Abortion-Keep Legal, Yes or No?

HesCalledDyer

PJ_Soul said:

PJinIL said:

Legal, in cases medical professionals would deem carrying full-term would be life threatening to the woman or baby. Not for mistakes/convenience/birth control.

What I think about is if a man and woman have a consensual experience that results in a pregnancy...what are the father's rights? Next to zero at this point. Some pushes have been made for rights of a HUSBAND, but even those have been struck down.

If the woman doesn't want it, sign the baby away to the dad. If that means the father pays for the prenatal care, medical bills, etc. so be it. That woman loses any visitation or other parental rights at that point.

Not to be harsh, but when you get right down to it, my attitude is "tough shit for the man." Please don't mistake that for me thinking the father doesn't matter. He does. The problem is that it's still irrelevant. It's still the woman's body, and there is no getting around that IMO. Blame nature.

Agreed.

dankind

HesCalledDyer said:

PJ_Soul said:

PJinIL said:

Legal, in cases medical professionals would deem carrying full-term would be life threatening to the woman or baby. Not for mistakes/convenience/birth control.

What I think about is if a man and woman have a consensual experience that results in a pregnancy...what are the father's rights? Next to zero at this point. Some pushes have been made for rights of a HUSBAND, but even those have been struck down.

If the woman doesn't want it, sign the baby away to the dad. If that means the father pays for the prenatal care, medical bills, etc. so be it. That woman loses any visitation or other parental rights at that point.

Not to be harsh, but when you get right down to it, my attitude is "tough shit for the man." Please don't mistake that for me thinking the father doesn't matter. He does. The problem is that it's still irrelevant. It's still the woman's body, and there is no getting around that IMO. Blame nature.

Agreed.

How long has it been?

https://youtu.be/59Hj7bp38f8

wobbler_kitty

Abortions for all. 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cIgSTjzrmRg

HughFreakingDillon

oftenreading said:

I agree 16 weeks is too early for a hard deadline, given the difficulty that some women have in even confirming a pregnancy and then accessing medical care. If you have no money then a pregnancy test from the pharmacy is out of your reach. If you have no reasonable access to health care then even at best you face delay after delay after delay. 

problem is, viabliity outside the womb is getting earlier all the time. my nephew was born at 23 or 24 weeks, which, at the time, 20 years ago, was (I believe) the earliest-born (or close to) surviving baby in manitoba. i recently read a baby born at 20 weeks survived. at 23 weeks he was a fully formed human being. small, but a full human. I cannot even fathom a baby at that stage being aborted. 

I don't have the answers. 

I hate the idea of abortion. 

But I hate the idea of forcing someone's decision about their own body slightly more. 

riley540

I thought what Romney said in 2012 was a good compromise. The first trimester is ok. And after that it’s illegal. 
I undertand common ground needs to be met and compromises need to be made to please all people 

oftenreading

HughFreakingDillon said:

oftenreading said:

I agree 16 weeks is too early for a hard deadline, given the difficulty that some women have in even confirming a pregnancy and then accessing medical care. If you have no money then a pregnancy test from the pharmacy is out of your reach. If you have no reasonable access to health care then even at best you face delay after delay after delay. 

problem is, viabliity outside the womb is getting earlier all the time. my nephew was born at 23 or 24 weeks, which, at the time, 20 years ago, was (I believe) the earliest-born (or close to) surviving baby in manitoba. i recently read a baby born at 20 weeks survived. at 23 weeks he was a fully formed human being. small, but a full human. I cannot even fathom a baby at that stage being aborted. 

I don't have the answers. 

I hate the idea of abortion. 

But I hate the idea of forcing someone's decision about their own body slightly more. 

Are you sure about the 20 week premie surviving? I just tried to find this and could only find record of the earliest ever surviving premie at 21 weeks 6 days. Post a link if you can.  

It it is certainly an issue that’s hotly discussed in terms of medical ethics, though, as the limits to viability creep gradually lower. One thing to remember is that premies  born at these very early ages generally have massive medical problems, so of course the other issue is, should we be resuscitating and treating them at 21, 22, 23 weeks, when the outcome is likely poor, and often catastrophic?

I doubt we’ll see much additional further gains in early viability unless we do get that “artificial womb”, and then the whole conversation changes.  

PJ_Soul

riley540 said:

I thought what Romney said in 2012 was a good compromise. The first trimester is ok. And after that it’s illegal. 
I undertand common ground needs to be met and compromises need to be made to please all people 

I think that's a pretty terrible compromise. 12 weeks really is too early - it is quite easy to not know you're pregnant within the first trimester, especially for those who were actually using birth control, so have absolutely no reason to suspect anything.
As for "compromises"... I think viability outside the body is a good basis for that, and even just logical "it's reasonable to know you're pregnant before then" thinking, but these compromises should NEVER EVER be based on pure moral opinion, like they are with Mitt Romney and most Republicans.

mace1229

PJ_Soul said:

PJinIL said:

Legal, in cases medical professionals would deem carrying full-term would be life threatening to the woman or baby. Not for mistakes/convenience/birth control.

What I think about is if a man and woman have a consensual experience that results in a pregnancy...what are the father's rights? Next to zero at this point. Some pushes have been made for rights of a HUSBAND, but even those have been struck down.

If the woman doesn't want it, sign the baby away to the dad. If that means the father pays for the prenatal care, medical bills, etc. so be it. That woman loses any visitation or other parental rights at that point.

Not to be harsh, but when you get right down to it, my attitude is "tough shit for the man." Please don't mistake that for me thinking the father doesn't matter. He does. The problem is that it's still irrelevant. It's still the woman's body, and there is no getting around that IMO. Blame nature.

Just curious. Why do men have the financial burden of child support then? If the women has the only right to chose, shouldn't she be the only one financially responsible?
For the record I think any deadbeat dad is a douche. But if I completely agreed with what you said, then why is he dragged into it if he doesn't want to? If he has no say, and it is only about the woman and her body and what she wants, then why force the dad into it? The dad can;t force an abortion if he doesn't want a kid.
Just playing devil's advocate here.

PJPOWER

HughFreakingDillon said:

oftenreading said:

I agree 16 weeks is too early for a hard deadline, given the difficulty that some women have in even confirming a pregnancy and then accessing medical care. If you have no money then a pregnancy test from the pharmacy is out of your reach. If you have no reasonable access to health care then even at best you face delay after delay after delay. 

problem is, viabliity outside the womb is getting earlier all the time. my nephew was born at 23 or 24 weeks, which, at the time, 20 years ago, was (I believe) the earliest-born (or close to) surviving baby in manitoba. i recently read a baby born at 20 weeks survived. at 23 weeks he was a fully formed human being. small, but a full human. I cannot even fathom a baby at that stage being aborted. 

I don't have the answers. 

I hate the idea of abortion. 

But I hate the idea of forcing someone's decision about their own body slightly more. 

Is there a process for aborting a viable fetus that does not result in its death?  
If a fetus is removed and is still alive, then it is no longer part of the woman’s body...and should be given the medical care of any human being.  Then, if a woman chooses to abort the viable fetus, her rights to them should be terminated and the baby placed for adoption.  Being a bit silly here, so please do not take this completely seriously.
We do all agree that once a viable fetus is removed from the body, they are no longer part of her body, right?  At that point all of the “it’s my body” talk would be irrelevant...  
Again, just opening up more discussion, take this all with a grain of salt.
Other animal fetuses have been grown in artificial wombs for a while now, so I would say that science is definitely lengthening the “viability” of embryos.  Pretty sure modern medicine has the ability to remove fetuses without a needle and vacuum these days...

PJ_Soul

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

PJinIL said:

Legal, in cases medical professionals would deem carrying full-term would be life threatening to the woman or baby. Not for mistakes/convenience/birth control.

What I think about is if a man and woman have a consensual experience that results in a pregnancy...what are the father's rights? Next to zero at this point. Some pushes have been made for rights of a HUSBAND, but even those have been struck down.

If the woman doesn't want it, sign the baby away to the dad. If that means the father pays for the prenatal care, medical bills, etc. so be it. That woman loses any visitation or other parental rights at that point.

Not to be harsh, but when you get right down to it, my attitude is "tough shit for the man." Please don't mistake that for me thinking the father doesn't matter. He does. The problem is that it's still irrelevant. It's still the woman's body, and there is no getting around that IMO. Blame nature.

Just curious. Why do men have the financial burden of child support then? If the women has the only right to chose, shouldn't she be the only one financially responsible?
For the record I think any deadbeat dad is a douche. But if I completely agreed with what you said, then why is he dragged into it if he doesn't want to? If he has no say, and it is only about the woman and her body and what she wants, then why force the dad into it? The dad can;t force an abortion if he doesn't want a kid.
Just playing devil's advocate here.

Because tough shit, that's why, lol. It's still his kid when it's born. Just because he can't stop women from aborting while the fetus is a part of her body and isn't viable outside of it, it doesn't mean the man's responsibility is gone when the baby becomes viable/born. What kind of fucked up logic is that? (I say to the devil, not you as advocate, lol)

dignin

oftenreading said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

oftenreading said:

I agree 16 weeks is too early for a hard deadline, given the difficulty that some women have in even confirming a pregnancy and then accessing medical care. If you have no money then a pregnancy test from the pharmacy is out of your reach. If you have no reasonable access to health care then even at best you face delay after delay after delay. 

problem is, viabliity outside the womb is getting earlier all the time. my nephew was born at 23 or 24 weeks, which, at the time, 20 years ago, was (I believe) the earliest-born (or close to) surviving baby in manitoba. i recently read a baby born at 20 weeks survived. at 23 weeks he was a fully formed human being. small, but a full human. I cannot even fathom a baby at that stage being aborted. 

I don't have the answers. 

I hate the idea of abortion. 

But I hate the idea of forcing someone's decision about their own body slightly more. 

Are you sure about the 20 week premie surviving? I just tried to find this and could only find record of the earliest ever surviving premie at 21 weeks 6 days. Post a link if you can.  

It it is certainly an issue that’s hotly discussed in terms of medical ethics, though, as the limits to viability creep gradually lower. One thing to remember is that premies  born at these very early ages generally have massive medical problems, so of course the other issue is, should we be resuscitating and treating them at 21, 22, 23 weeks, when the outcome is likely poor, and often catastrophic?

I doubt we’ll see much additional further gains in early viability unless we do get that “artificial womb”, and then the whole conversation changes.  

Yeah, kids that premature usually have major medical problems and a long road ahead of them. 

PJ_Soul

dignin said:

oftenreading said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

oftenreading said:

I agree 16 weeks is too early for a hard deadline, given the difficulty that some women have in even confirming a pregnancy and then accessing medical care. If you have no money then a pregnancy test from the pharmacy is out of your reach. If you have no reasonable access to health care then even at best you face delay after delay after delay. 

problem is, viabliity outside the womb is getting earlier all the time. my nephew was born at 23 or 24 weeks, which, at the time, 20 years ago, was (I believe) the earliest-born (or close to) surviving baby in manitoba. i recently read a baby born at 20 weeks survived. at 23 weeks he was a fully formed human being. small, but a full human. I cannot even fathom a baby at that stage being aborted. 

I don't have the answers. 

I hate the idea of abortion. 

But I hate the idea of forcing someone's decision about their own body slightly more. 

Are you sure about the 20 week premie surviving? I just tried to find this and could only find record of the earliest ever surviving premie at 21 weeks 6 days. Post a link if you can.  

It it is certainly an issue that’s hotly discussed in terms of medical ethics, though, as the limits to viability creep gradually lower. One thing to remember is that premies  born at these very early ages generally have massive medical problems, so of course the other issue is, should we be resuscitating and treating them at 21, 22, 23 weeks, when the outcome is likely poor, and often catastrophic?

I doubt we’ll see much additional further gains in early viability unless we do get that “artificial womb”, and then the whole conversation changes.  

Yeah, kids that premature usually have major medical problems and a long road ahead of them. 

For sure. I don't particularly feel that extreme measures should be taken when babies are born that premature. Sometimes human scientific intervention is not the best way to go (despite the desperation of the parents).

riley540

PJ_Soul said:

riley540 said:

I thought what Romney said in 2012 was a good compromise. The first trimester is ok. And after that it’s illegal. 
I undertand common ground needs to be met and compromises need to be made to please all people 

I think that's a pretty terrible compromise. 12 weeks really is too early - it is quite easy to not know you're pregnant within the first trimester, especially for those who were actually using birth control, so have absolutely no reason to suspect anything.
As for "compromises"... I think viability outside the body is a good basis for that, and even just logical "it's reasonable to know you're pregnant before then" thinking, but these compromises should NEVER EVER be based on pure moral opinion, like they are with Mitt Romney and most Republicans.

I personally strongly disagree and don’t believe in abortion from conception onward (which I explain above) I will respectfully disagree  

PJ_Soul

I have no problem with people not believing in abortion at all. They can go ahead and never have an abortion. Great. My only problem is with people who don't believe in it telling other women what they should do (within reason, anyway, for me, but I'm no warrior for my own opinions on that).

PJPOWER

PJ_Soul said:

I have no problem with people not believing in abortion at all. They can go ahead and never have an abortion. Great. My only problem is with people who don't believe in it telling other women what they should do (within reason, anyway, for me, but I'm no warrior for my own opinions on that).

I can agree with that with the addition that those apposed to it do not have one dime of their tax dollars going towards funding it directly or indirectly.

HughFreakingDillon

oftenreading said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

oftenreading said:

I agree 16 weeks is too early for a hard deadline, given the difficulty that some women have in even confirming a pregnancy and then accessing medical care. If you have no money then a pregnancy test from the pharmacy is out of your reach. If you have no reasonable access to health care then even at best you face delay after delay after delay. 

problem is, viabliity outside the womb is getting earlier all the time. my nephew was born at 23 or 24 weeks, which, at the time, 20 years ago, was (I believe) the earliest-born (or close to) surviving baby in manitoba. i recently read a baby born at 20 weeks survived. at 23 weeks he was a fully formed human being. small, but a full human. I cannot even fathom a baby at that stage being aborted. 

I don't have the answers. 

I hate the idea of abortion. 

But I hate the idea of forcing someone's decision about their own body slightly more. 

Are you sure about the 20 week premie surviving? I just tried to find this and could only find record of the earliest ever surviving premie at 21 weeks 6 days. Post a link if you can.  

It it is certainly an issue that’s hotly discussed in terms of medical ethics, though, as the limits to viability creep gradually lower. One thing to remember is that premies  born at these very early ages generally have massive medical problems, so of course the other issue is, should we be resuscitating and treating them at 21, 22, 23 weeks, when the outcome is likely poor, and often catastrophic?

I doubt we’ll see much additional further gains in early viability unless we do get that “artificial womb”, and then the whole conversation changes.  

I was pretty sure it was 20 weeks. I could be wrong. I read the headline, not the article, and it was a bit ago. 

one more reason my brother and his wife are people of faith. 23 weeks and 20 years later he has zero physical issues. except for his hamstrings being a bit too short so he often walks on his toes. 

HughFreakingDillon

PJ_Soul said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

PJinIL said:

Legal, in cases medical professionals would deem carrying full-term would be life threatening to the woman or baby. Not for mistakes/convenience/birth control.

What I think about is if a man and woman have a consensual experience that results in a pregnancy...what are the father's rights? Next to zero at this point. Some pushes have been made for rights of a HUSBAND, but even those have been struck down.

If the woman doesn't want it, sign the baby away to the dad. If that means the father pays for the prenatal care, medical bills, etc. so be it. That woman loses any visitation or other parental rights at that point.

Not to be harsh, but when you get right down to it, my attitude is "tough shit for the man." Please don't mistake that for me thinking the father doesn't matter. He does. The problem is that it's still irrelevant. It's still the woman's body, and there is no getting around that IMO. Blame nature.

Just curious. Why do men have the financial burden of child support then? If the women has the only right to chose, shouldn't she be the only one financially responsible?
For the record I think any deadbeat dad is a douche. But if I completely agreed with what you said, then why is he dragged into it if he doesn't want to? If he has no say, and it is only about the woman and her body and what she wants, then why force the dad into it? The dad can;t force an abortion if he doesn't want a kid.
Just playing devil's advocate here.

Because tough shit, that's why, lol. It's still his kid when it's born. Just because he can't stop women from aborting while the fetus is a part of her body and isn't viable outside of it, it doesn't mean the man's responsibility is gone when the baby becomes viable/born. What kind of fucked up logic is that? (I say to the devil, not you as advocate, lol)

it's not fucked up logic whatsoever. what you are saying is:

"I can kill this baby whether you like it or not, but if I don't, pay up"

while I'm not saying that's not the way it should be, that's a pretty fucked up logic from the guy's point of view. 

cincybearcat

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

PJinIL said:

Legal, in cases medical professionals would deem carrying full-term would be life threatening to the woman or baby. Not for mistakes/convenience/birth control.

What I think about is if a man and woman have a consensual experience that results in a pregnancy...what are the father's rights? Next to zero at this point. Some pushes have been made for rights of a HUSBAND, but even those have been struck down.

If the woman doesn't want it, sign the baby away to the dad. If that means the father pays for the prenatal care, medical bills, etc. so be it. That woman loses any visitation or other parental rights at that point.

Not to be harsh, but when you get right down to it, my attitude is "tough shit for the man." Please don't mistake that for me thinking the father doesn't matter. He does. The problem is that it's still irrelevant. It's still the woman's body, and there is no getting around that IMO. Blame nature.

Just curious. Why do men have the financial burden of child support then? If the women has the only right to chose, shouldn't she be the only one financially responsible?
For the record I think any deadbeat dad is a douche. But if I completely agreed with what you said, then why is he dragged into it if he doesn't want to? If he has no say, and it is only about the woman and her body and what she wants, then why force the dad into it? The dad can;t force an abortion if he doesn't want a kid.
Just playing devil's advocate here.

Because tough shit, that's why, lol. It's still his kid when it's born. Just because he can't stop women from aborting while the fetus is a part of her body and isn't viable outside of it, it doesn't mean the man's responsibility is gone when the baby becomes viable/born. What kind of fucked up logic is that? (I say to the devil, not you as advocate, lol)

it's not fucked up logic whatsoever. what you are saying is:

"I can kill this baby whether you like it or not, but if I don't, pay up"

while I'm not saying that's not the way it should be, that's a pretty fucked up logic from the guy's point of view. 

Agreed.

But unfortunately that's the way it is....cause in reality a guy telling a woman she has to go through with a pregnancy when she doesn't want to (assuming abortion is legal as it currently is), well that's pretty messed up too!

Look - I am anti-abortion.  I would like it if it was no longer available.  And it's not based on any religion for me.  However, we are at a point in history where we are well past making it illegal.  That ain't going to happen...not overnight anyhow.  And you need lots of the things I mentioned already in place to reduce the number of abortions to the point you could...potentially...make it illegal.  

But I do think we need to have a standard on how long it's an option.  And I do think it comes from medical viability, so the time frame could change with medical advancements.  I also do think we need to stop trying to silence men's opinions on the matter and figure out how best to deal with the fact that there could be potential fathers out there that do not have a say in their child's birth/abortion.  It may need to be be "tough"...but I'm wondering if there is a better way.  I don't have the answer.

dignin

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

PJinIL said:

Legal, in cases medical professionals would deem carrying full-term would be life threatening to the woman or baby. Not for mistakes/convenience/birth control.

What I think about is if a man and woman have a consensual experience that results in a pregnancy...what are the father's rights? Next to zero at this point. Some pushes have been made for rights of a HUSBAND, but even those have been struck down.

If the woman doesn't want it, sign the baby away to the dad. If that means the father pays for the prenatal care, medical bills, etc. so be it. That woman loses any visitation or other parental rights at that point.

Not to be harsh, but when you get right down to it, my attitude is "tough shit for the man." Please don't mistake that for me thinking the father doesn't matter. He does. The problem is that it's still irrelevant. It's still the woman's body, and there is no getting around that IMO. Blame nature.

Just curious. Why do men have the financial burden of child support then? If the women has the only right to chose, shouldn't she be the only one financially responsible?
For the record I think any deadbeat dad is a douche. But if I completely agreed with what you said, then why is he dragged into it if he doesn't want to? If he has no say, and it is only about the woman and her body and what she wants, then why force the dad into it? The dad can;t force an abortion if he doesn't want a kid.
Just playing devil's advocate here.

The biological dad had his say when he had sex. It's kinda as simple as that.

PJ_Soul

PJPOWER said:

PJ_Soul said:

I have no problem with people not believing in abortion at all. They can go ahead and never have an abortion. Great. My only problem is with people who don't believe in it telling other women what they should do (within reason, anyway, for me, but I'm no warrior for my own opinions on that).

I can agree with that with the addition that those apposed to it do not have one dime of their tax dollars going towards funding it directly or indirectly.

I would agree with that if I knew it wouldn't turn into a slippery slope situation, and I don't think anyone could ever assure people of that. If you start letting people choose where their tax dollars go for that, what's next? Education? Road works? Military spending (so many people would have a good argument for that one!)? I don't think anyone should ever encourage this kind of option.