Author Topic: Please Take Your Abortion Talk Here; You're Ruining a Perfectly Good Thread  (Read 54864 times)

snacky

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10871
  • Location: Hoth
  • Forum Dignitary
Your "compromise" requires subjecting women to invasive medical procedures without their consent. AKA childbirth. The rights of women should not be subjugated to the rights of fetuses.

After 20 weeks, they are going to be subjected to one invasive procedure or another.  I prefer to choose the one that minimized loss and pain.  How is a c-section any worse than an invasive abortion?

I was more than 20 weeks along when I found out that I was pregnant. The fetus was about the size of an orange, IIRC. Are you saying that months of increasingly intense pregnancy then birthing is the same as expelling an orange-sized mass from my abdomen? Because that is utter nonsense.

jrhampt

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2016
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Connecticut

Do you think early term abortion is more shades of gray than late term which you view in black and white?  What do you define as late term?  What do you define as early term?

Although I disagree with it at any stage from a moral perspective, Legally I personally draw the line with pain (which indicates possible thought or consciousness).  I would prefer to say 20 weeks but I understand a later compromise could be made.

IE Before 8 weeks is very early term  (allowed no questions asked, people seeking abortions should be 'advised' to do so in this timeframe)
8 - 20 is early term (allowed but not perferrable)
21 - full  is not allowed with the exception of a non-survivable condition (such as a 2-chambered heart/no lungs/etc) and maternal risk.  Any allowable abortion beyond 21 weeks would require fetal sedation (its a thing, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2688676/).

For those who love to criticize fetal sedation, why is it standard practice for anesthesia to be used for surgical operations upon the utero?  Why is life-saving surgery using anesthesia to prevent pain but life-ending surgery not?

With the exception of fetal sedation, I think this is pretty close to agreement with our current laws - although most draw the line at viability, 24-26 weeks.  I agree that the earlier, the better - but most people are not getting late term abortions except when there's a fetal/maternal health/life issue.   They are very difficult to obtain.  I actually think there should be more facilities in place that offer late-term abortions because they are essential, life-saving procedures in some cases, and in others, where the fetus has a condition that will not allow it to survive, I see no reason why you should be required to carry it to term or until death inevitably occurs.  It's a hard enough situation when that occurs that it's a shame there are only a few doctors in the US who provide this service, forcing travel across state lines.

Sailor Sam

  • CMTO 2023 Attendees
  • Walrus Stache
  • *
  • Posts: 5731
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Steel Beach
  • Semper...something
What exactly is your position? You appear to not support abortion, but are ok with early termination which is simply abortion during a specific time period. Is that accurate? You're OK with abortion, just not after X weeks?

Yes, from a legal standpoint this is the position I take.  My morals disagree with abortion at any stage, but I am willing to compromise (and not subject others to my moral standard) if it does not harm another person.  If a embryo/fetus is unable to feel pain, think consciously or even be aware of themselves yet, then I do not feel that a person has been 'harmed'.  Since the only person consciously involved at that point is the mother, she has the right to make her own decisions.

"Late term" abortion, however, is something I find revolting and equate with murder as you have an unborn person that can (1) feel pain and (2) can also think and act autonomously.  As such, I feel that if an early abortion is not taken, there is now another life involved that is conscious and aborting it causes massive undue suffering.

The fact that my opinion is hated by both sides is why this discussion cannot continue to an adequate compromise.

Oh lord, you're not some forerunning martyr to the moral cause. Standing high on a hill, and waving a flag. Over 50% of the states in the American union have limits on when abortion.

What you actually have is an opinion, based on your feelings about exactly when abortion becomes murder. My reciprocating feeling is that 25 year old men should not be making decisions about my body. Ever. Unless, of course, you'd like to give me dominion over something on your body?

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Wow, I totally read 'weeks' and thought 'weeks', but managed to type 'months'.  That's my mistake.  In my defense . . . who the hell says '15 month old fetus' instead of '6 month old baby'? 

Probably the type of people who call it a '15 week old fetus' and are consistent in their beliefs? A 10 month old baby requires almost as much energy from its hosts as a 10 week old baby does.  It's irrational to personify a parasite just because it's outside of its host's body instead of inside.

Fetus means unborn offspring.  15 month old fetus seems to be intentionally obfuscatory since it violates the definition of the word, but maybe that's just me.

Although newborns take an awful lot of energy, comparing a fetus to a child isn't really a comparable situation.  Once a child has been born giving the child over for adoption is pretty straight forward and doesn't involve risk or a violation of personal rights of the mother.  This is probably why you don't see many arguing for the right to kill newborns.

jrhampt

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2016
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Connecticut
I was more than 20 weeks along when I found out that I was pregnant. The fetus was about the size of an orange, IIRC. Are you saying that months of increasingly intense pregnancy then birthing is the same as expelling an orange-sized mass from my abdomen? Because that is utter nonsense.

Just out of curiosity, why did it take to so long to figure out you were pregnant?  Did you still have periods?  I know it is extremely personal and you don't have to answer, I am just curious on how/if it is reasonable to expect someone to know they are pregnant at that stage.

There are plenty of women who have irregular periods.  This can be caused by many conditions, such as PCOS. 

snacky

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10871
  • Location: Hoth
  • Forum Dignitary
I was more than 20 weeks along when I found out that I was pregnant. The fetus was about the size of an orange, IIRC. Are you saying that months of increasingly intense pregnancy then birthing is the same as expelling an orange-sized mass from my abdomen? Because that is utter nonsense.

Just out of curiosity, why did it take to so long to figure out you were pregnant?  Did you still have periods?  I know it is extremely personal and you don't have to answer, I am just curious on how/if it is reasonable to expect someone to know they are pregnant at that stage.

I'm not answering your personal question, but in general it is uncommon but not unheard of for people who are not intending to get pregnant to be pregnant for quite a while before finding out. I'm an outlier, but not outside the curve.


tonysemail

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 718
  • Location: San Jose, CA
21 - full  is not allowed with the exception of a non-survivable condition (such as a 2-chambered heart/no lungs/etc) and maternal risk. 

to further complicate matters, are things like zika included?
- a survivable disease, but a difficult and handicapped life.
- could be an epidemic in certain countries?
- it's arguably more compassionate to terminate.
- difficult to detect early or very early term.

Aimza

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 35
In regards to personhood and the law, haven't some people been tried and convicted of murdering both mother and unborn baby / fetus when that baby/fetus was over a certain amount of weeks - like near the end of pregnancy? Meaning they killed a pregnant woman that had a baby / fetus that was considered viable.


Cressida

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2376
  • Location: Sunset Zone 5
  • gender is a hierarchy
Her right to bodily autonomy became irrelevant when she abstained from early termination, contraceptives and abstaining from sex. 

A person never loses their right to bodily autonomy. Regardless of what "PriestTheRunner" says on the internet.

Unfortunately, yes you surrender your right to bodily autonomy when you choose to have unprotected sex and choose to allow the resulting human being to grow to a point of consciousness.  If you do not wish to have the baby after that point (for example 25 weeks), have a c-section and allow it to live incubated.  I'm sure there is a family out there that will love it.

Again: saying something doesn't make it true.

Cressida

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2376
  • Location: Sunset Zone 5
  • gender is a hierarchy
Her right to bodily autonomy became irrelevant when she abstained from early termination, contraceptives and abstaining from sex. 

A person never loses their right to bodily autonomy. Regardless of what "PriestTheRunner" says on the internet.

Do you feel abortion should be legal up to the point of birth?  If not, at what point should it be illegal? Not trying to start an argument, genuinely curious.

Yes, I think abortion should be legal in all cases. If you institute abortion restrictions, you're essentially telling women that you don't trust them to make the right decisions regarding their lives and bodies. If a woman is eight months pregnant and wants an abortion, I'm inclined to think she has a damn good reason. If you* are not so inclined, I would ask yourself why.

By the way, Canada has no legal restrictions on abortion at any stage of gestation, so my position is hardly unheard of. That said, it's apparently difficult to find providers willing to perform very late-term abortions there - but that's a separate issue from legality.


*Not you, Midwest - just the general you.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5278
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23

Wow, I totally read 'weeks' and thought 'weeks', but managed to type 'months'.  That's my mistake.  In my defense . . . who the hell says '15 month old fetus' instead of '6 month old baby'? 

Probably the type of people who call it a '15 week old fetus' and are consistent in their beliefs? A 10 month old baby requires almost as much energy from its hosts as a 10 week old baby does.  It's irrational to personify a parasite just because it's outside of its host's body instead of inside.

Fetus means unborn offspring.  15 month old fetus seems to be intentionally obfuscatory since it violates the definition of the word, but maybe that's just me.

Although newborns take an awful lot of energy, comparing a fetus to a child isn't really a comparable situation.  Once a child has been born giving the child over for adoption is pretty straight forward and doesn't involve risk or a violation of personal rights of the mother.  This is probably why you don't see many arguing for the right to kill newborns.

I guess I disagree. Forcing birth after any arbitrary number of weeks of development is a violation of a female person's rights, regardless of the term used for the baby.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Wow, I totally read 'weeks' and thought 'weeks', but managed to type 'months'.  That's my mistake.  In my defense . . . who the hell says '15 month old fetus' instead of '6 month old baby'? 

Probably the type of people who call it a '15 week old fetus' and are consistent in their beliefs? A 10 month old baby requires almost as much energy from its hosts as a 10 week old baby does.  It's irrational to personify a parasite just because it's outside of its host's body instead of inside.

Fetus means unborn offspring.  15 month old fetus seems to be intentionally obfuscatory since it violates the definition of the word, but maybe that's just me.

Although newborns take an awful lot of energy, comparing a fetus to a child isn't really a comparable situation.  Once a child has been born giving the child over for adoption is pretty straight forward and doesn't involve risk or a violation of personal rights of the mother.  This is probably why you don't see many arguing for the right to kill newborns.

I guess I disagree. Forcing birth after any arbitrary number of weeks of development is a violation of a female person's rights, regardless of the term used for the baby.

On that point we agree completely.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1358
Her right to bodily autonomy became irrelevant when she abstained from early termination, contraceptives and abstaining from sex. 

A person never loses their right to bodily autonomy. Regardless of what "PriestTheRunner" says on the internet.

Do you feel abortion should be legal up to the point of birth?  If not, at what point should it be illegal? Not trying to start an argument, genuinely curious.

Yes, I think abortion should be legal in all cases. If you institute abortion restrictions, you're essentially telling women that you don't trust them to make the right decisions regarding their lives and bodies. If a woman is eight months pregnant and wants an abortion, I'm inclined to think she has a damn good reason. If you* are not so inclined, I would ask yourself why.


To your 8 month example - To me, a restriction at that stage is less about trusting the woman and more about saying what is growing inside her has rights as well.  At that point, I think her rights are superceded by the fetus/child growing inside her.     

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4929
To your 8 month example - To me, a restriction at that stage is less about trusting the woman and more about saying what is growing inside her has rights as well.  At that point, I think her rights are superceded by the fetus/child growing inside her.     

I agree with this completely.  A fetus at that age is conscious and can feel pain.  For societies purposes, it is an individual that needs to protected as a member of the community, even from its own parent.  That is also why my position is "why not just c-section the 8month fetus and allow it to live?"...
Good question. 

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1358
To your 8 month example - To me, a restriction at that stage is less about trusting the woman and more about saying what is growing inside her has rights as well.  At that point, I think her rights are superceded by the fetus/child growing inside her.     

I agree with this completely.  A fetus at that age is conscious and can feel pain.  For societies purposes, it is an individual that needs to protected as a member of the community, even from its own parent.  That is also why my position is "why not just c-section the 8month fetus and allow it to live?"...
Good question.

If the mother has carried for that long, why not take it to term (unless the mother's health is at risk)?

In the absence of an unexpected health issue/complication with the pregnancy, I would think the additional risk to the mother would be somewhat minimal at that point.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4929
To your 8 month example - To me, a restriction at that stage is less about trusting the woman and more about saying what is growing inside her has rights as well.  At that point, I think her rights are superceded by the fetus/child growing inside her.     

I agree with this completely.  A fetus at that age is conscious and can feel pain.  For societies purposes, it is an individual that needs to protected as a member of the community, even from its own parent.  That is also why my position is "why not just c-section the 8month fetus and allow it to live?"...
Good question.

If the mother has carried for that long, why not take it to term (unless the mother's health is at risk)
?

In the absence of an unexpected health issue/complication with the pregnancy, I would think the additional risk to the mother would be somewhat minimal at that point.
Because she has bodily autonomy.  No one is using a corpse's organs, why can't we save lives with them?  Or use them for science, which will save more lives? 

little_brown_dog

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 912
I actually used to think that only a woman with a really serious reason (read life threatening issue for her, baby, etc) would abort late in the game (ex: after 20 weeks). As a result, I thought all restrictions were oppressive. Then I spoke to a family member who works in healthcare. She was all upset because one of her patients (who previously wanted the child) was considering aborting her baby at 24 weeks because her boyfriend, the baby’s daddy, broke up with her. I don’t know why, maybe to punish him…maybe because she didn’t want to be a single mom…or maybe a bit of both. But she decided not to after a few days. My point is that there are some circumstances where a woman may not even know what they want at the time, particularly if they experience a quick shock like a job loss, breakup etc. People tend to feel extremely pessimistic in these circumstances and can easily make rash decisions. I used to be against almost all abortion restriction before that. But afterwards I thought…holy crap, what if she had just been able to walk into a clinic and calmly convince them that this was what she wanted to do? What if it was considered completely normal and acceptable to do that, and her providers didn’t really press the issue with her? In instances like this woman, I think a waiting period and mandatory counseling with multiple health professionals and adoption professionals might be extremely valuable. There was clearly a preponderance of evidence that suggested this was a wanted and healthy pregnancy (after all, she didn’t abort the baby in the first trimester) up until she received the shock of the breakup. But according to my family member, she was really REALLY considering it strongly for a couple days and was talking about making an appointment for the procedure. A month later? Happily chatting and looking forward to hearing the heartbeat.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1358
To your 8 month example - To me, a restriction at that stage is less about trusting the woman and more about saying what is growing inside her has rights as well.  At that point, I think her rights are superceded by the fetus/child growing inside her.     

I agree with this completely.  A fetus at that age is conscious and can feel pain.  For societies purposes, it is an individual that needs to protected as a member of the community, even from its own parent.  That is also why my position is "why not just c-section the 8month fetus and allow it to live?"...
Good question.

If the mother has carried for that long, why not take it to term (unless the mother's health is at risk)
?

In the absence of an unexpected health issue/complication with the pregnancy, I would think the additional risk to the mother would be somewhat minimal at that point.
Because she has bodily autonomy.  No one is using a corpse's organs, why can't we save lives with them?  Or use them for science, which will save more lives?

Gin - The mother had 8 months in this example to have an abortion.  If she was concerned about the health risks of pregnancy and/it's impact on her body, I think earlier is better for both parties involved. 

Please note, I intentionally excluded late term health issues/complications from this example because that is a completely separate topic.

little_brown_dog

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 912
To your 8 month example - To me, a restriction at that stage is less about trusting the woman and more about saying what is growing inside her has rights as well.  At that point, I think her rights are superceded by the fetus/child growing inside her.     

I agree with this completely.  A fetus at that age is conscious and can feel pain.  For societies purposes, it is an individual that needs to protected as a member of the community, even from its own parent.  That is also why my position is "why not just c-section the 8month fetus and allow it to live?"...
Good question.

If the mother has carried for that long, why not take it to term (unless the mother's health is at risk)
?

In the absence of an unexpected health issue/complication with the pregnancy, I would think the additional risk to the mother would be somewhat minimal at that point.
Because she has bodily autonomy.  No one is using a corpse's organs, why can't we save lives with them?  Or use them for science, which will save more lives?

From a human rights perspective I believe bodily autonomy only wins out if it doesn’t endanger or harm another separate entity. So men have the right to be sexual with their bodies, but they don’t have the right to force it on women who don’t want it. If your act of exercising bodily autonomy harms another person, then it becomes a matter of eliminating what causes the most harm. Even though birth is very rough, there is no question that a healthy birth is far less damaging physically to the mom than an abortion is to a fetus.

The issue is – is a 8mo old fetus a person? Well based on the evidence, most would say yes. If they are removed from the mother a fetus that age can easily breath, eat, and function on their own. They are not innately tied to the mother’s body in the same way an 8 week old embryo is. Saying that an 8 mo fetus is an extension of a mother’s body because it relies on her for nutrition and oxygen, is like saying that I am an extension of the air I breath and the food I eat. You can absolutely rely on something to survive and not be considered a physical part of it. And if the baby is not a physical part of the mom, it is considered a separate person. Which then brings us back to my previous point.

Cressida

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2376
  • Location: Sunset Zone 5
  • gender is a hierarchy
Her right to bodily autonomy became irrelevant when she abstained from early termination, contraceptives and abstaining from sex. 

A person never loses their right to bodily autonomy. Regardless of what "PriestTheRunner" says on the internet.

Unfortunately, yes you surrender your right to bodily autonomy when you choose to have unprotected sex and choose to allow the resulting human being to grow to a point of consciousness.  If you do not wish to have the baby after that point (for example 25 weeks), have a c-section and allow it to live incubated.  I'm sure there is a family out there that will love it.

Again: saying something doesn't make it true.

But how would a c-section delivery be significantly worse than abortion methods if completed at, say 28 weeks?  Any particular reason to kill the fetus rather than let it live?

Um, I don't care? It's your thought experiment, not mine.

snacky

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10871
  • Location: Hoth
  • Forum Dignitary
I actually used to think that only a woman with a really serious reason (read life threatening issue for her, baby, etc) would abort late in the game (ex: after 20 weeks). As a result, I thought all restrictions were oppressive. Then I spoke to a family member who works in healthcare. She was all upset because one of her patients (who previously wanted the child) was considering aborting her baby at 24 weeks because her boyfriend, the baby’s daddy, broke up with her. I don’t know why, maybe to punish him…maybe because she didn’t want to be a single mom…or maybe a bit of both. But she decided not to after a few days. My point is that there are some circumstances where a woman may not even know what they want at the time, particularly if they experience a quick shock like a job loss, breakup etc. People tend to feel extremely pessimistic in these circumstances and can easily make rash decisions. I used to be against almost all abortion restriction before that. But afterwards I thought…holy crap, what if she had just been able to walk into a clinic and calmly convince them that this was what she wanted to do? What if it was considered completely normal and acceptable to do that, and her providers didn’t really press the issue with her? In instances like this woman, I think a waiting period and mandatory counseling with multiple health professionals and adoption professionals might be extremely valuable. There was clearly a preponderance of evidence that suggested this was a wanted and healthy pregnancy (after all, she didn’t abort the baby in the first trimester) up until she received the shock of the breakup. But according to my family member, she was really REALLY considering it strongly for a couple days and was talking about making an appointment for the procedure. A month later? Happily chatting and looking forward to hearing the heartbeat.

Ok, so this woman changed her mind. So what? That's her prerogative as the owner of the uterus. Laws ostensibly meant to prevent people from making decisions that they might one day regret are paternalistic and an overreach of government. No other medical procedure has so many legislated barriers meant to dissuade the patient. It makes no sense.

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 28444
  • Age: -997
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Obviously you don't care, but this isn't me talking to myself.  Its called discussion.  Discussion includes asking questions.
so, again:  Any particular reason to kill the fetus rather than let it live?...

Obviously the answer would be the woman's bodily autonomy.  Hasn't that been said several times as the reason for aborting the fetus?

In this case, she doesn't want a C-Section done to her body, and you're forcing her to go through one anyways to keep the fetus alive.

The people disagreeing with you are saying they value the woman's right to her body over the right of the fetus to live.  You value the fetus's life more than her bodily rights.

It seems a pretty clear, and simple, difference of values.  I don't understand the confusion.  Each side should at least be able to understand where the other side is coming from, even if you don't agree (and then that's where compromise is made).

So maybe you can help clarify my confusion: what are you confused about, what don't you get?

:)
I am a former teacher who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, spent some time traveling the world full time and am now settled with three kids.
If you want to know more about me, this Business Insider profile tells the story pretty well.
I (rarely) blog at AdventuringAlong.com. Check out the Now page to see what I'm up to currently.

Cressida

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2376
  • Location: Sunset Zone 5
  • gender is a hierarchy
To your 8 month example - To me, a restriction at that stage is less about trusting the woman and more about saying what is growing inside her has rights as well.  At that point, I think her rights are superceded by the fetus/child growing inside her.     

I agree with this completely.  A fetus at that age is conscious and can feel pain.  For societies purposes, it is an individual that needs to protected as a member of the community, even from its own parent.  That is also why my position is "why not just c-section the 8month fetus and allow it to live?"...

You guys are pretty thoroughly missing my point. Almost any woman who was eight months along but didn't want the baby would come to the same conclusion - that an abortion is not the best solution in that situation. So why not just let her make that decision? What problem are you solving by bringing in the government to haggle about viability, or sufficiently pure motives, or how much she enjoyed being impregnated, or whatever else gets dragged in when this topic comes up?

randymarsh

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1369
  • Location: Denver
I actually used to think that only a woman with a really serious reason (read life threatening issue for her, baby, etc) would abort late in the game (ex: after 20 weeks). As a result, I thought all restrictions were oppressive. Then I spoke to a family member who works in healthcare. She was all upset because one of her patients (who previously wanted the child) was considering aborting her baby at 24 weeks because her boyfriend, the baby’s daddy, broke up with her. I don’t know why, maybe to punish him…maybe because she didn’t want to be a single mom…or maybe a bit of both.

That sounds like a perfectly valid reason to have an abortion to me. It's reasonable to not want to bring a baby into an unstable situation.

But she decided not to after a few days. My point is that there are some circumstances where a woman may not even know what they want at the time, particularly if they experience a quick shock like a job loss, breakup etc. People tend to feel extremely pessimistic in these circumstances and can easily make rash decisions. I used to be against almost all abortion restriction before that. But afterwards I thought…holy crap, what if she had just been able to walk into a clinic and calmly convince them that this was what she wanted to do? What if it was considered completely normal and acceptable to do that, and her providers didn’t really press the issue with her? In instances like this woman, I think a waiting period and mandatory counseling with multiple health professionals and adoption professionals might be extremely valuable.

I don't think it's the government's place to be telling people they don't actually know what they want. I don't have any problem with consultation from professionals per se. But we've seen in practice that "mandatory counseling" turns into doctors being required to say lies like "Abortion increases the risk of cancer".

Is it possible she would regret her decision? Sure. But what about the other women who know what they want. Why should they have to jump through hoop after hoop, with the insinuation that they're making the wrong decision just because some (I suspect the minority) are making a rash decision?

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 28444
  • Age: -997
  • Location: Seattle, WA
I suppose it startles me that someone would care more about a 4" scar than the live of a person.

Sure, you may not agree with their choice, and you might make a different one.  But it's still their choice.

Quote
Either way, I do feel I understand your position, just in discussing the late-term options available (between c-section or abortion) it seems the abortion is significantly more damaging.

You don't have to go through it.  Nor do I.  But I'm not willing to make that decision for someone else.  You apparently are.

I think an 8-month abortion (not in the case of health reasons, but just because they suddenly decided they didn't want one) would be very, very rare.  I think almost all (99%+?) would happen earlier, or due to health reasons.  But I'm not willing to force someone to do something with their body even in those rare cases.

Quote
As an example, if you were given an option to have a 4" cut - or - the loss of another person's life, I personally feel it is morally wrong to value your minor suffering to another person's life.  (Please note I am not trying to minimize the risks and results of a c-section, but it is significantly safer for the woman than abortion is for the fetus).

Okay.  Well prepare to be startled: I wouldn't support legislation that forced someone to be cut in order to save someone else's life.

I think we understand each other's position, it just seems like you don't believe people can think so differently from you, or value things differently than you do.  I can assure you that this is, in fact, the case.
I am a former teacher who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, spent some time traveling the world full time and am now settled with three kids.
If you want to know more about me, this Business Insider profile tells the story pretty well.
I (rarely) blog at AdventuringAlong.com. Check out the Now page to see what I'm up to currently.

randymarsh

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1369
  • Location: Denver
As an example, if you were given an option to have a 4" cut - or - the loss of another person's life, I personally feel it is morally wrong to value your minor suffering to another person's life. 

Maybe morally. But not legally. AFAIK bodily autonomy comes first.  Imagine someone needed a blood transfusion or they would die. I'm the only type match available. I have ZERO obligation to allow it, even though the harm to me is minimal.

Personally, I would do it and I think people should do it. But I would never support a law that said someone else had to.

You can feel it morally wrong to prioritize the mother over the fetus and that's fine. The problem comes when you legislate that position for others.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2016, 05:37:27 PM by thefinancialstudent »

Cressida

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2376
  • Location: Sunset Zone 5
  • gender is a hierarchy
You guys are pretty thoroughly missing my point. Almost any woman who was eight months along but didn't want the baby would come to the same conclusion - that an abortion is not the best solution in that situation. So why not just let her make that decision? What problem are you solving by bringing in the government to haggle about viability, or sufficiently pure motives, or how much she enjoyed being impregnated, or whatever else gets dragged in when this topic comes up?

I think I see your point now.  Its the government intrusion that bothers you.  Certainly something to consider. 

Your statement is a little puzzling. Legal restrictions on abortion - something I think you've advocated, unless I'm misreading - are pretty much the exemplification of government intrusion, no?

My main reservation is that, based on the information I have, many places will not appropriately council someone who has reached this point in their pregnancy. 

This is why I asked, "what problem are you solving." Is what you describe an actual problem? Or an imaginary one?

As far as the late term abortion goes-  if it is 'better' for our society to have the baby, which you admit based on the hypothetical woman's decision, why would you need the inverse option available?

o_O

Even if having the baby at that point is usually the best option, it's not ALWAYS going to be the best option, and it's up to the pregnant woman to decide which it is. And what's this about "available options"? Who enforces their availability? The government? I thought you agreed that government intervention should be questioned?

I find all this pretty incoherent. I'm left wondering if you understand your own position.

little_brown_dog

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 912
I actually used to think that only a woman with a really serious reason (read life threatening issue for her, baby, etc) would abort late in the game (ex: after 20 weeks). As a result, I thought all restrictions were oppressive. Then I spoke to a family member who works in healthcare. She was all upset because one of her patients (who previously wanted the child) was considering aborting her baby at 24 weeks because her boyfriend, the baby’s daddy, broke up with her. I don’t know why, maybe to punish him…maybe because she didn’t want to be a single mom…or maybe a bit of both. But she decided not to after a few days. My point is that there are some circumstances where a woman may not even know what they want at the time, particularly if they experience a quick shock like a job loss, breakup etc. People tend to feel extremely pessimistic in these circumstances and can easily make rash decisions. I used to be against almost all abortion restriction before that. But afterwards I thought…holy crap, what if she had just been able to walk into a clinic and calmly convince them that this was what she wanted to do? What if it was considered completely normal and acceptable to do that, and her providers didn’t really press the issue with her? In instances like this woman, I think a waiting period and mandatory counseling with multiple health professionals and adoption professionals might be extremely valuable. There was clearly a preponderance of evidence that suggested this was a wanted and healthy pregnancy (after all, she didn’t abort the baby in the first trimester) up until she received the shock of the breakup. But according to my family member, she was really REALLY considering it strongly for a couple days and was talking about making an appointment for the procedure. A month later? Happily chatting and looking forward to hearing the heartbeat.

Ok, so this woman changed her mind. So what? That's her prerogative as the owner of the uterus. Laws ostensibly meant to prevent people from making decisions that they might one day regret are paternalistic and an overreach of government. No other medical procedure has so many legislated barriers meant to dissuade the patient. It makes no sense.

I brought up the story to show that there is far more nuance to the situation than just extremist pro life or pro choice positions. Yes, a woman knows best, but sometimes a little bit of a lag between a decision and a medical procedure can be a good thing for an individual woman. Whether we like it or not, paternalism is inherent in the med system. Waiting a couple days between making the decision to have an irreversible medical procedure and having that procedure is standard protocol. And doctors are absolutely required to withhold surgical procedures from those patients who seem to be distraught, or otherwise in questionable judgement at the time. Surgery is a huge deal. People don’t just walk into a plastic surgery office and walk out with an appointment for later that day or early the next morning. They often have to wait days or even weeks (usually due to scheduling requirements, but sometimes for ethical reasons), which can be very beneficial because it gives the person more time to mentally prepare. I personally do not support legally mandated long waiting times, but there is definitely a potential harm in offering same day abortive service to some women, as this story illustrates. I dislike that many of my pro choice colleagues are so flippant and rush to dismiss this. It is easy for us to say, well screw it…if she aborts her baby and regrets it, who cares? But that’s the thing…we as pro choice proponents are supposed to care because we are trying to protect her right to do what is best for her.
I am very pro choice and believe in unrestricted access to abortive services before the age of viability. After that, the ethics start getting extremely muddled. I am personally against abortion related zealotry on either side. If you believe a woman has an absolute right to kill a 36 weeker because she feels like it, to me that is just as insane as a pro life person saying a woman has absolutely no right to abort. Thankfully, the American people as a whole seem to be far more nuanced and moderate in their understanding. I believe currently the most recent polls suggest that most Americans support abortion access in the 1st tri, and then afterwards for unusual cases like rape, incest, and health problems for mom/baby.

Captain FIRE

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1176
As an example, if you were given an option to have a 4" cut - or - the loss of another person's life, I personally feel it is morally wrong to value your minor suffering to another person's life.  (Please note I am not trying to minimize the risks and results of a c-section, but it is significantly safer for the woman than abortion is for the fetus).

Okay.  Well prepare to be startled: I wouldn't support legislation that forced someone to be cut in order to save someone else's life.

I think we understand each other's position, it just seems like you don't believe people can think so differently from you, or value things differently than you do.  I can assure you that this is, in fact, the case.

I wouldn't support the forced cut to save a person's life either.  I bet when it comes down to it you don't really think that either.  Let me put it this way - have you donated your kidney?  Almost 100,000 people are waiting for one, for anywhere from 5-10 years.  Are you on the list to donate one?  It can save someone's life you do, after all.  Have you donated your bone marrow?  Yes, this is pushing a your "minor" suffering example further, but it's a logical extension of the question of how much we force people to do things for the good of society.  (And who is to say a cut that scars is minor suffering?  To someone who relies on their looks for a living, such as a model, it's not minor at all.).  It's only by pushing the examples further that you can see the flaw in these utilitarian type examples.

In only two states do we *force* people without a duty (e.g. your child is in trouble, your job is to help this type of situation, you caused the situation) to help in the situation of an accident.  People may be horrified if you walk past a child drowning in a pool, but you have no obligation to jump in and save them.  There's lot of reasons why not - it could make the situation worse, we don't know if you can swim/you are terrified of water - but ultimately it comes down in our society to believing that people have the right to their own choices and we don't force their actions, even to save a life.

Personal autonomy and bodily privacy/integrity is critical in our society.  I'm just unclear why it's so highly prized all of the time, until you are pregnant.  Then all of the sudden, it's ok for complete strangers to start touching your belly and rubbing it (when they'd never do so otherwise), to tell you what you can't eat, drink or do, and to prevent you from terminating, restricting even early on in some places.  For those worried about a societal breakdown if we permit later termination, know that regardless of whether there are legal restrictions, there are still stops in place on later term terminations - the decreasing number of people who will perform them, societal condemnation, etc.  It's not a choice a woman makes willy nilly at that point - you're more likely to have an impact by examining the reasons for why people would choose to do such and thing and trying to figure out how to provide support to resolve those underlying issues, than by fighting to prohibit it.

LadyStache in Baja

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 699
    • My Casa Caoba: Making meaning in Mexico
Why are you (sorry, I don't remember which "you", was it PriestRunner?) so sure that it's "best for society" to have the baby?  How is an unwanted baby good for society?  More abused and neglected children in foster care = more crime in the future.  And more bad parents in the next generation. 

Why are you assuming it's "best for society"?  This isn't The Handmaiden's Tale where the human population is in danger of dying out.  If anything it's in danger of dying out because of so many children. 

If you want to talk about the government interfering for the good of society, then how about Mandatory Abortions unless you can prove you have a stable home, stable financial situation, and less than 3 children?

gaja

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1681
I would like to take the personal autonomy and bodily privacy/integrity examples one step further: As far as I know, all organ donation is voluntary, including when the donor has been declared braindead. I hear very few people fighting to make organ donation mandatory, very few people threathening the families who decline to donate their loved one's organs. There are a lot of lives that are lost every year because there are too few donor organs available. Is this part of the pro-life campain? Shouldn't it be?

The arguments about mandatory waiting days make me want to hit someone. It is just like the arguments about "girls need to take care and not go to the dangerous places where they get raped".  What you are really saying is "we think you are a dumb little airhead who is doing this on a whim, please go home and think for 1-3 days more". Do these people honestly think that the majority of women are stupid? Or maybe that only the women taking abortion are stupid?

Unlike most of the pro-lifers, I have disabled children. Most of the women I know who have taken abortions because the scans have shown handicaps or syndroms, have experience with handicapped siblings or children. They know what they are choosing, and they are not doing it lightly. I am willing to bring more children into this world, knowing that the likelihood of handicap is large, when the people yelling about life are willing to help us, and are willing to build an accessible society where handicapped people can take the bus, go to a restaurant, get a job, and even get a fair trial.

RetiredAt63

  • CMTO 2023 Attendees
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *
  • Posts: 20747
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
And "just" to get back to the 4" scar.  Lots of women have C-section scars, they are low on the abdomen and therefore not a huge issue cosmetically.   BUT! Below that scar is a major cut across the abdominal muscles, which means weeks of healing (cutting along the direction of a muscle is minor, this is major) and maybe never the same abdominal muscle strength.  Then the cut into the uterus.  Again major healing.  Basically this would mean, in practice, that she would never be able to deliver vaginally when she does want a baby.

And this does not violate her body integrity? 

iris lily

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5672
Why are you (sorry, I don't remember which "you", was it PriestRunner?) so sure that it's "best for society" to have the baby?  How is an unwanted baby good for society?  More abused and neglected children in foster care = more crime in the future.  And more bad parents in the next generation. 

Why are you assuming it's "best for society"?  This isn't The Handmaiden's Tale where the human population is in danger of dying out...

Fortunately, the "market" for  new born babies of any ethnicity in the situation you describe  is super strong and any such baby would have  no problem whatsoever finding adoptive parents.

Mine is a practical answer, not really an ethcal answer because that " market " could change.

This was just an aside, now  back to our discussion.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2016, 06:07:17 PM by iris lily »

snacky

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10871
  • Location: Hoth
  • Forum Dignitary
Headline: Texas has highest maternal mortality rate in developed world, study finds

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/20/texas-maternal-mortality-rate-health-clinics-funding?CMP=share_btn_fb

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada

As an example, if you were given an option to have a 4" cut - or - the loss of another person's life, I personally feel it is morally wrong to value your minor suffering to another person's life.  (Please note I am not trying to minimize the risks and results of a c-section, but it is significantly safer for the woman than abortion is for the fetus).

I get what you're saying here . . . Minimal pain to save a life seems like an easy trade to make.  But where does this reasoning stop?  Let me give you an alternate example:

Air pollution caused by personal automobile use is directly responsible for thousands of deaths each year.  Do you support a ban on all personal automobile usage in your country?  If not, you are prioritizing convenience over the lives of people, and being hypocritical.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5278
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
The arguments about mandatory waiting days make me want to hit someone. It is just like the arguments about "girls need to take care and not go to the dangerous places where they get raped".  What you are really saying is "we think you are a dumb little airhead who is doing this on a whim, please go home and think for 1-3 days more". Do these people honestly think that the majority of women are stupid? Or maybe that only the women taking abortion are stupid?
...

I am genuinely curious, do you support waiting periods for buying a firearm?...

Awesome. Everyone's two favorite topics. :D

gaja

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1681
The arguments about mandatory waiting days make me want to hit someone. It is just like the arguments about "girls need to take care and not go to the dangerous places where they get raped".  What you are really saying is "we think you are a dumb little airhead who is doing this on a whim, please go home and think for 1-3 days more". Do these people honestly think that the majority of women are stupid? Or maybe that only the women taking abortion are stupid?
...

I am genuinely curious, do you support waiting periods for buying a firearm?...

Awesome. Everyone's two favorite topics. :D

Well, what you do in your country is your discussion. I've got no big problems with the gun laws in my country. We don't have mandatory waiting days (and I don't think anyone has suggested it), but you have to get permission from the police for every gun you buy, and that permission is only given if you are registered as a hunter (this requires a hunting licence and that you have passed a hunting test), or that you are an active member of a pistol club. Also, the police decides which weapons you get a permit for, and how many. Here are the statistics: http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/norway As that narcissistic shitbag of a terrorist proved at Utøya in 2011, you can kill people if you want. But overall the system works.

To compare, I'm also very much in favor of abortion only being carried out by doctors with documented medical training, and not by some quack in a dirty motel room. I also have no problem with the doctor having instructions to talk to the woman about alternatives and through a respectful conversation finding our if she is sure about her choice, and ensuring that she is aware of the side effects. The problems start when politicians want to controll every detail of a well educated professional's work procedure.

Captain FIRE

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1176
The arguments about mandatory waiting days make me want to hit someone. It is just like the arguments about "girls need to take care and not go to the dangerous places where they get raped".  What you are really saying is "we think you are a dumb little airhead who is doing this on a whim, please go home and think for 1-3 days more". Do these people honestly think that the majority of women are stupid? Or maybe that only the women taking abortion are stupid?

I am genuinely curious, do you support waiting periods for buying a firearm?...

I do support waiting periods for buying a firearm (and other gun related controls such as background checks).  It's a good question - if your argument against waiting periods is based on a perceived insult to intelligence as gaja suggests.

That said, for me, the major issue with waiting periods actually has to do with the disproportionate impact on those of lower socio-economic backgrounds who are not paid sick time for taking off from work and cannot afford to do so - twice - and feed their families.  Some employers will also fire employees who take off for sick/appointments.  This concern is exacerbated where there are insufficient clinics, so getting an appointment can take quite a bit of time.  These are often the same states where there are tighter restrictions on when a woman can terminate a pregnancy, so the woman is extremely challenged in meeting those deadlines, even if she can manage to get the time off from work without being fired (or having her family go hungry).  It's a definite rock and a hard place.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada

As an example, if you were given an option to have a 4" cut - or - the loss of another person's life, I personally feel it is morally wrong to value your minor suffering to another person's life.  (Please note I am not trying to minimize the risks and results of a c-section, but it is significantly safer for the woman than abortion is for the fetus).

I get what you're saying here . . . Minimal pain to save a life seems like an easy trade to make.  But where does this reasoning stop?  Let me give you an alternate example:

Air pollution caused by personal automobile use is directly responsible for thousands of deaths each year.  Do you support a ban on all personal automobile usage in your country?  If not, you are prioritizing convenience over the lives of people, and being hypocritical.

Believe it or not, I do.  I understand there would be massive economic upheaval from such action overnight so I am willing to delay such a ban and make it incremental- bringing in alternates such as reliable local mass transit -but yes, I hope our world will eventually get to where 95%+ of people going places isn't clown-car behavior.

It's not just people who are driving down to the corner store that cause these deaths, it's every single car on the road.  You mention reliable local transit - this invariably means buses.  Buses that run on diesel or gas.  That would still prioritize people getting from place to place over someone's death wouldn't it?

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
It's not just people who are driving down to the corner store that cause these deaths, it's every single car on the road.  You mention reliable local transit - this invariably means buses.  Buses that run on diesel or gas.  That would still prioritize people getting from place to place over someone's death wouldn't it?

Actually I was thinking of electric train system, like DART we have in Dallas.  Besides, if there was a direct link (and no other options) between killing a person and vehicular use, then yes, it would be morally wrong.  But you can't claim that the delayed and possibly avoidable death of an individual due to vehicular use is the same as the direct an immediate death of an 8-month old fetus due to abortion.  One is delayed, avoidable and correctable- the other is immediate, permanent and life-altering for all involved.

How is the damage caused by air pollution avoidable?  We do know that the pollution from automobiles is a direct cause of death (http://news.stanford.edu/news/2008/january9/co-010908.html), http://news.mit.edu/2013/study-air-pollution-causes-200000-early-deaths-each-year-in-the-us-0829).

Captain FIRE

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1176
The arguments about mandatory waiting days make me want to hit someone. It is just like the arguments about "girls need to take care and not go to the dangerous places where they get raped".  What you are really saying is "we think you are a dumb little airhead who is doing this on a whim, please go home and think for 1-3 days more". Do these people honestly think that the majority of women are stupid? Or maybe that only the women taking abortion are stupid?

I am genuinely curious, do you support waiting periods for buying a firearm?...

I do support waiting periods for buying a firearm (and other gun related controls such as background checks).  It's a good question - if your argument against waiting periods is based on a perceived insult to intelligence as gaja suggests.
I really don't see where you are getting the perceived insult from...?

Either way, I think it is ironic that you feel a person should have to wait three days (typically) to make a purchase but not to make a permanent and life-altering decision that also destroys a person.

The perceived insult was my way of writing in shorthand what I felt Gaja had written for an objection to waiting periods for women terminating pregnancy.  (It wasn't directed at you or really anyone.)  One reason to object which s/he expressed is if you feel that women already know their own minds, and waiting won't change them.  I wasn't addressing the merits of that argument, but rather pointing out another issue to waiting periods is the disproportionate impact to low income women, which is particular challenging in states with limited access to clinics and tighter timeframes for action.  You ignored this point and did not address at all - I would very much appreciate your consideration of it, as that was the main point of my post and these other aspects are more tangential.

I actually think that counseling of options in a non-biased manner for women is a perfectly fine thing to do, to make a full informed consent.  (I'd like to note that gun purchasers are not counseled on their actions...)  Giving them time to consider their actions is good, however, I think they get "time to consider" in the time spent waiting for an appointment - often well over a few days.  (Based on articles I have read, in a tangential point, I also question whether doctors are presenting the information in an unbiased manner in all places in the US - but I can't really see legislation helping much here, rather than we must rely on their ethics instead.) 

In regards to the waiting period for a gun, you are assuming that I see it as you do, of "destroying a person".  Like many others on her advocating for choice and bodily integrity, I see it as terminating a fetus - who is not a person.  I believe a waiting period for a gun purchase is warranted so there is sufficient time to ensure the purchaser is not a criminal/person who is legally prohibited from making a purchase.  A cooling off period, while quite beneficial, is not the only reason for me for a waiting period.

Captain FIRE

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1176
I disagree with your contention that the lower-income individuals risk employment as providing a doctor's notice and being terminated anyways is (1) illegal in my state and (2) a basis for receiving unemployment- all of this is assuming you don't sue the person/business that fired you originally and receive significantly more than what you made.  I get that it causes a person to potentially miss 2 days instead of 1, but to me that is a minor price to pay considering the weight of the decision at hand.

Illegal:
  • It may be illegal to fire someone in your state, but that's not the case in other states if you are not covered by other laws such as FMLA (which doesn't cover those working for small companies or working there less than a year): http://www.employmentlawfirms.com/resources/employment/wrongful-termination/can-employer-fire-someone-being-sick
  • Just because there are laws against it, doesn't mean proving it is easy.  I had a friend - who was a graduate of a top 10 law school and employed as a lawyer - who was sexually harassed by a client.  She, a highly educated woman with many resources, still opted not to press charges because 1) proof issues, and 2) concerns of blackballing in the industry afterwards.  Note also that suing is highly expensive and time consuming, with a risky payoff.
  • I played this online poverty simulator a while back and my recollection is that it fires you if you choose not to show up to work for being sick: http://playspent.org/  (You may need to play it several times to get that option.  It's a bit random in what you are tossed.)  This suggests it is an issue, whether or not it's legal to do so.  Sick days is a luxury those of us not in minimum wages don't quite realize.  Paid sick days are even more so.  Only a few states mandate paid sick leaves.

Unemployment:
  • Unemployment is also less than full-time wages, and for someone on the brink that's critical.
  • You also assume that they would know they are eligible for unemployment under these circumstances.  Even highly educated people are confused about what makes them eligible/ineligible for unemployment.
  • It takes a week of unemployment before benefits kick in.

For more anecdotal information: I provided legal advice through a program to girls under 18 seeking a judicial bypass for a pregnancy termination if they did not have parental consent.  Many came in with a stepparent, but still needed judicial bypass because step-parent consent was insufficient.  Quite a few of the remaining had told their parent, but the parent said it was their problem and/or that they couldn't take the time off work for it (would lose their job and/or needed their pay).

And in case you think I'm overstressing the link between poverty and pregnancy termination (and how much a second day off from work may impact someone), from this fact sheet, https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/factsheet/fb_induced_abortion.pdf, 75% of terminations are for those who are under 200% of the federal poverty level.  Almost half, 49% are for those under the federal poverty line ($11,670 for a single adult with no children).

You've stressed earlier that if people are terminating pregnancy, that it is only acceptable earlier in the pregnancy.  (I am paraphrasing based on my recollection of your many posts.)  One way to achieve that result is to eliminate waiting periods (you can still require informed consent beforehand).  Note that according to the above fact sheet, "In 2004, 58% of abortion patients said they would have liked to have had their abortion earlier in the pregnancy. Nearly 60% of women who experienced a delay in obtaining an abortion cited the time it took to make arrangements and raise money."

CheapskateWife

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1410
  • Location: Hill Country, TX - Being a blueberry in the Tomato Soup
  • FIRE'd and Loving it!
The arguments about mandatory waiting days make me want to hit someone. It is just like the arguments about "girls need to take care and not go to the dangerous places where they get raped".  What you are really saying is "we think you are a dumb little airhead who is doing this on a whim, please go home and think for 1-3 days more". Do these people honestly think that the majority of women are stupid? Or maybe that only the women taking abortion are stupid?
...

I am genuinely curious, do you support waiting periods for buying a firearm?...

Awesome. Everyone's two favorite topics. :D
Now all we need is a lesbian pitbull and this thread will be complete.

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
The arguments about mandatory waiting days make me want to hit someone. It is just like the arguments about "girls need to take care and not go to the dangerous places where they get raped".  What you are really saying is "we think you are a dumb little airhead who is doing this on a whim, please go home and think for 1-3 days more". Do these people honestly think that the majority of women are stupid? Or maybe that only the women taking abortion are stupid?
...

I am genuinely curious, do you support waiting periods for buying a firearm?...

Awesome. Everyone's two favorite topics. :D
Now all we need is a lesbian pitbull and this thread will be complete.

Ha!!

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4929
The arguments about mandatory waiting days make me want to hit someone. It is just like the arguments about "girls need to take care and not go to the dangerous places where they get raped".  What you are really saying is "we think you are a dumb little airhead who is doing this on a whim, please go home and think for 1-3 days more". Do these people honestly think that the majority of women are stupid? Or maybe that only the women taking abortion are stupid?
...

I am genuinely curious, do you support waiting periods for buying a firearm?...

Awesome. Everyone's two favorite topics. :D
Now all we need is a lesbian pitbull and this thread will be complete.
Ok people, I need the backstory for this one.

CheapskateWife

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1410
  • Location: Hill Country, TX - Being a blueberry in the Tomato Soup
  • FIRE'd and Loving it!
The arguments about mandatory waiting days make me want to hit someone. It is just like the arguments about "girls need to take care and not go to the dangerous places where they get raped".  What you are really saying is "we think you are a dumb little airhead who is doing this on a whim, please go home and think for 1-3 days more". Do these people honestly think that the majority of women are stupid? Or maybe that only the women taking abortion are stupid?
...

I am genuinely curious, do you support waiting periods for buying a firearm?...

Awesome. Everyone's two favorite topics. :D
Now all we need is a lesbian pitbull and this thread will be complete.
Ok people, I need the backstory for this one.
No backstory, just figured that we could just lump all the hottest topics into one.  Perhaps the pitbull should probably be trans instead of lesbian.

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 28444
  • Age: -997
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Make sure you throw in Trump's opinion on all of this.
I am a former teacher who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, spent some time traveling the world full time and am now settled with three kids.
If you want to know more about me, this Business Insider profile tells the story pretty well.
I (rarely) blog at AdventuringAlong.com. Check out the Now page to see what I'm up to currently.

randymarsh

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1369
  • Location: Denver
Either way, I think it is ironic that you feel a person should have to wait three days (typically) to make a purchase but not to make a permanent and life-altering decision that also destroys a person.

Waiting periods for abortion vs. gun sales are hardly comparable. The financial cost is dramatically higher for abortion than gun sales. There are states where the nearest abortion clinic is effectively an overnight trip. So now a woman has to take 1-3 days off work, arrange transportation, and a hotel stay. Plus the actual cost of the abortion. I seriously doubt many people live in areas where the nearest gun seller is that far away. Even if they were, the clock isn't ticking like it is with abortion.

The logic of a gun waiting period is I assume to prevent rage shootings. The logic of an abortion waiting period seems to be hoping a woman changes her mind about using a constitutional right.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4929
Either way, I think it is ironic that you feel a person should have to wait three days (typically) to make a purchase but not to make a permanent and life-altering decision that also destroys a person.

Waiting periods for abortion vs. gun sales are hardly comparable. The financial cost is dramatically higher for abortion than gun sales. There are states where the nearest abortion clinic is effectively an overnight trip. So now a woman has to take 1-3 days off work, arrange transportation, and a hotel stay. Plus the actual cost of the abortion. I seriously doubt many people live in areas where the nearest gun seller is that far away. Even if they were, the clock isn't ticking like it is with abortion.

The logic of a gun waiting period is I assume to prevent rage shootings. The logic of an abortion waiting period seems to be hoping a woman changes her mind about using a constitutional right.
Or that she runs out of time to get one.

randymarsh

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1369
  • Location: Denver
I can't speak for all states, but in Texas if the trip is more than 100 miles, the waiting requirement is waived.  Considering Texas is one of the strictest states, I figure this is mirrored across the US.

You'd be wrong. http://kff.org/womens-health-policy/state-indicator/mandatory-waiting-periods/

14 states require 2 separate physical visits to the clinic over 1-3 days.  The 100 mile exception only exists in Texas and Virginia.

As far as running out of time, if 1 day is such an issue, then set the fertilization date one day earlier (if the woman really has issues tracking menstruation) and be done with it.

Huh? Now you want doctors lying to get around arbitrary laws? Regardless, it's not about just 1 day (although that 1 day could be important in some instances). For an abortion that only requires drugs, you have 10 weeks. It's typical to not even know you're pregnant for what, 2-4 weeks? Now you have just over a month to schedule it, come up with the money, arrange transportation (possibly to a town hours away), and hope you don't lose your job for taking a day or 2 off. If anything goes wrong (friend can't drive you, short on cash), you have to start over again. Now you have to undergo a surgical procedure if you missed the pill window.

These steps aren't a big deal for the typical well off MMM woman, but they are a serious challenge for the poor with limited resources and you're really downplaying it.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2016, 05:06:32 PM by thefinancialstudent »

 

Wow, a phone plan for fifteen bucks!