Queen of Swords

Originally posted by TheBigZoo
I believe Themistocles already admitted that "serious health consequences" were overlooked in his original statement

I wasn't aware that he had explicitly admitted it, especially considering the sweeping generalization that was his original statement. It's good to know, however, that themistocles may now consider there to be a reason for abortion other than convenience.

the mother's health does not even factor into most abortions, so we are focusing on the peas and not the steak.

However, I see no reason to deny some women abortions (because of health concerns) simply because other women may have abortions for reasons that are not related to physical health.

Moreover, sometimes birth control fails, as alexander has pointed out. I don't see why the result of birth control failure should be a forced pregnancy and labor.

Vylo

Allow me to give my basic opinion on where abortion should and should not be allowed based on this chart thebigzoo provided:

1. Wants to postpone childbearing: 25.5% - Don't have reckless sex if you don't want a kid. Would only allow abortion if adequate evidence of contraceptive use was provided.

2. Wants no more) children: 7.9% - see above

3. Cannot afford a baby: 21.3% - see above

4. Having a child will disrupt education or job: 10.8% - above!

5. Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy: 14.1% - keep on looking up top

6. Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy: 12.2% - above once again.

7. Risk to maternal health: 2.8% - abortion should be allowed

8. Risk to fetal health: 3.3% - abortion should be allowed

9. Other: 2.1% - I'm guessing rape is included here, abortion should be allowed in this case


As mentioned in many threads before this one, while I consider the issue of abortion to be very important, I think educating our children about being sexually responsible is the easiest way to help avoid even having to consider abortion. And I think we can all agree on that.

Hedwig

Just throwing this out there...how about because the infant has ceased to be a parasitic entity upon the mother physically?

Vylo

The fetus will also cease being parasitic given some time.

Hedwig

How do you mean?

Bad Kitty

I probably shouldn't have spoken for him. Actually, I know I shouldn't have spoken for him. It just seemed like the point you were making had been covered by Themistocles when he answered your question, point blank. But that is only my interpretation.

Me neither. The statistics I provided were not meant to make that particular argument.

And I don't see why the result of birth control failure should be the death of a baby, which to me (and I stress the to me part) is more henious than the concept of forced pregnancy.

I'm under the impression that we disagree about all of this.

Regards,
Michelle

PopeInTheWoods

As posted previously:

I think we may have touched on this issue before, yguy. I make a distinction between a fetus and an infant because a fetus is solely dependent on, and is a direct threat to the life and health of, exactly one other specific person (namely its mother). Could you please refresh me on your objection to this distinction?

Andy

themistocles

Would you think it appropriate and therefore should be legal for a mother to drown her children if she feels they have become too much of a nuisance?

Do those children have a right to life, or a priviledge?

yguy

I've said no such thing. That a zygote is alive is not even debatable.

That's not necessarily the most important thing, it's just the most debatable question. If a zygote were not alive it would be moot.

The incongruity escapes me completely.

themistocles

I'm not a doctor, but I fully expect that it's clear what "common sense" means and what would constitute a "serious consequence". I only provided morning sickness and death as examples of extremes and I would expect that people more knowledgable and with greater concern for such issues would know what health concerns constitute normal and (relatively) trivial in nature, and which concerns are of a nature which is of great concern to the mother. I think the principle of my argument is clear, it would be laborious and feckless (as insignificant the effect of my argument will have, anyways) for me to consider every possible illness that might be occur when a broad generalization serves the purpose better.


No it wouldn't, because not all abortions occur for health reasons, not all pregnancies are likely to kill the mother.

I'd certainly wager that most to nearly all abortions (in this country, anyways) occur for reasons of convenience only.