Texas bans abortion.

[Warbler]

Women who are diagnosed with cancer and are pregnant are recommended not to continue their pregnancy because they cannot receive chemo or radiation without direct harm or death to the fetus. In some cases, the woman may not be able to survive the cancer if she doesn't undergo treatment until after the birth of the baby. So who decides if the risk to her life is 'too great'? Her or the doctor?

If the doctor recommends in a case of where the pregnant woman has cancer that the pregnancy be ended, the woman should have the right to abort if she wants to.

As of now, the law says the woman decides if she wants to abort or continue without treatment. So, what if the doctor says the chances of the mother beating the cancer without treatment is about 20%? Is that enough that she could abort and not be violating the TX law? Or would it have to be at least 50%? Who decides that?

Again I oppose the new Texas law. If a doctor says the pregnancy should be stopped the woman should have the right to abort. It would be one of those cases where the risk to the life of the mother is too great.

 

[Warbler]

No. Because no one is telling anyone else what they have to believe just as they are not telling them they have to have an abortion if it is not their choice.

but they are giving the mother the right to kill the fetus.

 

[Stacyhs]

If you really are a history teacher, you would know the word nature has been substituted for create in terms of where natural rights come from.

Oh, good lord. We've already discussed that's how the FF and others used it. Do I have to present my teaching credential or maybe affidavits from the schools I taught history at? Yes, it has been used that way but that does not make it so. A Creator and Nature are NOT THE SAME THING no matter how many times religious people or people using religion want to claim it is. The FF were referring to John Locke's philosophy that nature acts as God intends.

 

[Tomboy]

I was talking about a situation where the sole concern was that the mother lacked finances, a good home, ability to raise a child and a stable environment.

It was when those were the sole reason for getting an abortion, that I said adoption would be a solution.

You've said that several times. How likely do you think it is that a woman considering abortion due to lack of finances, lack of a stable home environment, lack of ability to care for the child when born, etc. would have the financial, physical, environmental and psychological resources to do all of that while it's developing in utero, and why should anyone other than that woman be responsible for making a decision that will have such an immense impact on her life? Please, seriously, try to put yourself in that hypothetical woman's shoes and think about whether or not you'd want someone making that kind of decision on your behalf without any thought to your wishes or circumstances.

Full disclosure: My biological mother was 13 when she gave birth to me and decided to put me up for adoption. She was lucky enough to have the support of her parents and grandparents, received proper prenatal care, and did her best to carry me full term. Even so, I was born almost 3 months premature and almost died. I don't know the details of the pregnancy or delivery, but it's not lost on me that she could very well have jeopardized her own life by trying to carry me full term, and that's not necessarily something that is known in advance.

Even given my personal situation, I'm pro choice because I believe a woman's right to body autonomy trumps that of any developing zygote or embryo. To put it another way, I'm pro life - pro the life of the existing pregnant woman, because as a woman, I know the last thing I ever want is someone deciding that they know what's best for me and making major, life altering decisions on my behalf.

But, I do think I need a better understanding trauma such a woman would go through should she give the child up for adoption rather than aborting it months earlier.

Yes, I think you do. My biological mother made what has to be one of the most difficult decisions a woman could ever have to make. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind about the difficulty of giving a child up for adoption, one you've carried inside of you and cared for and nurtured and worried about and even loved despite the pregnancy being unwanted. The body is really good at triggering all sorts of biochemical reactions to ensure that there's a bond between mother and child. How can breaking that bond be anything other than traumatic?

I'm not speaking from personal experience. I've never given birth, put a child up for adoption, or had an abortion. Even so, I don't find it hard to believe that giving a child up postpartum can be far more traumatic and psychologically damaging than aborting it when it's a clump of cells.

(Apologies to all if this is off topic and/or if the conversation has moved on, and for the wall of text in general.)

 

[acbytesla]

but they are giving the mother the right to kill the fetus.

It's in her body.
It's her health
It's a lifetime of ramifications and responsibilities for her
It's a financial burden and often when she is unprepared for it.

This is why it is imperative that it be her choice. And not mine.

 

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
In the early stages, there really is no difference. They both are "alive" in the biological sense but certainly not in the sense that anti-choice people give to a zygote.

like I said if you can't see difference between an embryo and a sperm cell, I give up.

I said "zygote' not "embryo". I never said there was no difference between a sperm and an embryo. Additionally, I said that they are both "alive" but not in the same sense as anti-choice give to a zygote. If you can't see the difference in what you said and what I said, then maybe you should give up.

a flower is not the same a human. We don't talk about flower rights.

 

[acbytesla]

You've said that several times. How likely do you think it is that a woman considering abortion due to lack of finances, lack of a stable home environment, lack of ability to care for the child when born, etc. would have the financial, physical, environmental and psychological resources to do all of that while it's developing in utero, and why should anyone other than that woman be responsible for making a decision that will have such an immense impact on her life? Please, seriously, try to put yourself in that hypothetical woman's shoes and think about whether or not you'd want someone making that kind of decision on your behalf without any thought to your wishes or circumstances.

Full disclosure: My biological mother was 13 when she gave birth to me and decided to put me up for adoption. She was lucky enough to have the support of her parents and grandparents, received proper prenatal care, and did her best to carry me full term. Even so, I was born almost 3 months premature and almost died. I don't know the details of the pregnancy or delivery, but it's not lost on me that she could very well have jeopardized her own life by trying to carry me full term, and that's not necessarily something that is known in advance.

Even given my personal situation, I'm pro choice because I believe a woman's right to body autonomy trumps that of any developing zygote or embryo. To put it another way, I'm pro life - pro the life of the existing pregnant woman, because as a woman, I know the last thing I ever want is someone deciding that they know what's best for me and making major, life altering decisions on my behalf.



Yes, I think you do. My biological mother made what has to be one of the most difficult decisions a woman could ever have to make. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind about the difficulty of giving a child up for adoption, one you've carried inside of you and cared for and nurtured and worried about and even loved despite the pregnancy being unwanted. The body is really good at triggering all sorts of biochemical reactions to ensure that there's a bond between mother and child. How can breaking that bond be anything other than traumatic?

I'm not speaking from personal experience. I've never given birth, put a child up for adoption, or had an abortion. Even so, I don't find it hard to believe that giving a child up postpartum can be far more traumatic and psychologically damaging than aborting it when it's a clump of cells.

(Apologies to all if this is off topic and/or if the conversation has moved on, and for the wall of text in general.)

No, it's not off topic. It's an excellent response.

 

[Warbler]

Oh, good lord. We've already discussed that's how the FF and others used it.

Then why are are criticizing my replacing the word creator with the word natural when it comes to a quote from the Declaration of Independence?

Do I have to present my teaching credential or maybe affidavits from the schools I taught history at?

no.

Yes, it has been used that way but that does not make it so. A Creator and Nature are NOT THE SAME THING no matter how many times religious people or people using religion want to claim it is. The FF were referring to John Locke's philosophy that nature acts as God intends.Nature and Creator are not the same thing so one cannot be substituted for the other.

Okay, all I will say is that I don't think you need to be religious to believe in the idea of natural rights.

 

[Warbler]

It's in her body.
It's her health
It's a lifetime of ramifications and responsibilities for her
It's a financial burden and often when she is unprepared for it.

This is why it is imperative that it be her choice. And not mine.

yes it is in her body, but it is not part of her. It may have rights, one of them being the right to live. That is why is may not be her choice alone.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Uhhh...I never said abortion should be illegal.

*Said with a coyish giggle*

 

[Paul2]

Wrong again. See my response to Paul2 where he posed the exact scenario that you describe.

I don’t understand how your response had anything to do with accountability, legal, personal, or otherwise. In my scenario, you agreed with the woman doing exactly what she wanted to do - have an abortion early on. To what or who was the woman personally accountable? Herself!?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Yet again we find ourselves in a discussion with a half dozen people arguing for a point they then claim they don't agree with.

Nobody voted for Trump, nobody supports abortions, they just all happened via bolt from the clear blue sky.

 

[Stacyhs]

some non-religious folks don't like the idea of rights coming from God or a creator, so we substitute nature, a non-religious term. Also hence the term: natural rights.

But it's not non-religious as you've been told over and over again. When it's used that way, it's just another way of saying "a supernatural force" we're not going to actually call 'a Creator'. The FF were ...here we go again...founding that on Locke's "nature is what God intends" philosophy.

Thus, in the early essays Locke described the law of nature "as being the decree of the divine will discernible by the light of nature and indicating what is and what is not in conformity with
rational nature, and for this very reason commending or prohibiting."'

Hence, if Locke speaks of a law of nature after the critical evaluation of human knowledge contained in the Essay, he does not have the usual meaning for moral law. He merely means that the laws of the universe itself express the will of the Creator, who arbitrarily willed that the universe be governed by this set of laws, which can be naturally known to us by the pleasure and pain attached to the respecting or disrespecting of
their observance.

 

[Warbler]

You've said that several times. How likely do you think it is that a woman considering abortion due to lack of finances, lack of a stable home environment, lack of ability to care for the child when born, etc. would have the financial, physical, environmental and psychological resources to do all of that while it's developing in utero,

do all of what? search for appropriate adoptive parents? I agree she should get help with that. Resources and agencies should be available to her to help her find appropriate parents.

and why should anyone other than that woman be responsible for making a decision that will have such an immense impact on her life?

because it might not just impact her life but also that of the fetus.

Please, seriously, try to put yourself in that hypothetical woman's shoes and think about whether or not you'd want someone making that kind of decision on your behalf without any thought to your wishes or circumstances.

put yourself in the hypothetical fetus' shoes. Think about whether or not you'd want someone deciding whether you live or die, without any thought to the possibility that you may have rights.

Full disclosure: My biological mother was 13 when she gave birth to me and decided to put me up for adoption. She was lucky enough to have the support of her parents and grandparents, received proper prenatal care, and did her best to carry me full term. Even so, I was born almost 3 months premature and almost died. I don't know the details of the pregnancy or delivery, but it's not lost on me that she could very well have jeopardized her own life by trying to carry me full term, and that's not necessarily something that is known in advance.

true, but most normal pregnancies don't end with woman dying. Like I've said if the risk of the mother's life is too high, I don't oppose abortion.

Even given my personal situation, I'm pro choice because I believe a woman's right to body autonomy trumps that of any developing zygote or embryo. To put it another way, I'm pro life - pro the life of the existing pregnant woman, because as a woman, I know the last thing I ever want is someone deciding that they know what's best for me and making major, life altering decisions on my behalf.

but is that not what you mother would have done to you if she had aborted you?

Yes, I think you do. My biological mother made what has to be one of the most difficult decisions a woman could ever have to make. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind about the difficulty of giving a child up for adoption, one you've carried inside of you and cared for and nurtured and worried about and even loved despite the pregnancy being unwanted. The body is really good at triggering all sorts of biochemical reactions to ensure that there's a bond between mother and child. How can breaking that bond be anything other than traumatic?

like I said, I want to learn more. Let me ask you something what would have been worse, the trauma that your mother went through, or you being aborted?

 

[Warbler]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/716696155046b3b0f6.png[/qimg]

You were comparing a flower to human. It is an invalid comparison flowers have no rights.

 

[Warbler]

I really need to take a break from this for a few days. I am getting worn down. Sorry that my arguments are not what they should be.

 

[Warp12]

W12, what would accountability look like in the following:

There is some small percentage of women who know correctly that they will never, ever want a child, even if they became pregnant and even if they delivered the child. Also, besides abstinence, no form of birth control is 100% effective.

That means that there will be some small number of women who don't, have never, and never will want a child but will become pregnant unless they are abstinent.

Unless you're willing to say that such women should be abstain from sex throughout their entire lives (because no form of birth control is 100% effective), what form would accountability look like for those women who did use birth control as best as would be possible, yet it still failed and they became pregnant?

It might look like an early term abortion. Of course, some will decide to carry a baby to term, even under these circumstances. I mean, if you have taken precautions (and even if you haven't) and a pregnancy occurs, the next decision is whether to carry to term. Being personally accountable is to make that decision as early as possible.
I don't support this TX law, because 6 weeks is earlier than many women will even know they are pregnant. I have stated repeatedly that I understand that things occur in life that require a reactive response. I understand that birth control is not perfect, and I am not suggesting that women abstain from sex.

I don’t understand how your response had anything to do with accountability, legal, personal, or otherwise. In my scenario, you agreed with the woman doing exactly what she wanted to do - have an abortion early on. To what or who was the woman personally accountable? Herself!?

Err...uhh...

What Is Personal Accountability? When you're personally accountable, you take ownership of situations that you're involved in. You see them through, and you take responsibility for what happens – good or bad. You don't blame others if things go wrong. Instead, you do your best to make things right.

What exactly do you think "personal accountability" means???

 

[Stacyhs]

If the doctor recommends in a case of where the pregnant woman has cancer that the pregnancy be ended, the woman should have the right to abort if she wants to.

Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
As of now, the law says the woman decides if she wants to abort or continue without treatment. So, what if the doctor says the chances of the mother beating the cancer without treatment is about 20%? Is that enough that she could abort and not be violating the TX law? Or would it have to be at least 50%? Who decides that?

Again I oppose the new Texas law. If a doctor says the pregnancy should be stopped the woman should have the right to abort. It would be one of those cases where the risk to the life of the mother is too great.

Again, you are missing the point entirely. The question wasn't whether or not the doctor said the risk is "too great". It was at what point does someone get to decide if the risk is "too great" and who is that? Any law, whether TX or another state, that declares a woman can only get an abortion if her life is at risk must then define exactly what the risk level has to be and who gets to make that decision.

 

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Warbler View Post
If abortion is legal, those that think the fetus has no value and no rights are by definition asking everyone else to accept their opinion.

Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
No. Because no one is telling anyone else what they have to believe just as they are not telling them they have to have an abortion if it is not their choice.

but they are giving the mother the right to kill the fetus.

You are moving the goalpost here. You stated that it was " asking everyone else to accept their opinion". And now you're saying " they are giving the mother the right to kill the fetus". Not the same thing. Making abortion legal is not, and cannot, force anyone to accept that opinion. Establishing a law does not affect someone's beliefs/opinions, it can only affect their behavior. Making abortion legal does not make anyone "kill a fetus"; it merely allows abortion.

 

[Paul2]

Err...uhh...



What exactly do you think "personal accountability" means???

In my scenario, I see it only meaning that the woman does not blame anyone else for her actions. I don’t know what taking personal responsibility for deciding to get an abortion would otherwise mean (in operational or functional terms).

Thank you for your answer, though, it was on point.