‘What Kind of Mother Is 8 Months Pregnant and Wants an Abortion?’

when that is all that can be afforded, it is better than nothing at all .. perhaps in your "noble" goal to reduce abortions you should be promoting free at source contraception of ALL types, after all in the long term an IUD is cheaper to the tax payer than condoms or the pill and far less likely to fail.

 

How so? A baby is hardly independent. The only difference with a newborn baby is that other people can take care of it, whereas with an 18-week old fetus, only the mother's body can provide the necessary sustenance (at least at this time, there might be radical breakthroughs in medical technology in the future). A 24-28 week old fetus has a fair chance of surviving outside the womb, so how "dependent" is it really?

 

Why are you avoiding all those INCONVENIENT posts?

IF you have all the correct answers I would think you'd be glad to address those INCONVENIENT posts

 

Seems to me we have things arranged about as well as they need to be with respect to abortion, except of course where states manage to be overly restrictive about it, pressure abortion clinics out of business, and so on. Women need to have the option, and on the other hand we need to have counseling and alternative options available, and we already have these things in abundance.

 

The type of independence we're talking about makes a difference. Calling a born child independent does not mean a complete and total lack of dependance on anything or anyone. What it means is that now that born child is completely functioning on it's own. It's bodily systems are not connected to anyone else, it does not directly rely on a connection with any other person for survival, and it is now it's own individual person, not a part of the inside of another person. It is physically independent of it's mother and is therefore no longer a part of her body and able to be regulated as such.

Just to be clear, when saying that a born child is now an independent entity, I do not mean it can hop out of the doctor's arms, get a nice suit, get a job, buy a vacation home, and be a die-hard hockey fan without ever needing anyone else for anything ever. Context is important.

 

He refuses to see your point....as you and several others have explained, there is biological dependence(before birth) and social dependence (after birth)....

 

wow, you are actually learning that there is a difference between biologically dependent and socially dependent .. now perhaps you can also learn that no person can be forced to sustain the life of another person against their will.

 

I disagree with that. There are "good Samaritan" laws, for example. And people need to take responsibility and be held to account for their actions that affect other people. The woman created the situation in which the life of her unborn child is dependent upon deriving sustenance from her body.

If you severely injure someone, you can be required to pay their medical bills. Isn't that a form of being required to sustain the life of another person against your will?

Pro-lifers aren't asking much. The woman basically just has to sit there and not get an abortion, and take reasonably good care of her body, avoiding any unhealthy habits for the duration of the pregnancy.

 

How many times are you going to post that utter garbage? Do you think it hides all the posts you can't address?


Good Samaritan laws do NOT require you to sustain the life of anyone especially not for nine months....and NOT with your own body.

 

Yes there are and they ONLY apply to protect people who give reasonable assistance to those who are injured, ill, in peril, or otherwise incapacitated from being sued or prosecuted for unintentional injury or wrongful death.. There is no "good Samaritan" law that forces a person to help another to the extent that a pregnancy "helps" the unborn .. not one.

For example, you are under no legal obligation to help someone who has fallen onto a train-track, even if there is a train coming. You are under no legal obligation to try and save someone who is drowning, and even as a parent you are under no legal obligation to give your offspring blood or an organ even if it it would save their life and have little to no detrimental effect on you personally.

Read my signature line - "Your right to body autonomy - "The common law has consistently held to a rule which provides that one human being is under no legal compulsion to give aid or to take action to save that human being or to rescue" - McFall vs Shimp"

Which is wholly irrelevant to the actual legality of the situation, you may feel that people have a moral duty to help others or a woman has a moral duty to maintain a pregnancy through to birth, that does not negate the legal reality. You are still attempting to blur the lines between what is a factual cause and a legal cause.

By your logic the woman who goes jogging after dark in Central Park and is raped is responsible for what happened due to her own actions that placed her at risk, pregnancy is nothing more than a risk incurred by sexual intercourse, and not even a very high risk - less than 9% for a single act of unprotected sexual intercourse, and that 9% only occurs for 6 days during mid-cycle.

A woman "created the situation" no more than you create the situation if you go mountain climbing and break your leg . .should you be refused medical treatment simply because you created the situation by taking a risk?

In reality this has nothing to do with risk, obligation or moral opinions, it is wholly about consent and a person right to self-defence against a third party that is injuring them non-consentually.

Paying a monetary value is in no way the same, attempting to compare the two is a blatant attempt at misdirection, does the person who severely injures someone have to give up ANY part of their body or even a single drop of blood to the injured person?

you are asking a woman to give up something you would never give up yourself - the right to consent what another person does to you, and the right to defend yourself against non-consented injuries, if you think that is not asking much then you are deluded.

 

You are still saying the woman is to blame, so she must be punished by pregnancy/childbirth. A child should never be a punishment. A fetus is not a person, so it is not part of "other people."

If you injure someone, you are punished by making monetary restitution. You are at fault, so you are punished by fines. Why do you insist on punishing women for pregnancy?

You have had it explained repeatedly that pregnancy/childbirth is physically risky and extremely painful and debilitating, financially demanding, and emotionally draining. DO NOT, just DO NOT tell a woman who has multiple experiences of pregnancy/childbirth that "all she has to do is sit there." You would be responsible for the resulting explosion and you have already explained that you would be financially liable.

 

Yes it is. Pro-choicers have admitted in this forum that most abortions are done because of economic reasons (though there may often be other co-occurring factors).

Another pro-choicer recently suggested that paying women to keep the pregnancy would prevent most abortions from happening.


So it might not be exactly the same, but in many cases requiring a woman to use her body is essentially synonymous with requiring them to pay for financial compensation.

 

Not this pro-choicer, I have no control over what others say or think and as you are addressing me then deal with what I say not with what other people say.

now will you answer the question of continue to evade - "does the person who severely injures someone have to give up ANY part of their body or even a single drop of blood to the injured person?"

Not in reality it isn't

Furthermore .. why are you ignoring the rest of my comments?

 

No, but if they did have to, would that be so bad? If you mortally wounded someone and that person was in the hospital and needed an emergency blood transfusion, and there was no one else with a matching blood type, shouldn't you be required to give up some of your blood? To save the life of this person, since it was YOUR actions that ended up putting them in that situation?

 

So if a woman gets pregnant and just sits there, eventually she is just going to explode ???

 

Yes and no

We introduced a "baby bonus" which initially had 17 year old girls giving birth and the baby daddy hanging around only long enough to get his hands on the money and departing

It did not really affect the abortion rate

 

NO.


And they don't have to. And women don't have to.....and you still have unaddressed posts......

YOU expect women to give up their bodies and YOU can't even address those INCONVENIENT posts...why? Don't you like INCONVENIENCE????

 

Simple answer no.

 

Any woman who has experienced pregnancy/childbirth will explode after listening to your descriptions of how easy it all is. Eventually. Some of us have more tolerance of ignorance than others, but we all feel the urge to strangle when our painful experiences are minimized by the willfully unknowing.

 

Mother's Day is tomorrow...... I wonder if the mother's of these "Pregnancy Is Easy Peasy/Nothing To It" advocates know how little they are appreciated.

 

Be nice if we could somehow tell them. Might give us some more episodes of "Motherhood in Baltimore"

 

No, these people will never appreciate what their mothers went through for them, they do not care...afterall if she suffered (and they contend she suffered NOTHING) it was to present their Royal A88es into the world.

 

That is the trouble. YOU would hate to have to care for a deformed child. Might hurt your ability to be like those that do not have deformed children.

Abortion has always been about the selfishness of the female, who's own feelings matter more than a human life.

What we need is to sterilize all females who get abortions, so they cannot ever kill another unborn child. So, keep em legal, but get rid of the problem. Then the woman has a choice, and its pro choice.

A society that does not value human life is no different in essence from Hitler's Germany who had no value for Jewish life. That is the fact.

 

So does that mean YOU are volunteering to care for the handicapped child regardless of the severity of the disability? Regardless of the financial burden? If you're not stepping up to the plate with "unselfishness", don't be judging women who know if they can handle rearing a handicapped child or not.

Approximately one-third of all women will have an abortion sometimes during her reproductive years. Many of them already have children so the threat of sterilization will not be a deterrent for them.

A society that assures that abortion is safe for women by legalizing it DOES value human life, it values the lives of women. A society that risks the lives of women by criminalizing it does not value women's lives. And I know this is a shock to you, but women's lives ARE human life.