Rape, Abortion, and "Personhood"

[Neverfly]

What we know from the studies presented for third trimester abortions is that all of them have what you would deem a valid reason,

The studies are flawed as evidence because they only cover approved and performed procedures in which the only legal course is if her health was at risk.
Only a study done on reasons given, even if not granted and studies in a region in which it is not law that only health risk abortions are allowed would be valid.
Falling back on a flawed premise for the study is nonsense. You're claiming hat a study done in which they were only allowed to do it for health reasons proves your point that they would only do it for health risks. Really?! You ignored the fact that 17 year old girl circumvented the law and went to extremes. If it was legal, she would have killed another human being easily- and gotten away with it. Now, she's facing time as she should.

So I think denying women even medically necessary abortions is towing a very very fine line.

This is a straw man argument to anything I've said.

Regardless of the trimester, no person should ever be placed in that type of situation deliberately.

Agreed. But this does not address the position I advocated at all.

And freedom of religion. If you forced a priest to adopt a standard that contradicted with their religious teachings, then you would be infringing on his rights to his beliefs.

Yes, it really is a shame about the Mormons and their marital practices... wait- What?

 

[seagypsy]

What we know from the studies presented for third trimester abortions is that all of them have what you would deem a valid reason, ie, women aren't just changing their minds and getting an about having a child in the third trimester and deciding to abort. In other words, women are not aborting for convenience in the third trimester, but for actual valid reasons in the context of this thread. So I think denying women even medically necessary abortions is towing a very very fine line.

I have never advocated denying a woman the right to abortion, even in third trimester, when it is medically necessary. The only people advocating that seems to be the LACP supporters and/or the religious doctors.

Looking at the Catholic administered hospitals which were detailed in the links of that report I provided earlier, women are ending up in intensive care and nearly dying because doctors are being ordered to wait or are scared to act to save the mother. Look at the case where the pregnancy was actually in the vagina. The woman went septic and nearly died and the doctor who ended up treating her had to cut the umbilical cord when no one was looking so that he could treat her, as that meant the foetal heartbeat had stopped. That is, to me personally, an appalling situation. The mother was near death at that point and had he not taken those steps, she would probably have died. Regardless of the trimester, no person should ever be placed in that type of situation deliberately.

I agree with you that hte situation you just described is abhorrent. But the reasonable answer would be to prosecute the doctors that did that to her. The thing is, the fetus developing in the vagina has no hope of ever being viable. If the doctor allows the mother to die, the fetus would also die. The logic in the doctors' reasoning is flawed. The fetus developing in the vagina is doomed. It cannot be saved by allowing the mother to die. So the logical thing to do is to save the mother. If they can remove the fetus intact somehow and attempt to save it via machines and such then they can try that, but not at the expense of the mother. The mother is the source of life for that fetus so to allow her to die contradicts their own claims to protecting the fetus.

If we had some decent lawyers this would not be so complicated. They just need to grow a spine and go after these monster who contribute to the unnecessary death of women in the name of their relative gods.

The scary thing is, of course, is that the Church is buying up the management of more and more hospitals across the world.

And freedom of religion. If you forced a priest to adopt a standard that contradicted with their religious teachings, then you would be infringing on his rights to his beliefs.

His right to religious freedom stops when his religious practice endangers the rights of others to live. Otherwise we would have to allow human sacrifice as part of a religious ceremony. I don't understand why no lawyer has approached this from the angle that they are sacrificing innocent victims to their religious beliefs.

No one in America has the RIGHT to be a doctor. Being a doctor is a privilege that is earned. We need to apply the criteria that they take a vow to never allow their religious doctrin to interfere with the ethical practice of medicine and that those ethics would be decided by law not some committee in their hospital.

 

[Bells]

The studies are flawed as evidence because they only cover approved and performed procedures in which the only legal course is if her health was at risk.
Only a study done on reasons given, even if not granted and studies in a region in which it is not law that only health risk abortions are allowed would be valid.
Falling back on a flawed premise for the study is nonsense. You're claiming hat a study done in which they were only allowed to do it for health reasons proves your point that they would only do it for health risks. Really?! You ignored the fact that 17 year old girl circumvented the law and went to extremes. If it was legal, she would have killed another human being easily- and gotten away with it. Now, she's facing time as she should.

So you are applying a standard that a teenage girl resorted to because she was denied an abortion due to her age and because she was desperate?

Ermm okay..

For one thing, she does not represent the whole.

The study was not flawed. It simply looked at why women are seeking abortions in the third trimester. Nothing more, nothing less.

Perhaps if the 17 year old girl had been allowed to access an abortion from the start, she would not have felt the need to resort to having someone beat her until she miscarried. Because you know, that's a fun option...

As for the rest of your post, you seem to be reading more or less into the statement I said.

 

[Neverfly]

So you are applying a standard that a teenage girl resorted to because she was denied an abortion due to her age and because she was desperate?

Due to late term and frivolousness of reason, as well. She was over 7 months pregnant. Don't ignore the relevant bits.
I'm absolutely applying the standard- after all, we apply it to all criminals.

For one thing, she does not represent the whole.

She doesn't need to. She only needs to represent a real life example of what you said no one would ever do. And look at her ridiculous reasons for it.

The study was not flawed. It simply looked at why women are seeking abortions in the third trimester. Nothing more, nothing less.

False. The studies were conducted on women receiving/received abortions not just requesting one.

Perhaps if the 17 year old girl had been allowed to access an abortion from the start, she would not have felt the need to resort to having someone beat her until she miscarried. Because you know, that's a fun option...

You're arguing that making the wrong thing allowable solves the problem of criminal activity. Nonsense.
She should have dumped her boyfriend and moved along with her life. Instead of paying a man to beat her up- Scorpion from Dirty Harry style.

 

[Bells]

Due to late term and frivolousness of reason, as well. She was over 7 months pregnant. Don't ignore the relevant bits.
I'm absolutely applying the standard- after all, we apply it to all criminals.

Firstly, she was unable to get an abortion, hence her desperation.

Secondly, do you actually view someone who asks someone to beat them like that to be of sound mind, in your opinion?

She doesn't need to. She only needs to represent a real life example of what you said no one would ever do. And look at her ridiculous reasons for it.

So let me see if I have this straight..

I say that barring mental illness, no woman in her right mind would suffer through 6 months of pregnancy and then change her mind about having a baby and you attempt to counter that by using an example of a 17 year old girl who would have been denied an abortion and who asked her boy friend to beat her until she miscarried when he threatened to leave her if she did not abort as an example of someone who had changed her mind?

False. The studies were conducted on women receiving/received abortions not just requesting one.

Because women do not request one, they walk into the clinic and spontaneously abort or get an abortion?...

The studies measured the reasons women received abortions in the third trimester. You are free to try and find me some figures for abortions for convenience, since you seem to be pushing the point that women are aborting or would abort for convenience in the third trimester. So I would be interested in you backing up your statements with some studies. How many women abort in the third trimester because they have changed their mind and/or for convenience? Could you please cite some studies discussing that please.

You're arguing that making the wrong thing allowable solves the problem of criminal activity. Nonsense.
She should have dumped her boyfriend and moved along with her life. Instead of paying a man to beat her up- Scorpion from Dirty Harry style.

How nice of you to be approaching her case from a supposedly sane view point. In short, you do not know what went through her mind when she made the decision she made.

I am saying that declaring personhood has dire affects on women's health, hence why it should not happen. I have also backed up my argument with not just studies and reports, but stories about what happens to women when hospitals and medical practitioners declare that life begins at conception and thus refuse to abort even miscarrying foetus' because there is a heartbeat. Where is your factual evidence and supporting studies and reports? We're still waiting..

Or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing to try and hide the fact that you have no scientific evidence to support the claims you have made in this thread?

 

[Neverfly]

Firstly, she was unable to get an abortion, hence her desperation.

Late term. Edit: See Seagypsies Edit in Red post 449
So what? A man unable to get enough money- gets desperate- robs a bank.
What's your point? That desperate people should be legally permitted to commit crimes because they lost a couple marbles?
Edit: If your intent was to say she had been blocked from an Early abortion, then I agree.

Secondly, do you actually view someone who asks someone to beat them like that to be of sound mind, in your opinion?

Irrelevant. I wouldn't consider a rapist or any other sociopath or murderer or burglar to be of sound mind. Once they cross the line into harming other humans, they don't get sympathy for killing.

I say that barring mental illness, no woman in her right mind would suffer through 6 months of pregnancy and then change her mind about having a baby and you attempt to counter that by using an example of a 17 year old girl who would have been denied an abortion and who asked her boy friend to beat her until she miscarried when he threatened to leave her if she did not abort as an example of someone who had changed her mind?

The absurdity of "changing her mind" was always your words. You always forget who said what, Bells. I never did say that- you keep saying that. I said "Frivolous reasons" and that 17 year old girl demonstrates my argument. Perfectly. She couldn't get what she wanted, so she turned to criminal acts.

Because women do not request one, they walk into the clinic and spontaneously abort or get an abortion?...

They can be denied abortion in the third trimester if they have no valid reason for one. The studies you showed were based on those that had been approved to abort.
To claim otherwise is intellectual dishonesty- To claim otherwise, the facts must be misrepresented in order to support your claims.

The studies measured the reasons women received abortions in the third trimester.

Bingo- recieved- were approved for under the law of "only when medically necessary." Because of this, the study does not reflect what would happen if the law did not require 2 doctors to sign off that it was medically necessary.
Your neglecting of this very relevant factor can also count as intellectual dishonesty.

You are free to try and find me some figures for abortions for convenience,

I'm looking for them but me not providing them does not mean that you're magically right. The onus is on you to show that you're right, not on me to show that you're wrong.

How many women abort in the third trimester because they have changed their mind and/or for convenience? Could you please cite some studies discussing that please.

I can look, but the onus is not on me. It sets the precedence. The onus is on you to demonstrate that allowing unjustifiable legal killing of humans won't result in killing of humans without justifiable cause.
The onus is not on me to prove you wrong.
The onus is on you to prove yourself right. Using a study that only accounts for approved medical cause will not support your case. A judge would throw that out.

Or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing to try and hide the fact that you have no scientific evidence to support the claims you have made in this thread?

I've refuted your studies as evidence soundly in spite of your consistent denial of reality. I've also showed a case of frivolous and unwarranted harm inflicted by a 17 year old girl that was distraught she didn't get what she wanted. I have demonstrated that your claims are false, throughout, even though it's on yu to prove you're right, not me to prove you're wrong.
Lying about what I've said and the support I've provided counts as intellectual dishonesty, Bells.

 

[lightgigantic]

The examples Bells provided earlier rebutted your comparison to Triage. The catholic hospitals were not practicing Triage, they were instituting dogma.

I wasn't using catholics as an example ... other than that even they can address an issue head on, unlike bells.

 

[seagypsy]

If we are wanting a study that shows the reasons women WANT abortions in the third trimester, it would be more accurate to find or conduct a study recording the reasons for requesting abortions in the third trimester, including the reasons given by women who were ultimately denied access to the abortion.

In denying that the 17 year old girl wanted an abortion for a reason other than her own health, you are lumping two problems into one. Yes there is an accessibility problem that forced this girl into a desperate situation. But had the law been set with no restrictions on abortion at all, and all other access barriers were removed such as distance from the clinic and funds to pay for it, she would have obtained the abortion and for a reason that did not indicate a permanent detriment to her health. She may have been emotionally distraught if her boyfriend left her, but getting dumped is something that happens to almost everyone, when it happens some think the world is going to end, but eventually they get over it. A small minority doesn't and they do something dramatic like take their lives or hunt down the bastard that has the audacity to not love them back and kill them. A person who goes to those extremes probably has a pre-existing, if not diagnosed, mental illness and a proper doctor can detect that. I don't believe a viable fetus should be killed because the mother is insane. Unless some documentation can be presented that suggest that pregnancy can and has caused permanent insanity in previously sane women, I don't see how a reasonable argument can be made that pregnancy can cause mental illness. Providing documented evidence such a possibility is the rule Tiassa set, so I am invoking that rule now. Provide some documentation that pregnancy (not the cause of the pregnancy) has caused permanent insanity in a previously sane woman. When that is presented I will consider the argument to have merit.

So for problem one- absolutely, accessibility for LEGAL abortions should not be hindered by bureaucratic obstacles intentionally put into place to make obtaining that which is legal nearly impossible. Government officials who use trivial legal red tape (ex. minor building code violations) to target and shut down abortion clinics, or deny licenses or permits for reasons they would never deny anyone else, should be prosecuted for abusing their position. If there are no laws in place to prosecute them on, then we need to make laws making it possible to prosecute them. Those in position of power over others should never be allowed to use that position to intimidate the subjects into compliance to their illegal demands. Those in position of power should be prosecuted for abusing the legal rights of those they preside over.

Problem two- the case of the 17 year old girl suggests that if there were no barriers at all to abortion at any stage, even third trimester, some women would get abortions for reasons other than eminent threat to her own life, severe health problems of the fetus, or permanent insanity caused by the pregnancy in a previously sane woman.


Just noticed something and have to give a concession: I overlooked something that is as obvious as the fact that hte studies only show women who were not denied abortions that they may have requested.

Had there been absolutely no barriers to getting an abortion for this 17 year old girl, such as financial, geographical location of clinics, and age restrictions, she possibly would have elected to get the abortion in the first or second trimester. We cannot know or assume either way. It is also possible that she wanted the baby and hid it from her boyfriend until the third trimester causing the decision to have to be made in late term. If that is the case then the girl would be changing her mind in the third trimester. But since none of us can know either what would have been the case if all restrictions had been removed, we cannot determine when she would have chosen to have the elective abortion.

I apologize for not seeing that, perhaps it was not as obvious of a detail as I am thinking it should have been. Perhaps even those who should have pointed it out also overlooked it.

 

[Trippy]

This has gone beyond absurd.

I think the most absurd thing about this whole thing is that several studies have shown that when you:
1. Free up your abortion laws (abortion on demand up to some gestational period).
2. Improve access to abortion clinics (For example, federal funding of abortions).
3. Improve access to contraception.

Abortion rates actually go down.

 

[Neverfly]

In denying that the 17 year old girl wanted an abortion for a reason other than her own health, you are lumping two problems into one. Yes there is an accessibility problem that forced this girl into a desperate situation. But had the law been set with no restrictions on abortion at all, and all other access barriers were removed such as distance from the clinic and funds to pay for it, she would have obtained the abortion and for a reason that did not indicate a permanent detriment to her health.

Ding* You get the prize.

 

[Neverfly]

This has gone beyond absurd.

I think the most absurd thing about this whole thing is that several studies have shown that when you:
1. Free up your abortion laws (abortion on demand up to some gestational period).
2. Improve access to abortion clinics (For example, federal funding of abortions).
3. Improve access to contraception.

Abortion rates actually go down.

This is agreeable. I agree that makes sense. Especially in the light of Seagypsies last edit on post number 449. Leaves me a bit sheepish.

 

[Trippy]

This is agreeable. I agree that makes sense. Especially in the light of Seagypsies last edit on post number 449. Leaves me a bit sheepish.

What, you mean Seagypsy finally got around to saying what I said 50 posts ago? http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...sonhood-quot&p=3009661&viewfull=1#post3009661

 

[Neverfly]

What, you mean Seagypsy finally got around to saying what I said 50 posts ago? http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...sonhood-quot&p=3009661&viewfull=1#post3009661

No.
You didn't say what she said at all in that post.

 

[Neverfly]

No.
You didn't say that at all in that post.

 

[Trippy]

I think the most ironic thing (and again, watch your dental health) about this:

This is agreeable. I agree that makes sense. Especially in the light of Seagypsies last edit on post number 449. Leaves me a bit sheepish.

In response to this:

This has gone beyond absurd.

I think the most absurd thing about this whole thing is that several studies have shown that when you:
1. Free up your abortion laws (abortion on demand up to some gestational period).
2. Improve access to abortion clinics (For example, federal funding of abortions).
3. Improve access to contraception.

Abortion rates actually go down.

Is that that is, more or less what I said nearly 200 posts ago:

...The excessive Irony may be bad for your dental health.

A 1987 study found that three out of every four late term abortions were actually caused by ingorance or ass hattery on the part of thirdparties lack of access to facilities, or lack of education.

If you want to avoid the majority of late term abortions, the solution is simple.
Educate your sons on the mothers right to choose, and teach them to support their partners rather than condem them.
Support your daughters decision, don't condem it.
Educate your children about the importance of safe sex and contraception.
Educate your daughters on the importance of making a decision early, and what choices are available to her in the event of an unwanted pregnancy.

75 to 80 percent of late term abortions (post 16 weeks) are caused by familial pressure not to abort, partners pressure not to abort, difficulty in getting an earlier abortion, or simply not understanding the importance of timing or that abortion is an option. Dealing with these societal problems will remove the need for a great many late term abortions.

 

[seagypsy]

This has gone beyond absurd.

I think the most absurd thing about this whole thing is that several studies have shown that when you:
1. Free up your abortion laws (abortion on demand up to some gestational period).

I agree but most states already have abortions on demand up until "some gestational period". The usual cut off is at "viability" (which is usually between 22-24 weeks depending on which JAMA definition you go by), 20- 24 weeks specifically, or "Third trimester" which begins at about 28 weeks.). You may say, usually they require the abortion to be done by a licensed physician but I don't see that as a restriction to abortion, I think it is certainly a protective measure. We have seen what happens to people who go to people posing as doctors. Like the plastic surgery "doctor" who injected a woman's ass with "Fix-a-flat". If we allow non doctors to perform abortions then it gives way to women putting themselves at risk of harm when they don't have enough money for a doctor when they have a buddy beat the hell out of them, or they intentionally drink some poison not realizing they can kill themselves as well.

2. Improve access to abortion clinics (For example, federal funding of abortions).
3. Improve access to contraception.

Abortion rates actually go down.

Your last two points are issues of government officials often misusing their power to block what is legally permitted for women. And yes this certainly does need to be addressed. I'm shocked that no one has had the ACLU bring charges against local politicians who target clinics unfairly in order to shut them down. They spend so much time and effort making sure court houses don't have Christmas trees, which are generally harmless to people but they are not taking up arms against doctors who leave women to die for a fetus that cannot live without her. It truly is absurd.

 

[Trippy]

No.
You didn't say that at all in that post.

I disagree Here's what Seagypsy said:

Had there been absolutely no barriers to getting an abortion for this 17 year old girl, such as financial, geographical location of clinics, and age restrictions, she possibly would have elected to get the abortion in the first or second trimester. We cannot know or assume either way. It is also possible that she wanted the baby and hid it from her boyfriend until the third trimester causing the decision to have to be made in late term. If that is the case then the girl would be changing her mind in the third trimester. But since none of us can know either what would have been the case if all restrictions had been removed, we cannot determine when she would have chosen to have the elective abortion.

I apologize for not seeing that, perhaps it was not as obvious of a detail as I am thinking it should have been. Perhaps even those who should have pointed it out also overlooked it

Here's what I pointed out in the post I linked to:

Have another look at the portion you quoted. The key is right there in the first paragraph:

Starting from the beginning means revisiting the case of a 17-year-old girl from Vernal, Utah, who was seven months pregnant last May, when she paid 21-year-old Aaron Harrison $150 to beat her up after her boyfriend threatened to leave her if she didn’t terminate the pregnancy.

The girl was emotionally blackmailed - emotionally abused, into terminating the pregnancy: "...after her boyfriend threatened to leave her if she didn’t terminate the pregnancy..."

I wonder if, given that she has seemingly waited until the third trimester to tell her boyfriend she's pregnant in the first place, she might actually have wanted to keep it.

Then again, maybe you're right and I'm giving seagypsy too much credit. On a second reading, it seems she has it arse-about-face.

I pointed out that the article explicitly states she was pressured into getting an abortion, and it was that pressure that lead to the incident.

Where Seagypsy has it arse-about-face is what can be reasonably infered from the article.

The article states that the incident occured after her boyfriend told her he would leave her if she didn't abort.
That implies that she didn't tell him until she reached her third trimester and, presumably, couldn't it any longer.
This, in turn, suggests that she knew in advance his opinion on the matter, but hoped he might change his mind.

The specific wording of the article strongly suggests she didn't want the abortion in the first place.

But whatever. I really don't care.

 

[seagypsy]

What, you mean Seagypsy finally got around to saying what I said 50 posts ago? http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...sonhood-quot&p=3009661&viewfull=1#post3009661

This is the post you linked to:

Only in your mind. But if you don't like it, maybe you should provide better stats.


This is where reading compregension comes into it (again). Being able to read a passage and make logical inferences regarding it. It's an under-rated skill that sadly many people lack.

Have another look at the portion you quoted. The key is right there in the first paragraph:

The girl was emotionally blackmailed - emotionally abused, into terminating the pregnancy: "...after her boyfriend threatened to leave her if she didn’t terminate the pregnancy..."

I wonder if, given that she has seemingly waited until the third trimester to tell her boyfriend she's pregnant in the first place, she might actually have wanted to keep it.

I don't see anywhere, that you specifically pointed out what I said in my concession post.

Actually, you seem to be suggesting that she actually wanted the baby and that the abortion was forced, by way of emotional blackmail, onto her.

Is this your claim here?

 

[Neverfly]

No. One post is vague and agreeable in some ways, since you don't give any specifics that I would disagree with. I called it "agreeable" but that doesn't mean total agreement. For example, I don't know about the increased federal funding. Frankly, our paying for someone that couldn't keep her legs closed bothers me, but it may bother me less than paying for a welfare check- agreeable in that I have an undefined position for now.

The post from times past, however, does have specifics that I disagree with. For example, the bundled use of statistics (We've gone over this) because it presents a misleading standard even if you had not intended one. Again, I have some fault there for insulting you and jumping too far with it. We've gone over that, as well.

The wording, "Remove the need for late term abortions," implies that there is a need for them, other than medical health.

The recent post contains this: "Free up your abortion laws (abortion on demand up to some gestational period)." A qualifier that you did not use previously.

It's how they read that is different even if your intentions were the same.

 

[Trippy]

Is this your claim here?

Read my replyh to your husband, and take a moment to think about it.

If somebody wanted an abortion for themselves, would their partner have to threaten them into doing it?