Support NeoGAF

[First Name]

I wonder if abortions were made a lot harder to have (or even banned) would it lead to women being a lot more responsible when it comes to birth control?

When abortions are banned women have them anyway. And since it's done illegally (without the benefits of oversight that a legal procedure has) there's a greater chance of complications and death.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/world/12abortion.html

 

[Devolution]

I should have been more specific. I'm not referring to people who are careful and by accident get pregnant. I'm referring to people who knowingly are reckless and still choose to have an abortion. I'm not saying they shouldn't have the option. I'm pro choice. People should have the right to do what they want. All I'm trying to say is that people these days seem to forget how precious life is and many people use abortions as sort of birth control.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2006/11/21/or29.pdf

Also on topic, i don't think people should abort because they don't like the race of their baby, you could say this is Nazi like. What's stopping a family from aborting all their children until they are the hair color, eye color and skin color of their choosing? Is it even possible to find these things out before a baby us born, like eye color, hair color, etc?

People don't use abortions as birth control. That's one of the terrible myths propagated by the far right. You sure you're pro-choice slinging that bullshit around?

 

[frankie_baby]

Abortion rates are almost the same in countries where it is legal and countries where it's banned.

I'd assume most of the countries abortion is banned in are poor countries without free access to birth control

 

[frankie_baby]

People don't use abortions as birth control. That's one of the terrible myths propagated by the far right. You sure you're pro-choice slinging that bullshit around?

People like that do exist i'm not claiming its widespread only that i've had the misfortune to meet someone like that

 

[Rambo-]

People don't use abortions as birth control. That's one of the terrible myths propagated by the far right. You sure you're pro-choice slinging that bullshit around?

If you don't think they exist then you didn't read the article i linked to. It states that 47 percent of women have repeat abortions and that even though most don't use it as a contraceptive method, a little more than forty percent took no precautions to prevent a second abortion. I'm not saying a lot of people use abortion this way, I'm just perplexed as to why some people would choose to use abortion like this. The article also points out of all women who have had abortions, 18 percent have had 3 or more. I mean first time, alright, second time maybe, but three plus... really?

 

[Squirrel Killer]

In my view, everything prior to birth is fair game. It's an extreme opinion but anything else leaves my argument open to semantic nit-picking.

I respect your stance, but I do have a somewhat unrelated hypothetical question: 39-week pregnant woman is assaulted. She recovers just fine, but loses the fetus. What charges should be brought against the attacker? What if, instead of an intentional act, the third party does something unintentionally that causes the woman to lose the fetus?

People don't use abortions as birth control.

Define "birth control."

 

[Devolution]

People like that do exist i'm not claiming its widespread only that i've had the misfortune to meet someone like that

If you don't think they exist then you didn't read the article i linked to. It states that 47 percent of women have repeat abortions and that even though most don't use it as a contraceptive method, a little more than forty percent took no precautions to prevent a second abortion. I'm not saying a lot of people use abortion this way, I'm just perplexed as to why some people would choose to use abortion like this. The article also points out of all women who have had abortions, 18 percent have had 3 or more. I mean first time, alright, second time maybe, but three plus... really?

I don't think this way I know so. People who use the argument abortion as birth control either don't know what the fuck either entails and or they're espousing pro-life arguments. Read up on birth control, the morning after pill and abortion if you actually think a comparison between abortion and birth control is somehow apt. It's not.

 

[derder]

I think that mother AND father should be able to decide up to a week after it is born.

The world isn't capable of sustaining 6 billion+ people.

 

[Dice]

How about putting it like this. A woman has the right to "evict" a fetus at any time, that is, induce pre-mature birth. If that means that it dies because it's not viable that's fine, but if it's passed the point of reasonable viability the fetus has the right at a shot at living.

If she does and it does, should she retain any parental obligations? Assuming she could have done it earlier and did, there would not be another life around, so should she be responsible in some capacity to the life she created?

 

[Deified Data]

I respect your stance, but I do have a somewhat unrelated hypothetical question: 39-week pregnant woman is assaulted. She recovers just fine, but loses the fetus. What charges should be brought against the attacker? What if, instead of an intentional act, the third party does something unintentionally that causes the woman to lose the fetus?

Your hypothetical scenario brings to light what I meant by the "rights of the fetus" - a question asked of me by a previous poster. In this instance, the infant is being acted upon by an outside entity. There is no clashing of rights, so to speak - just one party blatantly infringing upon the rights of another. The mother infringes upon the "rights" of the infant during abortion, to be sure, but she does so with reason and precedence.

In the case of the third party unintentionally harming the fetus, I do not know. There are too many variables for a scenario like that for me to draw a conclusion.

 

[Gaborn]

If she does and it does, should she retain any parental obligations? Assuming she could have done it earlier and did, there would not be another life around, so should she be responsible in some capacity to the life she created?

Of course she should be responsible for that life. If she decided when the baby was 2 she didn't want it she'd still be responsible for it, so the fact that she waited and decided she didn't want it after it was viable doesn't change anything. I mean, of course the rational alternative is to put it up for adoption at that point and THEN we can talk about her no longer being responsible.

 

[Kinyou]

I think that mother AND father should be able to decide up to a week after it is born.

The world isn't capable of sustaining 6 billion+ people.

So killing is ok as long as it helps against overpopulation? Why not just nuke China or Africa then?

Edit: or even better, America and Europe since those are using up the most resources.

 

[Hawkian]

Irregardless is a word. It's just a shitty one.

 

[Dice]

Of course she should be responsible for that life. If she decided when the baby was 2 she didn't want it she'd still be responsible for it, so the fact that she waited and decided she didn't want it after it was viable doesn't change anything. I mean, of course the rational alternative is to put it up for adoption at that point and THEN we can talk about her no longer being responsible.

I agree. But now, the more difficult side of things...

Clearly there is some point where the viability of autonomy becomes dependent on a few factors. No baby is going to survive without the assistance of adults, so how much does medical attention factor into that? The more and more premature you get, the more and more advanced medical procedures would have to be to give it a chance to live.

There is obviously a point early enough in the process that it has no chance at living without further development in the womb, but when the likelihood is decent yet dependent on advanced medical care, should the option for abortion be null and the costs of those advanced medical procedures be placed upon the mother?

I know it is less likely to occur since the mother would probably see it as wiser to carry to full term if those burdens would still be placed on her anyway, but it's pertinent to the discussion if we are viewing "unnecessary harm" upon a late-development fetus in an abortion and "chance of successfully saving" in a safe removal when considering viability to attain autonomous existence (with help from adults, as is the case with all infants).

 

[Salmonax]

I'm not on the up and up about people who make these types of arguments. Who is this?

Sorry, that was kind of vague.

 

[Guileless]

As a matter of US law, it is unlimited since abortion rights are grounded in the right to privacy. There was a stink raised in the UK recently about the prevalence of sex-selective abortions. There's no way to police it.

 

[Gotchaye]

I'm completely untroubled by early abortions on the basis of eye color, say.

Now, discriminatory abortion could possibly have bad effects on society, as in China. If we were to ever have a situation where many more boys than girls were being born, we would want to take steps to correct that. So why not just offer a bounty for having girls? I don't see that there's any real need to try to get inside a woman's head to figure out why she's opting for an abortion.

In the extreme case where no possible set of dis/incentives was working to encourage women to carry girls to term, then, sure, I guess you have to restrict abortion substantially for female fetuses. But let's worry about that when we get there, and I doubt we ever will.

 

[Guileless]

Don't think eye color abortions are likely. But I could see in our lifetimes the 1% (maybe they'll be the .1% by then) paying fortunes for the manufacture of blond haired, blue eyed straight babies with high IQs.

 

[Rentahamster]

It is a mathematical impossibility with current technology & resources.

This is why we try to estimate future prosperity by estimating what kinds of future technology we'll have.

 

[speculawyer]

If you don't think they exist then you didn't read the article i linked to. It states that 47 percent of women have repeat abortions and that even though most don't use it as a contraceptive method, a little more than forty percent took no precautions to prevent a second abortion. I'm not saying a lot of people use abortion this way, I'm just perplexed as to why some people would choose to use abortion like this. The article also points out of all women who have had abortions, 18 percent have had 3 or more. I mean first time, alright, second time maybe, but three plus... really?

So . . . should we force those women to become mothers then? I'm assuming you don't think much of these women . . . so should we have these women raise lots of children?

If a women is that incompetent dealing with something as simple as birth control, I'm not enthused about entrusting them with a baby.

 

[speculawyer]

This is why we try to estimate future prosperity by estimating what kinds of future technology we'll have.

But estimating future technology is a very dangerous game. We are very bad at it. And Technology is limited by the laws of physics and thermodynamics. We know that certain advances are just impossible. So it is best to plan conservatively. But sadly, we don't do that. Our current trajectory is not pretty unless we make some unforeseen break-throughs. But that is not likely.

 

[Rentahamster]

But estimating future technology is a very dangerous game. We are very bad at it.

And we are also very bad at estimating future apocalypse. Yet nevertheless, the great number of positive trend lines in human prosperity don't amount for much when sensationalism like "We are too many the earth is doomed!" is much more interesting to read.

 

[derder]

So killing is ok as long as it helps against overpopulation? Why not just nuke China or Africa then?

Edit: or even better, America and Europe since those are using up the most resources.

See, I can't really argue against this. Even acknowledging your response is giving it too much respect.

 

[KtSlime]

People like that do exist i'm not claiming its widespread only that i've had the misfortune to meet someone like that

Abortion sure is an expensive and time consuming form of contraceptive...

 

[Rentahamster]

But that is not likely.

Moore's Law still holds. Breakthroughs in medicine still come. Third world prosperity is catching up to first world prosperity in less time than it took the first world to get there on its own. Violence is down. As nations get more wealthy, birth rates go down as life expectancy goes up.

 

[2San]

No restrictions imo till the moment the fetus starts showing brain activity.

 

[Gaborn]

I agree. But now, the more difficult side of things...

Clearly there is some point where the viability of autonomy becomes dependent on a few factors. No baby is going to survive without the assistance of adults, so how much does medical attention factor into that? The more and more premature you get, the more and more advanced medical procedures would have to be to give it a chance to live.

There is obviously a point early enough in the process that it has no chance at living without further development in the womb, but when the likelihood is decent yet dependent on advanced medical care, should the option for abortion be null and the costs of those advanced medical procedures be placed upon the mother?

I know it is less likely to occur since the mother would probably see it as wiser to carry to full term if those burdens would still be placed on her anyway, but it's pertinent to the discussion if we are viewing "unnecessary harm" upon a late-development fetus in an abortion and "chance of successfully saving" in a safe removal when considering viability to attain autonomous existence (with help from adults, as is the case with all infants).

I think that's where somewhat arbitrary lines come in. I think as medical technology and means become better there should be a higher standard of care expected and thus the "line" when abortion becomes acceptable is different.

I also think a patient's means and ability to access care should factor in. An obstetrician should assess a fetus's chances of survival through proper medical means if it was delivered and if the odds based on the means available to the patient (from a medical and financial stand point) give reasonable cause for the doctor to believe the it is a viable baby... then isn't there at some level an obligation to see that through?

I don't want to take anything away from a woman's right to choose. Her body should mean that she has the largest say in something remaining in it or being removed. But she shouldn't always have say in the method of removal if that removal would result in the death of something viable.

In simple terms, a land lord has the right to evict someone living on their property but not paying rent, but they don't have the right to kill them and drag their bodies out. A mother's right to terminate a pregnancy should end when the the fetus is far enough along it will survive outside the womb. At that point she should have every right to have it removed... and then arrange for it's care.

 

[Warm Machine]

But estimating future technology is a very dangerous game. We are very bad at it. And Technology is limited by the laws of physics and thermodynamics. We know that certain advances are just impossible. So it is best to plan conservatively. But sadly, we don't do that. Our current trajectory is not pretty unless we make some unforeseen break-throughs. But that is not likely.

It is possible to give nearly every person on this planet a roof over their heads, energy, food, water and a decent lifestyle. We just have an global enonomic system and technological infrastructure that prevents it from happening.

We also have the technological capacity to live near anywhere on this planet and enjoy an above average comfort level.

That said, the less human impact and strain the better.

One odd thing I have noticed about my peers is that the people who have the best ability to have and take care of children simply don't want them.

 

[Dany]

It is up to the discretion of the couple but how long until couples choose to abort if its a male or female.

Any amount of choice a couple has when pregnant should only occur if their is a disease or defect detrimental to the fetus.

 

[Squirrel Killer]

Your hypothetical scenario brings to light what I meant by the "rights of the fetus" - a question asked of me by a previous poster. In this instance, the infant is being acted upon by an outside entity. There is no clashing of rights, so to speak - just one party blatantly infringing upon the rights of another.

So what's the charge?

 

[SquiddyCracker]

I think that's where somewhat arbitrary lines come in. I think as medical technology and means become better there should be a higher standard of care expected and thus the "line" when abortion becomes acceptable is different.

I also think a patient's means and ability to access care should factor in. An obstetrician should assess a fetus's chances of survival through proper medical means if it was delivered and if the odds based on the means available to the patient (from a medical and financial stand point) give reasonable cause for the doctor to believe the it is a viable baby... then isn't there at some level an obligation to see that through?

I don't want to take anything away from a woman's right to choose. Her body should mean that she has the largest say in something remaining in it or being removed. But she shouldn't always have say in the method of removal if that removal would result in the death of something viable.

In simple terms, a land lord has the right to evict someone living on their property but not paying rent, but they don't have the right to kill them and drag their bodies out. A mother's right to terminate a pregnancy should end when the the fetus is far enough along it will survive outside the womb. At that point she should have every right to have it removed... and then arrange for it's care.

A very good post, that goes to show that the "viability"-argument has some pretty serious future repercussions.
If we put a specific value on the fetus that is only triumphed by the mother's right over her body, then you will at some point in the future end up in a situation where men and women are surprisingly alike.

Men today for an example have no choice in whether or not they will become fathers once an conception has occurred, women tomorrow would also have no choice in whether or not they would become mothers once conception has occurred - as the fetus would theoretically be viable from Day 0, Hour 0, Minute 0, Second 1.

The other view, that of the fetus only becoming a person once it displays brain activity or similar, would allow people to terminate the life of the fetus even if it was viable from the moment of conception.

 

[akira28]

Are you from India?

I'm guessing, no. But Europe\UK tends to think there are too many people in the world. Too many people without the decency to not breed so that they can get through lines quicker at the bank. So many people mean they might get drawn into a conversation or something. (It's the Africans and Indians of course.)