Anti-choice

[The Gregorian]

The second in the series. In our last adventure I asked ONLY the pro-life people for their take on to what extent, or in what circumstance they would accept abortion. We had a few useful answers, but it was soon disrupted by a certain person who broke format and went off on a rant about how it's her body, and if she wanted to get rid of an infection, it's no one else's business. And how abortion wasn't about the baby, but she felt women should always have the right under any circumstances or for no reason at all to remove unwanted creatures from her body, and the fact that this results in the death of the fetus is not her problem.

I bring this up to illustrate what not to do. This is not a "support your side of the debate" thread. This is supposed to get people on one side of the fence to look on the side they're NOT on.

SO.... let's see if we can avoid such... "action."

So the question of the thread:

Only to those who are pro-choice... under what circumstances, or to what extent do YOU think abortion should be regulated? And/or, under what circumstances, or to what extent do YOU think abortion is wrong/unacceptable.

Hint: If your answer is "it should always be regulated and is never acceptable" ... the question is not directed toward you. You would be off-topic.

Example: A: If a young teen is raped by her father and the baby is growing in a dangerous manner so that it's continued growth would certainly kill both mother and child... I'll assume everyone who would not be for making an abortion in that circumstance illegal.

B: However... If a woman is angry at her husband one day, should she be allowed to go get an abortion in order to teach her husband a lesson... thereby killing his son without consulting him for no reason other than to get back at him for leaving the toilet seat up?

Obviously the two are EXTREME circumstances. Most cases are neither A, nor B. But those are the two most people focus on. I'd like PRO-CHOICE people here to suggest how close to the middle they would be comfortable with, or what should not be acceptable or allowed?

what sort of regulations do PRO-CHOICE people think would be reasonable?

 

[The Gregorian]

To get started... although I'm very anti-abortion so my opinion is invalid here:

I really think that the father should at least have the right to KNOW about the baby before it can be aborted (unless the father cannot be found).

I think abortion is excusable for rape, but I think it should be legislated that abortion due to rape should ONLY be allowed if the woman PRESSES CHARGES!

I think abortions should only be allowed with a waiting period.

And I think a married woman should not be able to have an abortion without her husband's consent, because it's not just her body... but the husband's child. And Father's have a right to protect their children. Although, I think if there is medical reason, the woman's decision should over-ride the mans.

Obviously people will disagree... but do any PRO-CHOICE people agree with any of these to any extent?

 

[KET20]

I'm pro-choice but here's where I would think abortion should be regulated:

Late-term abortions (including partial-birth and similar procedures) - only when a woman's life is in danger. Even "I don't want to have a baby right now" decisions can be made before late in the pregnancy. Find out early, decide early, and get the abortion as soon as possible.

Married women - I do agree that a married woman's husband should at least be notified, if not be required to give consent.

That's all I can think of for the moment.

 

[The Gregorian]

So what about any sort of waiting period? You have to wait 3 days before getting married. You have to wait, what? 24 hours before being able to buy a gun. Abortion is a big decision, if nothing else. (except, of course if it's medically necessary that it be done swiftly).


As far as married people, do you think they should just be notified that it happened? Or do you think the father should actually be consulted before his child's killed so he at least have a chance to save it's life. Such as if the wife simply doesn't want the baby because she doesn't think they can afford it... maybe he just got news that he'll be getting a raise soon?

 

[KET20]

So what about any sort of waiting period? You have to wait 3 days before getting married. You have to wait, what? 24 hours before being able to buy a gun. Abortion is a big decision, if nothing else. (except, of course if it's medically necessary that it be done swiftly).


As far as married people, do you think they should just be notified that it happened? Or do you think the father should actually be consulted before his child's killed so he at least have a chance to save it's life. Such as if the wife simply doesn't want the baby because she doesn't think they can afford it... maybe he just got news that he'll be getting a raise soon?

About a waiting period: The short answer is no waiting period. Here's the longer answer. All in all, I think a waiting period would be a good thing, but some procedures (like medical abortion) have very strict time constraints. The time limit on medical abortion is 7 to 9 weeks from conception depending on the clinic (the one around here is 7 weeks), and given that one may not even know she is pregnant until 4 to 6 weeks after conception, a waiting period might mean she would have to have a more invasive procedure (surgical abortion) instead. Basically, I'm undecided about a waiting period and the length of the waiting period if there was one.

As for married women: I meant that the husband should be notified/consulted before the procedure. I'm undecided about requiring consent though.

 

[katautumn]

So what about any sort of waiting period? You have to wait 3 days before getting married. You have to wait, what? 24 hours before being able to buy a gun. Abortion is a big decision, if nothing else. (except, of course if it's medically necessary that it be done swiftly).

Abortion is a very time-sensitive situation. Most women who opt to terminate a pregnancy have already given it much thought (with the exception of women who have family members or a partner who forces or coerces them into it). Most waiting period laws are not to give the woman more time to make an informed decision. They are implemented in hopes of a woman not being able to schedule an appointment before the state's cut-off date (usually the second trimester).

As far as married people, do you think they should just be notified that it happened? Or do you think the father should actually be consulted before his child's killed so he at least have a chance to save it's life. Such as if the wife simply doesn't want the baby because she doesn't think they can afford it... maybe he just got news that he'll be getting a raise soon?

IMO, a couple should discuss this prior to getting married. Of course, no one can predict the future. Most women assume they will never be in a situation where they would feel the need to choose abortion. With that said, I would hope that both spouses would be sensitive to one another. I know that I could not have an abortion if it would break my husband's heart. On the other hand, there are also men who feel they have the right to force the woman to not have an abortion even when she is adamant about it.

The problem with giving someone other than the pregnant woman the power to choose for her is that with the ability to usurp her right abort, they could also force her to have an abortion against her consent. It would be a slippery slope, which is why it is best that the decision be left to the woman who is pregnant.

 

[The Gregorian]

The problem with giving someone other than the pregnant woman the power to choose for her is that with the ability to usurp her right abort, they could also force her to have an abortion against her consent. It would be a slippery slope, which is why it is best that the decision be left to the woman who is pregnant.

Firstly, I DEFINITELY agree that someone should not be able to over-ride the mother's decision not to have one... i.e. if the father wants her to have an abortion and so do her parents and all that... if she wants to keep it, no one should be able to force her. So I realize it's bias to suggest that someone could prevent her decision the other way.

But do you really think abortion is a "right?" No other medical procedure is a "right." When I had appendicitis, it was suggested that I get it taken out to avoid death, but I had no RIGHT to have it taken out... it's something I would have to have paid a HEFTY fee for if I hadn't had health insurance (surprisingly, since I don't remember having health insurance any other time in the last 10 years).

So, should abortion be readily available for all those in need, health insurance or not? As a state provided right? Or should this surgery, which is often elective, be just as much of a privilege for those who can afford it as other procedures? How much does it cost a woman to have an abortion?

And I DEFINITELY support the idea of planned parenthood and all that, because they're not JUST for abortion. They provide helpful information and help a LOT of women prevent the pregnancies to begin with so they don't have to be aborted... But what would you guys say to requiring that abortions, like other medical procedures, be done at a hospital? Firstly, to guarantee that the practitioners are certified, for the safety of all involved, just in case there are any complications, etc.

 

[karisma]

I don't think there needs to be any laws regulating abortion cut off dates: the abortion should be available all 9 months. This is why: already, the vast majority (about 90%) are done in the first trimester. Second tri abortions are rare and third almost unheard of. Pregnancy obviously changes a woman's body to a drastic extent, and women are not going to go for 8 months and just decide she is "tired" of being pregnant and demand an abortion. Abortions at the later stages are also more dangerous, something women naturally will seek to avoid. A woman would also be hard pressed to find a doctor willing to abort a healthy late term baby for no major medical reason. For these reasons, the industry will self-regulate and there need not be any restrictions on it.

Initially I used to be against later term abortions, but when I thought about the law and how it is set up, I realized it is only consistent that abortions be available to women for the entire pregnancy. For no born person has any rights to use another person's body against their will, and a fetus cannot have more rights than any born person.

McDonagh argues this well: here is a summary of her book Breaking the Abortion Deadlock: From Choice to Consent: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3805/is_199906/ai_n8877364

Any law that would require women to carry unwanted pregnancies would mean taking away their rights that non-pregnant women, men, and children enjoy, that is, the right to bodily integrity. Even dead persons would have greater rights, when you think about it, because it is illegal to harvest a previously healthy dead person's organs that could potentially save another person's life. Think about that one for awhile. Are you an organ donor?

 

[The Gregorian]

Karisma, you already completely derailed the other thread.

This thread is not to state that there should never be any regulations. The topic of the thread is "what regulations would you find acceptable?" If you have nothing on topic to add to the discussion, do not post off topic opinions you know will derail the thread.

Click on the "rules" section up top:
"Flaming, baiting, trolling, or feeding trolls is not allowed."

Intentionally going to a thread and speaking off topic in order to annoy and antagonize people who are trying to stay ON topic is exactly that.

 

[karisma]

Only to those who are pro-choice... under what circumstances, or to what extent do YOU think abortion should be regulated? And/or, under what circumstances, or to what extent do YOU think abortion is wrong/unacceptable.

^This was the question of the thread, and I answered you. I also gave my reasoning why. Not sure how you can possibly claim I am "derailing" you.

I am compelled to point out the logical and legal inconsistencies with people who are against "convenience" abortions.

 

[The Gregorian]

The topic of the thread is not "When do you think abortion is acceptable" to which your response is "always."


It's "to what extent would pro-choice people be OK with regulation."

If you don't think it should ever be regulated under any circumstance, you have nothing to add to the conversation. Please post a situation where you'd accept regulation, or don't post. You already completely derailed the other thread.

 

[happyfreak14]

I don't approve of late term abortions except in cases of absolute medical necessity. At that point if you don't want to be pregnant any longer you can induce labour. Unless labour is actually a severe risk to the mother's life, I don't think that's an unreasonable thing to ask.

I would think most of the time if she is married she should at least consult her husband. The thing that might be problematic about legislating that, to me, is cases of spousal abuse or something like that where she could actually be in danger by talking to him about it. I don't think it's all that common, but I'm pretty sure it happens. In any case, I don't think I would say he should be able to override her decision. Frankly I think a family in which the wife is having an abortion without telling her husband has some serious problems anyway. If she's not married, he doesn't get a say.

I'm not sure what the problem would be with having them done at a hospital other than potential inconvenience.

 

[karisma]

The topic of the thread is not "When do you think abortion is acceptable" to which your response is "always."


It's "to what extent would pro-choice people be OK with regulation."

If you don't think it should ever be regulated under any circumstance, you have nothing to add to the conversation. Please post a situation where you'd accept regulation, or don't post. You already completely derailed the other thread.

How can you reconcile with the fact that once a baby is born, neither the mother or father are required to give any blood/organs that might be needed to save it's life? And please don't claim this is unrelated. You are asking what restrictions should be in place, I'm asking you why there should be any restrictions in place given there aren't any for after birth.

 

[Akathist]

Mod Hat Post

This thread is closed at least temporarily due to a large number of reports out of it.​