited to drink and things like that... even if I can't know how it is to actually be pregnant. Some people might say that it is unfair to impose such restraints on a woman just because she happens to be the sex that carries a child.

Sure, it is unfair, but there are practical limits to fairness, too. It's unfair to the would-be father to not have any say in the matter of keeping the baby or not, but maybe there really is no way for the father to have more rights without sacrificing the potential well-being of baby and mother. And obviously it's not a picnic being the sex that has the potential to incubate life. But at some point, there doesn't seem to be a way of "balancing" things out, sometimes maybe there has to be a little "unfairness" for the world to function at all. It was *unfair* in a way that I had to be a conscript for 11 months, in which time the government could be said to have 'owned my body' and me having less rights than many, but maybe in the grand scheme of things it is a necessary *evil* to have a kind of "unpreferential" treatment on some things, if the world is going to function in a decent way for everyone involved.

[secrets0stolen]

Originally Posted by Elrond

If for some reason anyone believes that a woman should have the right to do whatever she wants with her body, no matter how it will affect the baby, I just can't agree with that on any level. Sure, there is the issue of having autonomy over ones body, but is it really such an inconvienience to not do any obviously damaging stuff, like getting hammered? I'm now talking about actually stopping other women from doing it... and not necessarily by physically removing the drink from her hand, but maybe by even making it illegal. Sure, I can't relate with the whole trauma (or lack) of getting an abortion or giving birth (I'm pro-choice anyway so what's it matter), but I can relate to something simple like being prohibited to drink and things like that... even if I can't know how it is to actually be pregnant. Some people might say that it is unfair to impose such restraints on a woman just because she happens to be the sex that carries a child.

Sure, it unfair, but there are practical limits to fairness, too. It's unfair to the would-be father to not have any say in the matter of keeping the baby or not, but maybe there really is no way for the father to have more rights without sacrificing the potential well-being of baby and mother. And obviously it's not a picnic being the sex that has the potential to incubate life. But at some point, there doesn't seem to be a way of "balancing" things out, sometimes maybe there has to be a little "unfairness" for the world to function at all. It was *unfair* in a way that I had to be a conscript for 11 months, in which time the government could be said to have 'owned my body' and me having less rights than many, but maybe in the grand scheme of things it is a necessary *evil* to have a kind of "unpreferential" treatment on some things, if the world is going to function in a decent way for everyone involved.

Well, I'm not for conscription, but I do think there's a good argument for it being "wrong" to get hammered while your pregnant. The logistics of that law would be hell though.

[beast]

Elrond, if you were to make it illegal for a pregnant woman to drink alcohol or coffee, smoke, eat soft cheese and fish, or not supplement on her folate, how would you enforce these laws and what would be the repercussions of breaking them?

[aelle]

Wasn't there a case in the US where a pregnant woman got jailed for falling down some stairs? I can only see the definition of the rights and freedom of a person primarily through her value as a baby incubator as a very dangerous slippery slope.

I already see a trend in this direction - not legally, but societal - and I find it problematic. It's not uncommon to be refused medical treatment (vaccination, chemo, roaccutane...) if your bc is deemed inadequate, because although the treatment would be beneficial to the (existing!) woman, it *could* be detrimental to a *potential* fetus, should she accidentally get pregant and should she choose to keep it. WTF?

[Elrond]

Originally Posted by beast

Elrond, if you were to make it illegal for a pregnant woman to drink alcohol or coffee, smoke, eat soft cheese and fish, or not supplement on her folate, how would you enforce these laws and what would be the repercussions of breaking them?

Well I would only make illegal the stuff that obviously hurts the child (soft cheese and fish is a big threat?), not things that might be a little unhealthy for the child, but won't give any long-term negative effects that are decently severe. The enforcment would be that if someone saw for example a pregnant woman drinking heavily, they may report it so that the authorities will intervene. The repercussions would be whatever minimizes the risk of the woman endangering her child even more. Of course it's hard to make a punishment something that will negate her from participating in destructive behaviour. If the woman was seen to be fairly responsible, maybe there would just be a fine. If she was seen to be very irresponsible and a threat to the child, then there might be "follow-up" like counseling or whatever, and maybe a check up now and then to see if she was still behaving non-recklessly.

[beast]

I agree with aelle, it is a very dangerously slippery slope.

Pregnant women in the US are often advised to stay away from soft cheeses (because of the risk of listeria, I believe) and fish (because of mercury). I'm not sure if French pregnant women are told to steer clear of soft cheeses or if Japanese pregnant women are told to steer clear of fish (but I doubt it). This is why I think it is dangerous, to say that we should exert control over what an adult woman puts into her body or what she does with her body. I do not see it as a good solution or one which we could effectively implement. It would make me rest much easier if more efforts were focused on those beings who are already out there in the world.

[Elrond]

Originally Posted by aelle

I can only see the definition the rights and freedom of a person primarily through her value as a baby incubator as a very dangerous slippery slope.

Who said primarily? There is a difference between being mandated to not do obviously destructive things (to the baby), like getting drunk, and only 'being valued as a baby incubator'. Slippery slope perhaps, but so is the view that "a woman has the right to do to her body whatever she wants, even if pregnant". Any law can be twisted in the wrong hands. Any reasonable human being sees the difference between getting wasted and falling down the stairs, even if falling down the stairs could have the intention of aborting a baby (note - not fetus), even though that would be a ridicoulus way to do it, and then one has the beyond reasonable doubt thing.
But it's indeed frightening that someone has been tried for it.

[ssandra]

Originally Posted by beast

I've never been in this situation. What if they had laid out all the information on the table and then said "you're welcome to have the procedure now, but if you're having any second thoughts, we can reschedule it to occur tomorrow/next week"? I could get behind that.

I don't think the Netherlands model is feasible for the United States, though, and likely not for Australia, either, considering the huge distance that many women have to travel in order to obtain an abortion.

You could have the first mandatory counseling session by phone? Or have a network of counselors (psychiatrists) who are not necesarily where the abortion clinic is available for the first conversation? It could be evenings, weekends, early mornings for those who have work issues?

There are options, always.

I do think that mandatory counseling and getting ALL the information, including alternatives and then having a waiting period is something that shouldn't be negotiated on.

An abortion isn't something that should be done as a spur of the moment thing....

[inri]

Originally Posted by Elrond

Who said primarily? There is a difference between being mandated to not do obviously destructive things (to the baby), like getting drunk, and only 'being valued as a baby incubator'. Slippery slope perhaps, but so is the view that "a woman has the right to do to her body whatever she wants, even if pregnant". Any law can be twisted in the wrong hands. Any reasonable human being sees the difference between getting wasted and falling down the stairs, even if falling down the stairs could have the intention of aborting a baby (note - not fetus), even though that would be a ridicoulus way to do it, and then one has the beyond reasonable doubt thing.
But it's indeed frightening that someone has been tried for it.

I just think it's unacceptable that we would ever come to a place where becoming pregnant means that a woman temporarily loses some of her human rights.

Actually, this part of the discussion adds weight to the first....."If" pregnancy results in the loss of certain specific human rights, does this not make a pregnancy even more taxing on a woman and therefore does it not add more fuel to the whole pro-choice movement?

[aelle]

Originally Posted by Elrond

Who said primarily?.

Well if you are allowed to drink except whem pregnant, it means that at that moment your status as "fetus carrier" trumps your status as "person with rights", no? That's what I mean by primarily.

[ssandra]

Originally Posted by inri

I just think it's unacceptable that we would ever come to a place where becoming pregnant means that a woman temporarily loses some of her human rights.

she doesn't loose them. Not even temporarily. She just shares them with someone else.

My human right to anything only goes as far as that it infringes on someone elses.... my human right to eat stops when I kill someone to eat them.

My human right to shelter stops when I kick someone else out of their house.

[Elrond]

Originally Posted by aelle

Well if you are allowed to drink except whem pregnant, it means that at that moment your status as "fetus carrier" trumps your status as "person with rights", no? That's what I mean by primarily.

Like my duties as a soldier trumps my rights as a civilian if a war started tomorrow. But there aren't a lot of wars going on in this part of the world, so I still mostly have the rights of a civilian. In the same way, a pregnant woman would for the most part be a "person with rights" as in she can still do most things, just that things like drinking too much brings up the "fetus carrier" status. I don't see how it would be a big problem, unless there is some idealistic or Kant-ethics that is proposed (or slippery slope, but I don't really agree with that, except if there is some place that would take it to that "fallen down stairs"-extreme).

[secrets0stolen]

Yeah I honestly think the slippery slope argument absolutely applies here. While there is an ethical obligation of the mom to not hurt the fetus that she intends to raise, I hardly think that's something we can enforce.

For one thing, what hurts the baby can be dependent on a lot of circumstances...it's hard to nail it down. Secondly, most of the behavior that unarguably hurts the fetus is the behavior of addicts. Prescribing them immediately withdrawal is bound to not work.

[secrets0stolen]

Originally Posted by Elrond

Like my duties as a soldier trumps my rights as a civilian if a war started tomorrow.

Should they, I think, is more the equivalent question here--although are you part of a volunteer army?

[Elrond]

Originally Posted by secrets0stolen

For one thing, what hurts the baby can be dependent on a lot of circumstances...it's hard to nail it down.

I said things that obviously or are very likely to hurt the baby, should be prohibited.

Originally Posted by secrets0stolen

Should they, I think, is more the equivalent question here

That's a big question. I just said that it might be a necessarily evil to show that I am willing, at least in theory, to accept some unfairness due to my sex, if that is a good call in the grand scheme of things. Maybe conscription isn't the best solution on the whole, but if there was a war (an invasion into ones country) and there weren't enough volunteers, then it would be hard to argue against conscription I think.

Originally Posted by secrets0stolen

although are you part of a volunteer army?

No. Technically though I won't be part of the millitia until next year, if I get called in at all. So if there came a war tomorrow, I wouldn't really be called in.

[secrets0stolen]

Originally Posted by Elrond

I said things that obviously or are very likely to hurt the baby, should be prohibited.

I'm referring to binge drinking and hard drugs as things that obviously hurt the baby:
Like I said in my post, those things--done during pregnancy--seem like they would be the behavior of addicts. That would be incredibly hard to enforce, unless we wanted to incarcerate them. Incarcerated for being pregnant and alcoholic sounds very much like a slippery slope.

That's a big question. I just said that it might be a necessarily evil to show that I am willing, at least in theory, to accept some unfairness due to my sex, if that is a good call in the grand scheme of things. Maybe conscription isn't the best solution on the whole, but if there was a war (an invasion into ones country) and there weren't enough volunteers, then it would be hard to argue against conscription I think.

Well, I could argue against it, but that's a bit off topic. There are countries that draft women too.

[inri]

Originally Posted by ssandra

she doesn't loose them. Not even temporarily. She just shares them with someone else.

My human right to anything only goes as far as that it infringes on someone elses.... my human right to eat stops when I kill someone to eat them.

My human right to shelter stops when I kick someone else out of their house.

I think it could accurately be said that in 'sharing' rights, a pregnant woman would 'lose' some of the rights that she would enjoy if not for the pregnancy....?

Believe me, I dislike the idea of a pregnant woman deliberately engaging in activity that's harmful to her unborn child as much the next person...however, I dislike the idea of dictating a list of 'can't do's' to any woman who becomes pregnant even more.

While the northern bar scenario I cited earlier is a rather extreme case, many others exist where the line is not drawn so vividly. As others here have stated...this creates a very slippery slope....If it became illegal for a pregnant woman to do certain things, she is effectively being singled out BECAUSE she is pregnant and is being prohibited from engaging in certain activities that would be well within her rights to engage in if she were not pregnant.

How would this list be drawn up? I can only imagine the rate at which this list of 'no-no's' would expand as experts became involved and put in their two cents. perhaps at first it would include such things as no sushi, no intense activity or sports, no products with uncooked eggs, no alcohol, no cigarettes, no drugs,....perhaps later evolving to include such things as mandatory diet guidelines, no caffeine, no processed sugar,......etc.

Attempts to intervene are one thing, actual laws passed to limit behaviors of pregnant women quite another imo.

I think we have to be very careful regarding these issues...in our efforts to protect unborn children, we cannot stomp on the rights of fully developed women.

I just don't see a way to legislate against the 'really bad stuff' without inevitably infringing into murky territory.

[secrets0stolen]

Yeah, the social stigma around pregnant drinking exist for a reason. But laws are another thing, and yeah it seems like mandatory diet requirements would be next...there would probably be "must eats" too.

And, I am torn on calling someone out. Someone I knew would be different than a stranger of course--I just don't think there's anything one can do about a stranger.

[beast]

Elrond, which country do you live in?

[Elrond]

Originally Posted by secrets0stolen

There are countries that draft women too.

It's probably not close to male-drafting on a global scale, but yeah. Women can become conscripts where I live, too... if they want to.

Originally Posted by beast

Elrond, which country do you live in?

Norway

[beast]

Norway is my favorite country.

Can you not avoid military service by getting a job, going to college, doing civil service, or claiming conscientious objector status?

I do not support compulsory military service, but the fact that it exists in some parts of the world is not a good argument for why other constricting laws should exist in other parts of the world.

[aelle]

Originally Posted by inri

How would this list be drawn up? I can only imagine the rate at which this list of 'no-no's' would expand as experts became involved and put in their two cents. perhaps at first it would include such things as no sushi, no intense activity or sports, no products with uncooked eggs, no alcohol, no cigarettes, no drugs,....perhaps later evolving to include such things as mandatory diet guidelines, no caffeine, no processed sugar,......etc.

Does anyone follow the blog "free range kids"? The author does an excellent work at pointing out the madness that has become the social (and sometimes legal) burdens enforced in the name of "think of the children" (in this case, live, born children). I can totally see a similar pressure increasing on pregnant women and severely limiting their rights.

I believe that as it is today, one of the activities that puts a fetus at highest risk of death is getting in a car - because that's when the woman has the highest risk of dying or getting severely injured herself. Should pregnant women be housebound for the sake of their unborn kids? Why not, does that look unreasonable\y restrictive? It may right now, but I can see the argument that would be put towards it: better safe than sorry, if you're not willing to alter your lifestyle you don't deserve a child, women who don't stay at home are selfish and irresponsible, it's not that bad because you can still walk places, oh well it's not like I loved driving in the first place...

[secrets0stolen]

Originally Posted by beast

I do not support compulsory military service, but the fact that it exists in some parts of the world is not a good argument for why other constricting laws should exist in other parts of the world.

Well said.

[t4488]

Originally Posted by beast

They aren't dependent on one particular person for survival, though. I think that's key, here. Anybody can take care of a newborn, but one particular woman must be in charge of nurturing a zygote.

Here is a hypothetical question. If you were trapped on a deserted island for 9 months with someone who was physically incapacitated and totally dependent on you, would you consider yourself to have the right to kill that person?

[t4488]

Originally Posted by inri

I absolutely agree. When the exceptions of rape and incest are brought into the argument it really does attest to a pro-life position of; "You play with fire, Girl, expect to get burned."

After all, if a pro-lifer's position hinges upon a supposed belief that says, "All life is sacred and to abort is to kill a human being," making exceptions for rape or incest present a certain hypocrisy.

'If' a fetus is in fact a human with a full right to life, why should the particulars surrounding it's conception matter?

ON one hand they're saying, it's okay to kill that human being so long as the woman is completely innocent of any consent to have sex...somehow, the fetus' rights wither in the face of the 'innocent' woman's rights.

ON the other hand, they completely negate the particular life circumstances and potential level of suffering a woman might encounter simply by carrying an unwanted fetus because she WILLINGLY entered into a sexual encounter...and thus would deny such a woman her right to a safe abortion (if they could) based on the fact that she 'agreed' to have sex.

Yup...looks like punishment to me.

I agree with your logic and I don't think abortion should be allowed in the case of rape. To me it would be the equivalent of giving Jaycee Dugard the right to kill her children tomorrow. This is really the first I have heard of the "punishment for sex" thing.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by t4488

I agree with your logic and I don't think abortion should be allowed in the case of rape. To me it would be the equivalent of giving Jaycee Dugard the right to kill her children tomorrow. This is really the first I have heard of the "punishment for sex" thing.

So, you are saying that if a woman is raped and falls pregnant, that ontop of dealing with the trauma of being raped, she should then be judged harshly, for not wanting to keep the baby of her rapist, and actually be made to have the child and keep the child...is that right?

Hmmmm...

Are you male by any chance?

[pinky3]

Heated topic. The funny thing is people will always have their opinion, their reason behind it and then stick to it like a small, scared child sticks to there mother's leg.

I've read as much of the post as I can.
My opinion... woman should have rights, without a doubt. But rights come with responsibility. If you don't know that having sex can cause you to come pregnant, then sure you can have a abortion. I'm sure that's true for... well pretty much no one.

If you see a scan of a baby, they are a precious being. Regardless of how "formed" they are. I have a genetic disease whereby it is legal for me to be aborted. So abort me right now!? To me it's like someone shooting me on the spot.

Woman want rights... they have the right to choose whether or not to create a baby! That's a huge right. (If they do not have this right, and sex is not consensual, as others have pointed out, then it's a different story).

What I always think is: Ask the fetus for his/her opinion (they wouldn't be like, thanks for aborting me??). Or put yourself in that position. I just picture a small child being told... I don't want you. God made you, but I have the right to throw you away. The world is striving to be mini little God's. I try to be judgement-less, but I do battle.

[aelle]

Originally Posted by pinky3

. Or put yourself in that position. I just picture a small child being told... I don't want you. God made you, but I have the right to throw you away.

Well yeah, an unwanted pregnancy sucks no matter what. But the options here are not a loved and desired child vs an unwanted child. It's.an unwanted pregnancy that you stop before much harm is done vs being stuck for 18 years with a kid you didn't want. You may think it's awful to think of a fetus as unwanted ; I feel it's a lot worse if the child lives to hear it and understand it.