Abortion

[Fran]

And, if you decide not to raise the baby, it really is, more or less, a "semester of school" inconvenience to carry a pregnancy to term.

Tell that to the 100 women in the UK alone who still DIE every year from pregnancy and childbirth. Source: a consultant gynaecologist.

The other complications associated with pregnancy are:

Backache - the back can be permanently weakened by pregnancy often resulting in long-term back problems, made worse by weakened abdominal muscles caused by carrying all that extra weight

Preeclampsia - this one is a killer

Varicose veins

Post-natal depression which can last for years

Morning sickness - if the woman can't keep anything down it is her body that is depleted of mineral stores, which could lead to osteoporosis in later life

Incontinence - birth weakens the vaginal muscles

Reduced Sexual enjoyment - weakening of the vaginal muscles may result in loss of sexual enjoyment for the woman

Gestational diabetes - goes after birth but increases your chances of getting diabetes in later life

Massive weight gain which is often hard to shift post-birth

Heartburn

Haemorrhoids

Stretch marks

And let's not forget how excruciatingly painful the birth process is - which can last for days!

If a Caesarean is needed, this is major surgery and can take 6-18 months to recover from

I'd like recognition of the fact that pregnancy has hugely negative effects on the women's body - it's not merely 'a semester of school' inconvenience! This is why I view carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term is self-sacrifice on the part of the woman.

Okay, so if she becomes pregnant she's partly responsible because she had sex whilst using contraception - so she should be self-sacrificial again and never have sex just in case she becomes pregnant? Let's give up one of the most wonderful things a human being can experience for the sake of someone else?

Edited March 2, 2007 by Fran

[Brant Gaede]

Fran, there are also mortality risks for the mother with late term abortions.

--Brant

[mikelee999]

nothing to say here - draft posted inadvertantly. Pretty good draft if I do say so myself. Too bad I deleted it.

Edited March 3, 2007 by mikelee999

[mikelee999]

Tell that to the 100 women in the UK alone who still DIE every year from pregnancy and childbirth. Source: a consultant gynaecologist.

The other complications associated with pregnancy are: (snipped, but they included backaches, diabetses, getting fat and ugly and even death--I'll stipulate to the list).

I'd like recognition of the fact that pregnancy has hugely negative effects on the women's body - it's not merely 'a semester of school' inconvenience! This is why I view carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term is self-sacrifice on the part of the woman.

This is the kind of Churchillian doughtiness that's keeping the Muslim Menace from making you all wear burkhas.

Okay, so if she becomes pregnant she's partly responsible because she had sex whilst using contraception - so she should be self-sacrificial again and never have sex just in case she becomes pregnant? Let's give up one of the most wonderful things a human being can experience for the sake of someone else?

Your fight is with God, not me. I didn't link sex and risk, including the risk that you might create another human being to whom you owe some kind of moral duty that trumps your right not to have stretch marks.

Sex is what it is, biologically. You might as well pass a resolution affirming your right to eat whatever you want and not get fat.

Let's assume, purely for the sake of argument, that there is no important moral difference between an embryo 5 seconds after fertilization and a 5 year old child. Pro-lifers assert that very thing, and say that if that is true, then abortion is an abomination. They think a woman who would murder a 5 year old for being in her uterus, when that child would naturally leave in a few months anyway, should be a moral pariah.

So I would really like to hear you sign on to one of these statements, or assert another if I've not been exhaustive:

EVEN IF a fetus has the moral rights and status of a 5 year old child, I assert my right to kill it to avoid [the list of risks and inconveniences you cited] because it's squatting in my tummy.

IF a fetus has the moral rights and status of a 5 year old child, then I have some moral duties to it beyond my own self interest.

Mike Lee

Ball's in your court

[Judith]

And, if you decide not to raise the baby, it really is, more or less, a "semester of school" inconvenience to carry a pregnancy to term. And, you do bear at least a certain percentage of responsibility for the current situation. It's one thing to say, no, I won't give up a kidney for a stranger who needs it; it's another thing if the stranger needs the kidney because you were horny.

If you read the entire discussion above, you saw my very first comments on this subject regarding "the danger, discomfort, and disfiguration of the pregnancy itself". That's a lot more than "a semester of school inconvenience".

I know plenty of women who say they were taking the pill, not taking tetracycline, and they got pregnant anyhow. Evidently, the fine print effectiveness statistics are FDA BS or don't apply to suburbia or, more likely, most of these women are damn liars.

. . .

Contraceptive failures, other than abortion, are very common. My point is that perfectly rational, careful people end up having abortions despite their rationality and carefulality, in numbers higher than most people think. A whole lot of women in the US who aren't dumb sluts have had more than one abortion. This does not gibe with drug company advertisements, I know.

Where are you getting YOUR numbers? I'm inclined to believe that the failures are from not following the directions faithfully. One doesn't have to be a "dumb slut" to forget to take a pill once or twice a month.

Every sexually active woman who is at all responsible who doesn't yet want to be a mom should be ready able and willing to get suctioned after every sexual encounter.

I agree. It's the ultimate reality one must face unless one has had a hysterectomy.

I don't want to take offense where none was intended, but reading back now over what I wrote before, and what you wrote in response, I'm having a hard time understanding how you thought I was suggesting that women should go off the pill and rely on abortion instead.

I didn't think you were suggesting that women SHOULD do that. It certainly looked like you were suggesting that abortion was the EASIEST form of birth control. "And, because, like it or not, other birth control methods suck, abortion is resorted to far more frequently by intelligent women than men who women think might be judgmental about this subject would believe. Shocked me too, I know. Ladies, you know I'm saying the truth, please don't have me greased, I mean you no harm." Seemed pretty clear to me.

And the whole Jesus! and Are you Effing serious? crap is starting to get right up my nose. I don't know you, but you seem to think, like many women, that you can snort and paw, declare critical parts of the debate off limits, and still retain the illusion of intellectual seriousness because you have a vagina and I don't. If that's what you think with, then bring it on!

What IS getting right up MY nose is the airy ease and smugness with which you're presuming to dispose of women's bodies, as if it's your God-given right. "This is the kind of Churchillian doughtiness that's keeping England safe from the Muslim birthrate." Too effing bad for England; the ladies don't feel like having the babies; their bodies aren't yours to use as incubators. "Your fight is with God, not me. It's not my fault that sex is both fun and risky. I'm just the rude guy pointing out the obvious to people who think the universe should be sued for the way they evolved or the way God designed evolution." No, our fight is with you, who are trying to prevent us from using the available technology to use our own bodies freely.

If you think you'll never need an abortion because you're in a Brave New World of technology, then I hope you hit menopause before your illusions do.

What's with the hostility, Mike? From the tone of your notes responding to me and to Fran, I can't help wondering if you really hate women.

Judith

[Danneskjold]

Well, I have continued to disagree with Fran's calling not be able to abort a baby "self-sacrifice". You love sex, that's all well and good. I love baseball. Lets say that I get hit in the head by a baseball and lose nine months of memory (or have to spend the next nine months in rehab). I did not sacrifice myself, I took a calculated risk that turned out for the worse.

Now, the question is simply this, when does a baby/fetus/whatever else obtain the right to life? That, I don't have enough information to talk on.

[Judith]

Now, the question is simply this, when does a baby/fetus/whatever else obtain the right to life? That, I don't have enough information to talk on.

In the issue of late-term abortion, I believe that the issues are becoming separate. The woman is aborting, and the fetus is viable. The fetus (or baby, once out of the uterus) could survive, but the woman is insisting that it be killed.

So, technology COULD evolve to the point (and in late-term, it's already there) where the issues are completely separate: a woman could conceivably (*wince*) decide that she doesn't want the zygote/embryo/fetus/baby in her body for one more second, and say, "Take it out immediately!" and the whatever-it-is could survive in an artificial life support system. Then, perhaps the woman could say (as I would, in that situation), "I don't want any child of mine raised by strangers. I don't trust them to do a competent job. Terminate it before it grows into a baby."

As I said above, I don't think it's a technological determination; I think it's an emotional determination that individuals will make differently, based on how much they value that not-yet-born fetus. Some will say, "It looks like a baby, it feels pain like a baby, it has 46 unique chromosomes like a baby, therefore I value it like a baby." Others will say, "For Christ's sake, it's not even self-aware yet, it's like an earthworm, who cares?" Who decides? I say it's like a property decision.

Judith

[Danneskjold]

I would at the very least have the mother forfeit the right to decide whether it lives or dies once it is not part of her body anymore. The doctor should say "Sorry but that child stopped being yours once it left your body, we'll make sure we find it a good family". The thing has a shot at life, it's not affecting her body, why should she get to kill it? DNA?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

nothing to say here - draft posted inadvertantly. Pretty good draft if I do say so myself. Too bad I deleted it.

I normally clean up posts when a poster marks "deleted," but this was too charming to eliminate.

What a trip!

Michael

[Judith]

I would at the very least have the mother forfeit the right to decide whether it lives or dies once it is not part of her body anymore. The doctor should say "Sorry but that child stopped being yours once it left your body, we'll make sure we find it a good family". The thing has a shot at life, it's not affecting her body, why should she get to kill it? DNA?

Ah! Therein lies the heart of the debate. I would say that it's not a baby yet, but it WILL be, and once it's a baby, it's MY baby, and I don't want some blasted idiot raising it. Therefore, I want to prevent it from BECOMING a baby.

So we come back to your original question of when it has the right to live. I'm inclined to believe that right now, in terms of late-term abortion, if the fetus/baby can survive, let someone else take it if he/she is willing to pay the medical costs for it's survival. If not, too bad.

Judith

[Victor Pross]

nothing to say here - draft posted inadvertantly. Pretty good draft if I do say so myself. Too bad I deleted it.

I normally clean up posts when a poster marks "deleted," but this was too charming to eliminate.

What a trip!

Michael

Michael,

Actually, I think that post was aborted.

-Victor

[Judith]

nothing to say here - draft posted inadvertantly. Pretty good draft if I do say so myself. Too bad I deleted it.

I normally clean up posts when a poster marks "deleted," but this was too charming to eliminate.

What a trip!

Michael

Michael,

Actually, I think that post was aborted.

-Victor

No, actually it was there. If you look at my reply, you'll see pieces of it quoted. He was deleting it as I was replying to it. He then submitted a revised version.

Judith

[Fran]

IF a fetus has the moral rights and status of a 5 year old child, then I have some moral duties to it beyond my own self interest. Mike Lee

Okay Mike, I hear that you would like more responsibility towards the foetus?

I would like acknowledgement that IF (for argument's sake) that 5-year old child was going to put your own life at risk and the only alternative was to kill the child, it would be called self-defence in any other circumstance.

Edited March 4, 2007 by Fran

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I would like acknowledgement that IF (for argument's sake) that 5-year old child was going to put your own life at risk and the only alternative was to kill the child, it would be called self-defence in any other circumstance.

Fran,

In that kind of choice, if the child were attacking you like with a gun or a powerful biological/chemical weapon, I can see self-defense—but I don't see a real attack with intent to kill, merely lethal items clumsily handled. In a case where a third party gives you that choice (kill the child or he kills you), like a terrorist would, Rand, in a slightly varied example, stated that morality was out the window. Both choices were neither right nor wrong.

Michael

[Judith]

I would like acknowledgement that IF (for argument's sake) that 5-year old child was going to put your own life at risk and the only alternative was to kill the child, it would be called self-defence in any other circumstance.

Fran,

In that kind of choice, if the child were attacking you like with a gun or a powerful biological/chemical weapon, I can see self-defense—but I don't see a real attack with intent to kill, merely lethal items clumsily handled. In a case where a third party gives you that choice (kill the child or he kills you), like a terrorist would, Rand, in a slightly varied example, stated that morality was out the window. Both choices were neither right nor wrong.

Michael

Michael, since when is intent relevant when it comes to self-defense?

Judith

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael, since when is intent relevant when it comes to self-defense?

Judith,

It isn't.

I did I say I can see self-defense.

Michael

[mikelee999]

Where are you getting YOUR numbers? I'm inclined to believe that the failures are from not following the directions faithfully. One doesn't have to be a "dumb slut" to forget to take a pill once or twice a month.

That's a very good point. Though the directions for the pill say, implicitly at least, "...and don't forget to take it!"

My overall point, made clearly enough that I don't think I need to apologize again for being unclear if you didn't get it, is that contraceptive failures are common among the non-"dumb slut" population and that lots of women who have abortions have been conscientiously trying to use less drastic forms of birth control, and those attempts failed.

While straw men are fun to burn, I think you should read a little more carefully. You have plenty of real disagreements to argue with me about.

I didn't think you were suggesting that women SHOULD do that. It certainly looked like you were suggesting that abortion was the EASIEST form of birth control. "And, because, like it or not, other birth control methods suck, abortion is resorted to far more frequently by intelligent women than men who women think might be judgmental about this subject would believe. Shocked me too, I know. Ladies, you know I'm saying the truth, please don't have me greased, I mean you no harm." Seemed pretty clear to me.

My obvious point was that abortion was the SUREST form of birth control, and that other forms of birth control fail frequently, for whatever reasons, and lots of perfectly nice women have had abortions and even multiple abortions.

What IS getting right up MY nose is the airy ease and smugness with which you're presuming to dispose of women's bodies, as if it's your God-given right.

Actually, it's the airy ease and smugness with which many women defend their right to kill putative children that's the problem. You don't have a right to shoot trespassers in your garden, and it's not self-evident you have the right to shoot children in your womb.

What's with the hostility, Mike? From the tone of your notes responding to me and to Fran, I can't help wondering if you really hate women.

As patriotism is to the scoundrel, so accusations of hostility are to the female.

I'm going to do something that few men have the guts to do. I'm going to admit that I don't much like women anymore, as a group.

I say this in the same sense that people say, "I don't like politicians" or "I don't like lawyers." I know several splendid politicians, and Rudy Giuliani is a lawyer. But women, like politicians and lawyers, are a narcissistc, under-performing, privileged pain in the ass class.

(Before all the "good women" get all offended, let me say if the shoe doesn't fit, don't charge $800 to your boyfriend's credit card to wear it. Go ahead, be offended by my generalization, like honest lawyers and politicians would be. Claim that you're the exception, not the rule, and I applaud you, assuming you're really the exception, not the rule, because the rule includes believing you're the exception, even though you're the rule.)

Here's a gauntlet:

The majority of women have their self-interest so tied up in the "right" to an abortion that their opinions are as tainted as an Exxon study showing that global warming is a myth.

While I am defender of a woman's right to an abortion, I find it very difficult to defend most womens' reasons to assert that right. Their reasons are mostly narcissistic, stupid, and selfish in the bad way, like a criminal or 3 year old is selfish.

If a woman has an abortion, and that woman doesn't know/care/hasn't considered and decided whether the act she is taking kills another human being, she's not a moral exemplar for the rest of us. And this applies to most women who have had abortions. They go la-la-la past the dead baby in the dumpster to enjoy their post-abortion Egg McMuffins.

This doesn't mean that most women are moral monsters, but it does mean that most women are moral infants. At any given stage of life, on a moral scale of 1 to 10, the typical woman is at least 3 points behind the typical man.

Mike Lee

Fwow hew to the fwoow, vewwy woughwy!

[mikelee999]

Who decides? I say it's like a property decision.

Just to update you on moral progress the last couple of hundred years:

Persons are not property.

Mike Lee

Bring me a beer, boy!

[mikelee999]

I would like acknowledgement that IF (for argument's sake) that 5-year old child was going to put your own life at risk and the only alternative was to kill the child, it would be called self-defence in any other circumstance.

I saw "The Bad Seed." Good movie, bad kid.

so tell me, even if not exhaustively, what are the criteria that justify a parent killing a kid, even if a jury might not agree?

Here are some I doubt you will agree with:

"Kid too smart, college tuition too much"

"Kid cuter than me, likely to alienate me from my spouse"

"Must buy diapers instead of Schlitz"

Here is the least far-fetched one I could think of that fits your criteria:

"Great, he's got me holed up in the closet and he has a machine gun. Guess it's time to set off the mines."

Way plausible.

Mike Lee

Die, you little bastard! Die!

[Dragonfly]

Actually, it's the airy ease and smugness with which many women defend their right to kill putative children that's the problem. You don't have a right to shoot trespassers in your garden, and it's not self-evident you have the right to shoot children in your womb.

Why not? Women should be free to do with their own bodies what they want and if they want to kill part of it that's their own business and no one else's.

[Judith]

Mike Lee, you're a troll. Have fun talking to yourself -- I don't engage trolls.

Judith

[Brant Gaede]

(Before all the "good women" get all offended, let me say if the shoe doesn't fit, don't charge $800 to your boyfriend's credit card to wear it. Go ahead, be offended by my generalization, like honest lawyers and politicians would be. Claim that you're the exception, not the rule, and I applaud you, assuming you're really the exception, not the rule, because the rule includes believing you're the exception, even though you're the rule.)

Mike Lee

Patient: "I'm not nuts."

Psychiatrist: "Until you know you are we can't make much progress."

--Brant

[Kat]

When it comes to birth control, abortion is not the first line of defense, it is the last resort... and so is the morning after pill. They are used to terminate pregancies that should not have happened, and in many cases, is the responsible thing to do. As I have said before, until contraception is 100% effective, usable by all and without side effects, abortion should be legal. Accidents happen.

Getting pregnant is easy, at least for most women. Sometimes the timing or other circumstances just is not conducive to bringing a child into this world. Abortion is an agonizing choice for many women. Although I am pro-choice, I feel less comfortable about the issue of abortion than I did before I had kids. If I were to accidently get pregnant now, I would have an abortion ASAP. If I were ten years younger, I would most likely have the kid unless I was totally unable to support him or her. I have two teenagers now and a bad back. I'm done having kids and no bible thumper or anyone else is going to make me do it against my will. It is something for the woman and her partner to decide together, although the woman is the prime decision maker in this matter as the decision impacts her to a much greater degree.

With the technology we have now where abortion is a minor medical procedure it would be insane for our lawmakers to take away access to abortion. It is a private matter and the politicians should stay out of it and stop kow-towing to the religionists who say sex is for procreation and not recreation. People who are opposed to abortion should simply not have one and mind their own business. It is a legal medical procedure and should stay that way.

As the laws stand now, there is a window of time where it is legal and safe to terminate an unwanted pregnancy and that is how it should stay. Women get very passionate about the right to abortion and for good reason. They want control over their fertility. They want control of their lives and their health. I don't think I would want to live as a woman in a society with unreliable contraception and abortion was not possible. We would be slaves to our fertility.

Kat

[Dragonfly]

Hear, hear!

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Mike Lee, you're a troll. Have fun talking to yourself -- I don't engage trolls.

Judith,

Mike takes getting used to, since he is very provocative, but he isn't a troll. Often he says things everybody thinks but nobody says. His manner can get very comical if you roll with the punch a little.

I first noticed this quality here when PARC first came out and there was a strong attempt to intimidate everyone from voicing any criticism of Rand or support of the Brandens. I saw his comment on NB's Yahoo group and flew it proudly on OL. This hit home so hard that it was even reproduced by the dark side on the front page of SLOP and had the exact opposite effect from intimidation on most readers. It backfired in their faces.

Please go into banter mode with Mike. He might piss you off, but you won't regret it.

Michael