[Sivad]

@snapdragon, so in your mind it's perfectly acceptable for some stupid irresponsible little girl to ruin three lives because she likes the idea of having a baby? Get real.

[B0ycey]

@snapdragon, so in your mind it's perfectly acceptable for some stupid irresponsible little girl to ruin three lives because she likes the idea of having a baby? Get real.

Is it perfectly acceptable to ruin three lives by not practicing safe sex? You knew the score and the consequences prior to having sex with someone you clearly don't want to be tied to, so why should she give in to your demands if she wants to keep the baby? Perhaps a viable reason to consider restrictions on abortions is to prevent pressure on someone to have an abortion who doesn't want one. Then you are fucked.

[Sivad]

Is it perfectly acceptable to ruin three lives by not practicing safe sex?

I'm always safe. Shit happens.

[jessupjonesjnr87]

@Drlee

This convenience meme is dumb.

Your emotional language is meant to convey that women are getting late term abortions on a whim.

When asked to provide evidence that women are doing this, you have been unable to.

If by whim you mean finding out their baby has some minor deformity then yes.

@snapdragon
I don't think countries are going to follow in Canada's foot steps in fact I think people are slowly starting to realise what a gruesome injustice abortion is.

Ireland has hopped on the band wagon just as it is about to go careening off the cliff edge.

This current climate of SJW fanaticism and faux feminism is ready to implode upon itself with the same relentless momentum it used to expand.

[snapdragon]

@snapdragon, so in your mind it's perfectly acceptable for some stupid irresponsible little girl to ruin three lives because she likes the idea of having a baby? Get real.

My reply is, as its she that has to get up on the table and have it done to her body,then it's up to her.

[B0ycey]

I'm always safe. Shit happens.

Perhaps. But true character is how one reacts to the challenge put in front of him over the actions and decisions they took. Clearly you are someone who runs under the covers blaming everyone but himself rather than put you hands up and get them dirty. Such character in a man makes me side with the women - especially as it is her who has to undertake the procedures required to 'get you out of the shit'. But surely you realise you are a waste of space being that you even you refer to yourself as an asshole?

[Sivad]

My reply is, as its she that has to get up on the table and have it done to her body,then it's up to her.

I never said it wasn't, but when someone's intending to do something that stupid and irresponsible that's sure to fuck up other people's lives, the people affected by the stupidity have every right to object to it and harshly criticize the decision.

Perhaps. But true character is how one reacts to the challenge put in front of him over the actions and decisions they took. Clearly you are someone who runs under the covers blaming everyone but himself rather than put you hands up and get them dirty.

I didn't run for cover, I dealt with it head on. And I didn't blame anyone for the pregnancy, all I did was object to bringing a life into the world that neither of us were equipped to care for. I told her if she wanted to have a baby then she should go find someone who wants to raise a child with her and not force such an enormous obligation on someone who doesn't want it. And I took care of the procedure, I set it up, paid for it, and went with her. I was the only sensible, responsible, ethical person in the situation.

Such character in a man makes me side with the women - especially as it is her who has to undertake the procedures required to 'get you out of the shit'.

Yeah, that's asinine. There shouldn't have been any shit to get out of, if that girl had any character she would have done the right thing immediately. She was seriously contemplating creating a life she knew she couldn't take care of and forcing a serious lifelong obligation on her partner who she knew didn't want it. That's extremely unethical.

But surely you realise you are a waste of space being that you even you refer to yourself as an asshole?

Sometimes you have to be an asshole when you're dealing with reckless idiots. It doesn't pay to suffer fools. I did the right thing.

[snapdragon]

I never said it wasn't, but when someone's intending to do something that stupid and irresponsible that's sure to fuck up other people's lives, the people affected by the stupidity have every right to object to it and harshly criticize the decision.

Harshly criticise. yes.
Object to it, certainly.

You gave the impression you practically threatened the poor girl with all sorts of retribution unless she terminated the pregnancy,

I didn't run for cover, I dealt with it head on. And I didn't blame anyone for the pregnancy, all I did was object to bringing a life into the world that neither of us were equipped to care for. I told her if she wanted to have a baby then she should go find someone who wants to raise a child with her and not force such an enormous obligation on someone who doesn't want it. And I took care of the procedure, I set it up, paid for it, and went with her. I was the only sensible, responsible, ethical person in the situation.

What do you mean by set it up?




But it's she who had to go through with the termination. By going with her, you mean you waited outside.

You should have let her make up her own mind.

If you put that girl under a huge amount of pressure, it was not the right thing.
You did the right thing for you. Not her. Don't pretend it was anything else.

[Sivad]

You gave the impression you practically threatened the poor girl with all sorts of retribution unless she terminated the pregnancy,

I made it abundantly clear to her that if she went through with the pregnancy I wouldn't be someone she wanted in her life for the next 20 years and that if we had a kid together there would be no way to get rid of me.

What do you mean by set it up?

Got all the information on it and coordinated the scheduling.

But it's she who had to go through with the termination. By going with her, you mean you waited outside.

I wasn't allowed in the room and she didn't want me in there. Whatever her suffering was, it wasn't shit compared to what a child would have suffered with her as a mother.

You should have let her make up her own mind.

Oh, I should have left the decision to an irresponsible fucking idiot? Yeah, no. I should have done exactly what I did.

If you put that girl under a huge amount of pressure, it was not the right thing.
You did the right thing for you. Not her. Don't pretend it was anything else.

It was the right thing for everyone concerned. It was absolutely the right thing.

[snapdragon]

The right thing for you to do is use a condom at all times and be more careful about with whom you choose to have casual sex.

Shoving the blame entirely onto that girl is shameful. You're lucky she was intimidated enough by you to go through with it.

Next time you might not be so lucky.

[Pants-of-dog]

Medically necessary late term abortion are almost never required. That said. They are quite common in California. One 2015 study interviewed 4800 women who had received them in California. But POD would have us believe that they only have them for the health of the mother. Here are the facts from another study in California.

Here is the 2015 study to which you allude:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4545380/

In this thread, Drlee, you have been referring to late term abortions as those that occur after the fetus is viable.

This study is about second trimester abortions that occur before the fetus is viable.

From the study:

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all D&E abortions done up to 24 weeks of gestation at San Francisco General Hospital’s Women’s Options Center between February 2009 and April 2013. Our clinic is one of the largest providers of D&Es with over 1,100 D&Es done each year.

Please note that fetuses are not generally viable before 24 weeks. Thus, the 4520 abortions investigated in this study are not late term abortions according to your definition.

So you see POD, your argument that free choice at all stages of pregnancy is fine because (You Claim) that I can't present evidence that women are a) having them and b) for the health of the mother when they do, is fallacious. Now I have proved you wrong. Women in significant numbers (10's of thousands of them in the US) are having late term abortions and a great many of them for reasons that could be categorized as convenience by an objective observer.

So please drop your line of argument now. It has been disproved.

These come from a UCSB study and from the CDC.

In order to avoid plagiarism, it makes sense to provide a link to webpages that are quoted.

The quoted text from your post comes from here:
http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/sexinfo/article ... -abortions

The 2013 study cited in the quoted text is here:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24332434

And here is the abstract:

Abstract
OBJECTIVE:
Later second-trimester abortion (gestational age ≥ 19 weeks) is higher risk, more expensive and more difficult to access than abortion earlier in pregnancy. We sought to enumerate barriers to care described by women seeking abortion in the latter half of the second trimester. We also assessed the accuracy of later second-trimester abortion patients' perceptions of their pregnancies' gestational ages.
STUDY DESIGN:
A retrospective analysis of data from 232 women served by a referral program for women seeking abortion care between 19 and 24 weeks of gestational age was performed. Data collected included demographics, pregnancy history, gestational age by ultrasound, perceived gestational age, barriers to abortion care experienced and time lapsed from pregnancy recognition to presentation for care.
RESULTS:
Difficulty deciding whether to terminate (44.8%), financial barriers to care (22.0%) and the patient having recently realized she was pregnant (21.6%) were the most common delaying barriers cited. Nearly half (46.6%) of women underestimated their own gestational ages by greater than 4 weeks. Risk factors for experiencing at least 3 months time lapsed from pregnancy recognition to program referral included difficulty deciding whether to terminate [odds ratio (OR) 4.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.51-8.70] and nonwhite race/ethnicity (OR 2.04, 95% CI 1.16-3.57).
CONCLUSIONS:
Women seeking abortion care in the latter half of the second trimester encounter many of the same barriers previously identified among other abortion patient populations. Because many risk factors for delayed presentation for care are not amenable to intervention, abortion must remain available later in the second trimester.
IMPLICATIONS:
Women presenting for abortion in the later second trimester are delayed by structural and individual-level barriers, and many substantially underestimate their own gestational age. Removing financial barriers may help reduce abortion delay; however, many risk factors are nonmodifiable, underscoring the need to ensure access to later second-trimester abortion.

Please note that the abortions here are in the latter half of the second trimester. This is between 21 and 27 weeks. Fetuses are not generally viable before 21 and are generally viable after 27 weeks. Therefore, this study also does not fit your definition of late term abortions; i.e. abortions that target a viable fetus.

Also, please note the bolded phrases.

———————————

Do we have data on all late term abortions in Canada and why they were carried out? Have there been cases where a women wanted a late term elective abortion but doctors refused to carry it out, sending her on to another doctor multiple times until she gave up? Have there been cases where a women was referred to a mental health service because she wanted a late term elective abortion?

It seems extremely unlikely that while mothers do commit infanticide, they are somehow immune against elective late term abortions.

If you wish to claim that Canadian women are getting elective late term abortions, please provide evidence for that claim. Thank you.

Best to read the full exchange between Godstud and me. I was pointing out to him that the laws in most European countries are neither like Ireland's nor Canada's and that Ireland will almost certainly implement a restricted model. He then expressed the hope that Ireland will be "more progressive" because of the tragedies that would otherwise happen. At that point I replied that this wasn't true, i.e. I was just refuting his assertion.

My argument never was that we need to wait for an event to occur before we legislate.

I did read the exchange.

@Godstud was discussing possible tragedies that would be averted with legalisation of abortion. You then dismissed his argument by saying that we should not worry about possible tragedies.

But the point is that you are not arguing this, so I will drop it.

That was my impression of your position when we started this exchange, i.e. even if lots of women went for elective late term abortions you'd be in favour.

Well, now that we have clarified that, I do not see the need to address this tangent any longer.

You are not forced to undergo a medical procedure to keep your child alive and neither is a pregnant women. That's the correct equivalent situation in my view.

It is also qualitatively different to require somebody to do nothing as opposed to do something in order to keep another human being alive. We only require from a pregnant women after a certain number of weeks has passed that she does not actively kill the unborn unless she has a very good reason. In most developed countries we don't even punish pregnant women if they put the health of the unborn child at risk by, say, taking drugs, whereas if this happened to a born child it would certainly get the authorities involved. Overall, a pregnant woman is probably less restricted physically than a parent with a born child, especially if we compare the nine months of pregnancy and the first nine months after birth when your presence and attention is pretty much constantly required.

I am not discussing medical procedures. I am discussing how another person is using the body of the pregnant person for their own ends. We do not give born people the right to do this to each other. The question then becomes “why do we give unborn people this right?”.

The other argument you make here is one of praxis. I will address it after we discuss security of person.

I'm just taking the silly argument that people have the "right to do with their bodies what they want" to its absurd conclusion. We don't and the vast majority of rights are not absolute.

Your weird strawman is not logically connected to anything I have said.

According to the quoted text, more than half of them couldn't make their mind up. That's pretty much the definition of elective late term abortion.

Edit: Drlee's text seems to be from here.

Thank you for providing Drlee’s links. I wish I had seen this before I went and found it all myself.

Please note that the studies cited in that link both deal with abortions done shortly before the 24 week mark. These are non-viable fetuses, and therefore do not supoort the claim that women are murdering babies because of inconvenience.

——————————

If by whim you mean finding out their baby has some minor deformity then yes.

How does this affect my argument?

[Drlee]

Although I am frightened by another arch conservative on the Supreme Court there is one good aspect to Kennedy's retirement. We can rest assured that at the very least the next justice will be what we incorrectly call pro-life. The days of abortion after 12-14 weeks are as good as over. It may be that the Roe versus Wade decision may fall entirely. Late term and "partial birth" abortions, already illegal in many states, will fall in all but a few states without a doubt.

[Sivad]

Shoving the blame entirely onto that girl is shameful.

Shoving all the blame on me is shameful. Women who have children they can't take care of are shameful. I don't respect their decision, I don't think they have any moral right to create a life and subject it to their dysfunction and incompetence. I only believe in choice for people who are psychologically and financially equipped to care for a child.

[Pants-of-dog]

Shoving all the blame on me is shameful. Women who have children they can't take care of are shameful. I don't respect their decision, I don't think they have any moral right to create a life and subject it to their dysfunction and incompetence. I only believe in choice for people who are psychologically and financially equipped to care for a child.

If you have such a low opinion of the woman you got pregnant, you should not have slept with her.

[Drlee]

If you have such a low opinion of the woman you got pregnant, you should not have slept with her.

This is unfair POD. Cheap shot.

You want to put all of the responsibility on the man and none on the woman. Women endlessly carp about how this is their body but then they want to put responsibility for how they use it on men. If they want to be the sole decision maker about their bodies then they can accept sole responsibility.

Understand that a woman's decision to carry a child to term is either a moral one or it is not. If women want to take some religious notion of a father's role in raising children out of the picture and deny him any role in the decision to keep the baby then they have to accept that men will be equal partners in the decision. Your idea, that men have to make the choice when a woman offers her body to them and then forever keep quiet and pay does not stand the test of reason.

If we are to accept that early term abortions are nothing more than a personal choice by women then they can make the choice and forever hold their peace. Now if, for some reason, religious or otherwise, a man wishes to pay for a child born out of wedlock then that is his decision. That the state would compel him to pay for 20 years based solely on the whim of a woman to keep a child is to impose some sort of moral value on everyone. Further. To force him to unwillingly take a role is raising the child only compounds the offense against reason.

I am pro-choice during the first trimester or thereabouts. That does not mean that I believe that a woman has the right to impose either her religious beliefs or simple whim on a man. She can ask. No harm in that. But expecting the government to make the decision without consulting the man is a violation of any notion of individual rights.

On Edit:

By the way. This whole idea of support for bastard children was an invention of the patriarchy. It smacks of "damaged goods". The necessity for any kind of support for bastard children by noncustodial fathers was made unnecessary by the rise of women in the marketplace and the absolute right to abortion that women in great numbers seem to want.

Now if you were to argue that abortion should be banned in every case except the health of the mother then I would gladly support compelling the father to pay.

[Sivad]

If you have such a low opinion of the woman you got pregnant, you should not have slept with her.

So you were prepared to have a child with every woman you ever slept with?

[Kaiserschmarrn]

If you wish to claim that Canadian women are getting elective late term abortions, please provide evidence for that claim. Thank you.

I take it that there is no data to answer my questions, so all we can say is that we don't know.

As for my statement that it's difficult to argue that pregnant women would never kill an almost or fully developed unborn child when at least some mothers do kill their born children, this is just applied logic.

Maybe there are laws in Canada that prevent this from happening, e.g. doctors might be held liable if they carried out a late term abortion of a perfectly healthy baby where there's no danger to the mother. Such laws that exclude the mother but not the doctor from liability under certain circumstances exist in Germany, for instance.

I am not discussing medical procedures. I am discussing how another person is using the body of the pregnant person for their own ends. We do not give born people the right to do this to each other. The question then becomes “why do we give unborn people this right?”.

The other argument you make here is one of praxis. I will address it after we discuss security of person.

As I asked another poster in this thread already, why would I discuss this topic on your terms? I won't.

You need to explain to us why parents should accept severe restrictions, including what they can and cannot do with their bodies, if their actions endanger the child, while pregnant women are off limits. After that, you also need to address the fact that abortion involves actively killing an unborn child rather than not intervening to save it.

Your weird strawman is not logically connected to anything I have said.

Well, the post you quoted was not directed at you. I know you are busy posting, but these kind of responses give the impression you are just following a template rather than keeping track of what has actually been said.

Thank you for providing Drlee’s links. I wish I had seen this before I went and found it all myself.

Please note that the studies cited in that link both deal with abortions done shortly before the 24 week mark. These are non-viable fetuses, and therefore do not supoort the claim that women are murdering babies because of inconvenience.

Since a large proportion went for an abortion at this (relatively late) stage simply because they couldn't make their mind up, it stands to reason that at least some of them may well do the same even later.

[AFAIK]

@Pants-of-dog
What is your opinion on the precautionary principle? Do you always require proof that people have died before you will intervene to protect them?

[Drlee]

Pants-of-dog wrote:
I am not discussing medical procedures. I am discussing how another person is using the body of the pregnant person for their own ends. We do not give born people the right to do this to each other. The question then becomes “why do we give unborn people this right?”.

I have again and again given you an example when we do exactly this. An example when we us "the body of another person for (our) own ends. In fact we use it when the consequences are far more likely to provide permanent damage or death. All male adults of the US are subject to having their bodies used this way. It is called Selective Service, or the draft. It is not voluntary. One cannot be excused for inconvenience or danger to his person.

One could make a good case for considering the Fireman, Policeman, coal miner, fisherman or any number of other dangerous jobs. These people, like fertile women, have the absolute right to not get themselves into a dangerous or just inconvenient situation in the first place. They could avoid these jobs. Or, seeing the inconvenience of the job resign right away. Yet once they are in these jobs, though an army of people try to keep them safe, they are still expected to do the dangerous and inconvenient work.

I will continue to use the term "convenience". The statistics on danger to the mother are pretty convincing. A woman "forced" to give birth is doing something 4 times safer than driving a truck and 7 times safer than delivering pizzas or merchandise to stores. In fact, if a woman stays home during pregnancy and reduces the amount she drives, childbirth is one of the safest things to do.

A bit further:

Less than 1% of abortions are performed to save the life of the mother. Full stop. Even so it is a real thing. One in 100 pregnancies is a considerable number of lives saved.

But, pay attention. Saving the life of the mother is NOT the same thing as "for the health of the mother".

Why do women have abortions:

Most respondents to a survey of abortion patients in 1987 said that more than one factor had contributed to their decision to have an abortion; the mean number of reasons was nearly four. Three-quarters said that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities, about two-thirds said they could not afford to have a child and half said they did not want to be a single parent or had relationship problems. A multivariate analysis showed young teenagers to be 32 percent more likely than women 18 or over to say they were not mature enough to raise a child and 19 percent more likely to say their parents wanted them to have an abortion. Unmarried women were 17 percent more likely than currently married women to choose abortion to prevent others from knowing they had had sex or became pregnant. Of women who had an abortion at 16 or more weeks' gestation, 71 percent attributed their delay to not having realized they were pregnant or not having known soon enough the actual gestation of their pregnancy. Almost half were delayed because of trouble in arranging the abortion, usually because they needed time to raise money. One-third did not have an abortion earlier because they were afraid to tell their partner or parents that they were pregnant. A multivariate analysis revealed that respondents under age 18 were 39 percent more likely than older women to have delayed because they were afraid to tell their parents or partner. NIH.

There folks, is pretty strong evidence that my use of the word "convenience" is not far off of the mark. Perhaps it is a bit catty to use it but you pick a better word. Or just go with the above. It is damning enough.

Fun fact. "To save the life of the mother was allowed in all states before Roe V. Wade"

Let's throw a monkey wrench into this.

Soon someone will talk about the "mental health" of the mother. They will, in essence, argue that the inconvenience of having a child rises to pathology. I could make the case for just about any job but certainly being a mother is a hard job. One that shouldn't be taken lightly. But look at the above:

"About two-thirds said they could not afford to have a child".

So economic hardship is a good reason to have an abortion? OK. Then consider this. What if the father of the child makes that argument? Can he force an abortion for the same reason the woman can? Pro abortion advocates assert an absolute right to have one without an excuse. But we look a the why's and see what they really are. Why should a woman be able to impose financial responsibilities on a man without his consent when she reserves to herself the right to abort a child for the same reason?

Three-quarters said that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities,

A man can make the same argument, can't he? Especially if he intends to share in the parenting. When these women use this excuse to have an abortion it does not mean that at some other time or in some other circumstances she might choose to have the baby. These reasons are simply convenience. They are not "not ever" they are "not now". Why can't the father make the same case and force an abortion?

I do mean "force an abortion". Pro-abortion advocates argue that a fetus before birth is not a person. It is simply some goo inside of a woman. So why can't a man simply assert that it is as much his goo as it is hers and require it to be purged? I am not persuaded that I should think much of the "invasion of person" such a procedure would require is much in the face of the rather cavalier reasons for abortions present in the latest statistics.

Now add to this the issue of abortion after viability and you can clearly see why anti late term abortion people like myself have a cynical view of this whole issue of personal sovereignty which only applies to pregnant women and nobody else. And remember. Forcing a mother to deliver a child after viability is NOT requiring her to spend a life as a mother. She is free to give the child up for adoption, ask the father to take it (which he may willingly do) or allow another family member to raise it. The options are legion.

Since pro abortion people love to cite rare examples, I will indulge myself in the same thing. A young man gets back from the war. He meets a woman in a bar who has made the immature private decision to not use or ask for birth control. They have sex. She gets pregnant and wants him to be a father forever and pay a near lifetime in child support. He is a responsible person and believes fathers should care for their children financially and personally. Unfortunately his experiences at war have left him with a severe case of PTSD. The stress of having a child and caring for one would damage his mental health. Why can't he exercise one of two options. First to require the woman to have an early abortion. Or failing that, to accept complete responsibility for having and raising the baby. In other words, terminate his parental rights and responsibilities.

I offer all of these examples in this wall of text to, among other things, make an additional point. It all but the rarest of circumstances, abortion is not a health issue. It is an issue of lifestyle and convenience. Overarching this fact are issues of morality. I am uninterested in those of the mother. We can see from the statistics above what a great many of them think about that. I am talking about issues of morality held by the community, the majority of voters in some jurisdictions and those of the other involved party.

Women have rights with regard to their bodies. Those rights are not unlimited. (Or clearly should not be.) Not only when they decided to have an abortion but also when they do not.

[snapdragon]

All those people claiming pregnancy and childbirth is just an inconvenience should go and try it for themselves.
I'd like to see it.

Nobody here has the remotest idea why each individual woman chooses to end an unwanted pregnancy.

There is absolutely no reason why they should know, because it's none of their business.

Her body, her choice - that is the bottom line. No other person's body is involved.