If Ginsburg or Breyer kicks the bucket, or Kennedy decides to walk, then despite protests in every major city, Trump and the Republican senate will rush in a Federalist Society nutter into the vacant seat. From there it's just a manner of time.
Abortion
- Thread starter Pagh Wraith
- Start date
It's not if you actually take a second to think about it. About what you can and cannot control. What is more important (death vs actual suffering).
What you described in a previous post in my exact feeling, a reluctant pro-choice opinion. It's a shame if it has to be done but the woman ultimately gets to decide. My issue is when pro-lifers make out like the act of abortion is repulsive - it's not really if you're actually grown up.
at what stage can a fetus survive outside currently? it has been shown that they can do it at 20 weeks but as a poster pointed out to me the success rate is low but its still technically possible even with a 30 percent success rate
Just makes sense if she accepts this.
As long as they survive past this November and the Dems regain the house, can't they do what the GOP did and drag it till the next election?
My position is that the woman should be allowed to terminate and the government should be responsible for giving the fetus a chance of survival.
Very very few women decide to abort at that stage anyway.
Democratic society allows everyone (with some exceptions) to get a say. If you're gonna have only involved parties make the decision in the abortion discussion, then wheel it out. Don't hide behind the bolded; that's pussy.
The decision is made by the Senate. Not the House.
So yeah, hope the Senate flips. I'm not holding my breath.
Sorry, that's what I meant to say.
yeh but when does one finally take over from the other
Women should be allowed to terminate at whatever point she wants and the government will be responsible for giving said fetus a chance of survival if possible.
Even though i'm pro choice roe v wade was a poor ruling in my opinion. If the congress thinks that woman has the right of abortion, as the should then they should make an amendment to deal with this and stop seeking laws out of other constitutional amendents that really have nothing to do with it like right to privacy. Even Gindsburg thought the ruling was flawed at best. The congress should pass the amendment or leave it to the states. Gindsburg said that the 9 unelected judges shouldnt have basically made a law out of thin air to deal with the problem. Congress should pass the law and have this dealt with
He has the right to make a case but that’s it. Biology wins this one. Women put themselves at risk to make and deliver babies. Men do not.
However we don’t need hypotheticals, look at the stats for single parents. Who is usually left holding the baby?
It is regretable but it isn't abhorent nor should it be a crime in a truly civilised society. And it has everything to do with a woman's rights to determine what happens to her own body.
Abortion covers all situations from conception to birth. Unless you are driven by religion and think something supernatural happens at conception then the moment of conception is just another biological process, as is what follows.
The idea that a blastocyst at implantation has the same rights as the woman who is carrying it is ludicrous. Even when it eventually becomes a foetus after 8 werks and continues to develop we generally consider that it's rights progress to a point where we don't allow abortion. We often think of this as a point where the foetus's rights equals those of the mother but we don't really. Not even most religious people who usually wouldn't want to prohibit a late term abortion if it resulted in the death of the woman carrying it. Thus acknowledging they accept a foetus's rights don't ever totally equal or outweigh those of the woman carrying it.
If you have a religious objection to abortion then don't have one but don't force your religion on everyone.
Last edited:
defo the woman which is unfortunate but i dont think it has anything to do with me wondering why a man cant have a say if he wants to keep his child aswel.
I think this is a very important point that someone made in the Ireland referendum thread. I think they said something along the lines of it being a life-changing event fraught with danger that changes your body forever.
Wow. Stoning as a punishment?
I'm going to take a wild guess that you aren't a feminist and that this isn't your objection.
No, this just isn't right - and a termination is not like a premature delivery. It isn't designed to save life. You can't just rescue an aborted baby and make it OK again. And who is the "government" in this scenario?
I've been in the operating theatre for a 26-week abortion, when it was legal to have abortions up to 28 weeks of pregnancy. I still think about it, nearly 40 years later.
I just don't think anyone should be forced to be a baby-carrier against their will.
So my post was deleted for being provocative which is amusing as starting a thread calling abortion an 'abhorrent crime' isn't apparently but calling it out as a vile and offensive view to share in a public forum is, who knew.
There's a distance apart from open discussion on abortion, its moral arguments, when it should be commited and essentially inferring offensive language against those who get an abortion.
But to answer the OP no it isn't abhorrent, it would be so to force a child into the world to suffer in many of the possible ways.
There's a distance apart from open discussion on abortion, its moral arguments, when it should be commited and essentially inferring offensive language against those who get an abortion.
But to answer the OP no it isn't abhorrent, it would be so to force a child into the world to suffer in many of the possible ways.
Nail on the head.
28 weeks! That's terrible.I feel sad only thinking about that
It hasn't been born so you can't end a life that hasn't begun.
Can I ask where you get your viewpoints from? Are you religious?
People give more importance to the rights over the woman's body than to the simple fact of not eliminating a perfectly viable life.
The compassion, empathy and above all, the right to life should be above all other considerations in our humaness.
Fortunately our mothers did not think about the inconveniences of a pregnancy or about the bad time for a new child.
The compassion, empathy and above all, the right to life should be above all other considerations in our humaness.
Fortunately our mothers did not think about the inconveniences of a pregnancy or about the bad time for a new child.
At no point in a pregnancy is the viability a “perfect” 100%.
Besides that, someone already posted the chart. The viability for the first 20 weeks is 0.
As for this...
I take it this is so much more compassionate:
Woman denied abortion in Ireland 'became pregnant after rape'
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/18/ireland-woman-forced-caesarean-pregnant-rape-friend
The woman became suicidal because of this. They forced her to have a C-section at 25 weeks. That’s ridiculous.
Thankfully the people of Ireland realized that.
Last edited:
I explained badly, I did not mean that from certain weeks it was viable or not. I mean, that had their development not been cut off, under normal circumstances a human living should be born, and it doesn´t do It´s precisely because the process is intentionally cut off.
In my opinion, the weeks are just an articial border to justify our lack of morality. We could also consider that since the heart beats there is an incipient life, or even since there is an embryo.
I'm not saying that there is a simple solution since especially the rape it is one of the complicated points in all the legislations but we could also look for a solution in more psychological help in those cases,for example
How moral is it to force a woman to go through something that could possibly put her life in jeopardy?
That woman is actually alive. Living, breathing alive.
The embryo has the potential to maybe be alive one day. If thousands of complications that could very well end its development don’t naturally occur, that is.
but then you are talking about extreme examples to justify a general problem. If we talk about an extreme risk of pregnancy it seems understandable to cut it, but no if we talk about the difficulties, discomforts and risks of a standard pregnancy.
It isn’t an extreme example. It’s the norm.
Every pregnant woman is at risk for a massive amount of complications that could harm them.
Things that regularly affect the health of or even kill pregnant women:
- Post partum hemmorhage
- Ectopic pregnancy
- Protracted labor
- Pre-eclampsia
- HELLP syndrome
- Blood clots
- Sepsis
- Anemia
- Hypertension
- Gestational diabetes mellitus
- Severe morning sickness
As far as miscarriage, 1 in 36 women will have at least 2 of them in their life. As many as half of all pregnancies are miscarried before the egg had even had the time to implant in the womb.
Last edited:
But then what do we do if a girl decides she does not want to be a mother, and aborts with 26 weeks(and I'm talking about a pregnancy that develops with a certain normality). We justify it with a list of possible complications ?. Risks inherent to the creation itself. The next step will be to look for a list of possible defects or diseases in the newborn to save him/her from the cruel passage through this world.
Actually, in reference to your last point, the vast majority of abortions performed that late in a pregnancy are because either the fetus or the mother has a severe medical complication.
As to your first point... what business is it of yours or mine? “It neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket”. I am in no position to attempt to force anyone to be a mother if they do not wish to be one.
The vast majority is too generic and surely there are many different statistics depending on the location, the standard of living or the family environment. The problem is that laws are established and available to everyone. Both the pregnant woman at serious risk and the girl who does not want to complicate her life. If you do not want your child you can give it to someone, take responsibility for your pregnancy, if it is the case and she has not been raped for example.
Find a solution that does not involve deciding someone's life. That is the aspect of lack of humanity to which I referred in my first post.
The only person’s life you are putting at risk there is the pregnant woman. Plain and simple.
Sadly I don't know that banning abortion would help that-I feel the men who would force that would mostly force illegal at home abortions?
then you justify the whole problem of abortion based on the health of the mother, even assuming it is a smooth pregnancy.
Since I do not feel like having this baby, we're going to throw it away in his/her 26 weeks and then we signed on a paper that there was an indirect risk of "x"
I think it is quite clear that to me there is no “problem” of abortion. In my country the right to have one was decided in 1973.
A woman has the right to an abortion.
Nobody has the right to endanger that woman’s life.
For me It is quite clear that there is a "problem".
In my country it is a very controversial subject, with continuous modifications and an eternal debate, precisely because of the ethical consequences of eliminating a life, where everybody is perfectly aware of the rights of women, but also meditating on the rights of the unborn
The crux of the disagreement centers here. When is it “a life”.