Poll: Abortion legality belief spectrum

What is your belief about Abortion Law in the USA?

  • 1. Abortion should be illegal with no exceptions

    Votes: 6 8.7%

  • 2. Legal only to save the mother's LIFE

    Votes: 5 7.2%

  • 3. Legal only to save the mother's LIFE, or to preserve her HEALTH

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • 4. Legal only for mother's LIFE, HEALTH, or in cases of RAPE/INCEST

    Votes: 9 13.0%

  • 5. Legal only for mother's LIFE, HEALTH, RAPE/INCEST, or cases of FETAL IMPAIRMENT

    Votes: 11 15.9%

  • 6. Legal for LIFE, HEALTH, RAPE, FETAL IMPAIRMENT, or ECONOMIC/SOCIAL REASONS

    Votes: 6 8.7%

  • 7. Abortion should be legal upon request for any reason

    Votes: 21 30.4%

  • 8. Other

    Votes: 11 15.9%
  • Total voters
    69
Landlord said:
Well, contextually that would be different, so no.
Click to expand...
So the law that requires this would only apply to "some" women getting abortions if they aren't having the procedure in the right "context"?

Sounds like we'd be setting ourselves up for some pretty lousy legislation.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Landlord said:
Well, contextually that would be different, so no.

Actually a really terrible example imo. 

Not all surgical procedures involve an elective ending of the potential of another life. What's your reasoning that if abortion procedures have this type of informed consent then all other procedures should have the same type of informed consent? I don't see why that would need or should be the case?

Yes, there would be a component of the negative aspects. That would be part of informed consent. I feel like that was already clear in my post with the "vs not" end of the sentence.

And yes, the same spirit of discussion would be part of a vasectomy, but again, not the exact same discussion because a vasectomy isn't necessarily permanent and irreversible.
Click to expand...
I forget...what is the first rule of holes?

Oh yeah, when you are in one...stop digging.

This is a lame law...if the woman wants to hear a heartbeat and stuff...great...if not...great.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Moiraine said:
It’s pretty patronizing to think a pregnant woman doesn’t know what being pregnant means. 
Click to expand...


Is it also patronizing to think that teenagers having unprotected sex don't know what can or will happen? Or that football players don't know they're destroying their brains long term? Or that high school kids don't know the true value of borrowing hundreds of thousands of dollars for college?

It's not like nobody ever regrets elective medical decisions or makes very important life choices from short-sighted perspectives.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Landlord said:
Is it also patronizing to think that teenagers having unprotected sex don't know what can or will happen? Or that football players don't know they're destroying their brains long term? Or that high school kids don't know the true value of borrowing hundreds of thousands of dollars for college?

It's not like nobody ever regrets elective medical decisions or makes very important life choices from short-sighted perspectives.
Click to expand...
So...your argument is that there should be a law in place that tells teens what can happen if they f#&%?

I can help...

1.  It feels AWESOME

2.  It doesn't last long

3.  If the girl is on top she can't get pregnant

 
Landlord said:
Well, contextually that would be different, so no.

Actually a really terrible example imo. 

Not all surgical procedures involve an elective ending of the potential of another life. What's your reasoning that if abortion procedures have this type of informed consent then all other procedures should have the same type of informed consent? I don't see why that would need or should be the case?

Yes, there would be a component of the negative aspects. That would be part of informed consent. I feel like that was already clear in my post with the "vs not" end of the sentence.

And yes, the same spirit of discussion would be part of a vasectomy, but again, not the exact same discussion because a vasectomy isn't necessarily permanent and irreversible.
Click to expand...
Informed consent is by definition the educating of risks and benefits of therapy or procedure, to confirm the competency of the patient to make a medical decision and to acknowledge that they are making the decision without outside pressure.  

The difference is that you view it as elective ending of a potential life.  I do not view it that way.  So my reasoning is that if part of your philosophy is that someone undergoing a medical procedure should be counseled on how they may or may not feel afterward emotionally, then that standard should apply to all surgical procedures.  It could be argued that any procedure has emotional effects - a woman should not have to go through additional counseling than a man having a medical procedure that impacts his ability to fertilize an egg.  At a min, any standard should be uniform across the US. The consent in TN should not be different than the consent for the same procedure in CA.

 
Morally I’m against abortion. At the same time to me this is an issue where I think it needs to be completely legal/illegal. Voted 7. Rather not have people fall through the cracks.

 
I just don't feel I or government has the right to dictate to a woman what to do with the contents of her own body. 

The last time I was in a discussion about this and stated my feelings, a man brought up something on the order of, "what if she goes into a jewelry store and swallows a million dollars worth of gems?  Can we then tell her what to do with the contents of her own body?"

As if stealing jewels is analogous to enduring an unwanted pregnancy. 

Game playing aside, no matter my beliefs about abortion, it's up to her at least 51%.  She gets the deciding vote no matter the input from politicians, clergy, or even the sperm donor. 

 
NM11046 said:
The difference is that you view it as elective ending of a potential life.  I do not view it that way. 
Click to expand...






How could you possibly not view it that way?

It is elective. Nobody is forced to get an abortion, and while there are situations where they are life saving, the majority of them are not.

And it is ending a potential life. If a woman is pregnant, doesn't have an abortion, and carries a fetus to term, there's a new living human in the world. Getting an abortion ends the potential for that human to exist. 

 
Landlord said:
How could you possibly not view it that way?

It is elective. Nobody is forced to get an abortion, and while there are situations where they are life saving, the majority of them are not.

And it is ending a potential life. If a woman is pregnant, doesn't have an abortion, and carries a fetus to term, there's a new living human in the world. Getting an abortion ends the potential for that human to exist. 
Click to expand...
I'm not debating elective vs. not - my difference with you is when I think the cluster of cells created when an egg and sperm meet up can be considered "life".  

 
NM11046 said:
I'm not debating elective vs. not - my difference with you is when I think the cluster of cells created when an egg and sperm meet up can be considered "life".  
Click to expand...




That's not the same as the statement you made though. The only way a fetus isn't potential life is if your definition of "potential" and "life" are out of wack with the dictionary.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not sure what statement you're referring to @Moiraine... can you point me toward it?  

But if that's your argument, then a sperm on its own is a potential life, as is an egg. And if that's the definition then all forms of birth control are elective ways to prevent life.  Plenty of people feel that way.  I do not.

I know we've gotten into this discussion at length in the other thread awhile ago about when life begins so apologies for taking this off topic - back to the debate on what a woman should be allowed to do.

 
We already settled this...

Look down...do you have a dong?  You do?  Well...you don't get to decided what a woman does when it comes to her pregnancy. 

 
NM11046 said:
Not sure what statement you're referring to @Moiraine... can you point me toward it?  

But if that's your argument, then a sperm on its own is a potential life, as is an egg. And if that's the definition then all forms of birth control are elective ways to prevent life.  Plenty of people feel that way.  I do not.

I know we've gotten into this discussion at length in the other thread awhile ago about when life begins so apologies for taking this off topic - back to the debate on what a woman should be allowed to do.
Click to expand...




The quote Landlord just replied to:

“The difference is that you view it as elective ending of a potential life.  I do not view it that way.“

Of course a fetus is a potential life. Thinking otherwise seems nuts to me. In any science if there’s a 95% chance something’s going to happen, everyone would say it has the potential of happening. I would lower that down to < 1% chance. If there’s a chance of it happening, it has the potential to happen. In the case of a fetus, the chance is extremely high.

But yes it can be argued it starts before that. 

 
Back
Top