A Request Directed to Sciforums' "Atheists"

Can you provide a link to your quote please?

That's all I'm asking from you at the moment Kitta. Are you Divine Oubliette?

Because the actual study you quoted from Divine Oubliette on the Yahoo Answers site - because this is apparently scientific... - clearly states that foetal pain is inconclusive and they have no evidence that they can feel and recognise actual pain.

I have provided you with more than enough evidence to show that the whole myth of 'girls and women use it for birth control' is a myth perpetrated by pro-lifer's to try to portray women as being sluts and irresponsible.

There are many women who don't even know they are pregnant. Unless you wish to demand that women have pregnancy tests once a month once they start menstruating and are sexually active? Or what of women who are lied to by their doctors in a bid to stop them from aborting it?

This actually happens and is legal in some areas. Should she be allowed to get an abortion if she's gone past the 27 week time period? Or is it a case of 'too bad, so sad, you need to have it now'?

In a perfect world, there would be no abortions. In a perfect world, people would not misconstrue and misrepresent reality to suit their needs and purposes or to portray women as being irresponsible and somehow slack or indecisive even in the face of actual proof that is not the case. However we do not live in a perfect world and I think denying women safe health care services at any point in their pregnancy will lead and does lead to death and permanent injury. If this is acceptable to you, then so be it. It isn't an acceptable option for me.

 

Because it is comparable?

Really?

Kitta has argued and inferred irresponsibility of women who simply wait that long because they can't decide, even when it is clearly demonstrated that this is not the case.

If you don't think that the mother's rights are sovereign and her own, then that is your opinion. You are lucky that you will never ever be forced into such a position. Women who are faced with such situations and who are at times told that their rights matter so little that they are not worthy of consideration at all or they are imprisoned or forced into having c-sections without their consent would disagree with you. All of these actions are based on the basis of 'we're dealing with a living person'. Is the woman not a living person? Or does she just become an incubator after 27 weeks, so much so that she loses all control and all say over her own body? Why does the living person inside her get a higher priority and more of a say and more rights than the mother?

And I think risking the lives of women and denying them their basic and fundamental human rights by refusing them safe health care at that stage of their pregnancy will lead to more deaths. I don't just think it, I know it as there is more than enough proof to show that women do die without access to safe abortions. Since you feel this is an appropriate solution, then so be it. One can only hope you never have a daughter who may face such a decision and turn to you for some semblance of support if she does.

Thankfully there are still 4 doctors who provide the service to women around the US and who do so with far more compassion and understanding the people in this thread are capable of. They provide a safe service for women who are in dire need of it, from women who found out too late they were pregnant, to women who were denied access to an abortion earlier on, to women who find out late in their pregnancy that their child has little chance at a normal and healthy life, to women who were raped and in denial and confused and unsure of what their options are. These doctors provide this service and compassion and understanding and counseling under threats of death to themselves and their staff, these women access this service under threat of death and bomb threats, harassment, abuse.

You have consistently dismissed the argument that women will die as being somewhat irrelevant. So much for women's rights, huh? Next time you whine about Muslims and their treatment of women and their denying women rights, I will remind you just how you disregard a woman's safety or her very existence once she's past 27 weeks. How you don't think that she is sovereign if she is past 27 weeks pregnant. Because in your opinion, that's not how it works. Because in your opinion, women's rights over their bodies stop and cease to exist and her child's rights become greater than hers, which literally renders the woman into the status of a living incubator.

 

Do you think these women do not take the lives of their child into consideration? Do you think they have not weighed the morality of their decision at all? This isn't a case of a simple D&C. This is up to or more than 4 days of intensive physical discomfort and pain and quite literally giving birth. This isn't something that women decide to do lightly, nor do they take it lightly.

For many of these women, they never had a choice up to that point. They simply found themselves at that point. Some don't realise they are pregnant until too late, some are denied or unable to access an abortion earlier on (considering that 90% of counties in the US do not offer abortion services for 1st and 2nd trimester abortions, this isn't hard to imagine), some are victims of rape or incest who are in denial about what is happening to them (again, this isn't hard to imagine) and others find out after 27 weeks that there is something horrendously wrong with their baby. I consider all of these to be valid reasons as these women consider them to be valid.

My biggest issue with a ban on behalf of the 'person' they are carrying is that it brings with it inherent risks that even women who fall within the 1% of exceptions who get abortions in the 3rd trimester, will be denied the ability to do so. And then they will obtain it illegally and risk their lives in the process. If they have complications, they will be scared and won't seek help as they will face arrest and face possible murder charges. As Quinnsong stated, if they have an abortion illegally in the 3rd trimester, then they can just be arrested and prosecuted.. This will mean that women will just not seek help if something goes wrong. I don't think this is an acceptable measure.

This does not even touch on the rape exemption that everyone is quick to accept. Many women and girls who are raped or are victims of incest and find themselves pregnant have not reported it to the police, out of fear, shame and the plethora of other emotions and horrors that accompany rape and incest. Rape and incest exemptions means that these women and girls will have to somehow prove they have been raped to fit into that exemption. Can you imagine the trauma?

Then of course we fall into the terrifying prospect of what happens when the foetus is deemed a 'person'. Hundreds of women in jail, forced c-sections and arrests during labour, imprisonment and forced c-sections for endangering the 'person' they are carrying. This is what happens when you designate personhood to a foetus. Full stop. This isn't even fantasy or hypotheticals, but what actually happens.

I don't advocate abortion. But I do think that it is ultimately the woman's choice and I think she should have access to a safe abortion should she need or require one.

 

Oh I know what an analogy is. I just find your choice very interesting and telling.

And I have linked numerous papers and interviews with people who provide such abortions who clearly show it is a myth.

Which just shows the hypocrisy. It is apparently less of a child and living person as everyone has tried to claim in restricting women's rights to their bodies if she is forced into making such a decision and definitely less human and less of a person if it has a birth defect.. Does that mean she is more human if the child has a birth defect? And the child is more human and has more rights to life over her rights if it does not have a defect?

How does that work exactly?

Because one is an actual person and the other is the potential to become a person? Because her rights and her personhood does not disappear because she is pregnant? Fark me Balerion, you actually asked that question? Really?

Your wife has a car accident and she is 8 months pregnant. The doctor can only save one. Who do you pick? The person in her belly? Or her?

What if they don't treat her for fear of harming the person inside her? Is that acceptable for you? Because if they treat her, then it could harm the person living inside her. Is this okay with you?

What about if she has cancer?

Why does the mother get more priority than the person living inside her indeed..

So under the guise of why should she get more priority over the "person" living inside her, this would be acceptable to you, wouldn't it? Since you know, you don't care about her safety if she's trying to kill her child and all..

Or is her personhood null and void once she's pregnant?

So, yeah, you'll excuse me if I find your position to be exceptionally vile.

Oh, so safe abortions isn't health care?

Right..

Pregnant women are already being denied access to safe health care because of the "person" living inside them. You want to make sure that not only continues, but gets worse by declaring the foetus is a person and asking questions such as "why should she get more rights"?

If they are denied to safe abortions, then more women will die.

Is this an acceptable measure for you? Or do you think these women deserve to die?

So now you consider it a "moral duty" to endanger the lives of women.

You just get better and better.

So it's okay if she dies.

Got it.

What about if she has cancer? Is it okay for her to "kill her child" then? Is her child less of a person then? Or do you agree with the Bill in Kansas and laws in South American countries that deny women the right to even have a chance at life if they are diagnosed with cancer while pregnant? You know, because she'd have to abort to start her chemo and all.. And as you just said, her safety is not important to you when she's trying to kill her child..

So pregnancy and right to choose is not a woman's rights issue?

So not only do you reduce her personhood and elevate her unborn child's personhood to be above hers, you don't care if she dies if she's trying to access an abortion because as you claim, she's trying to kill her child, but now you also believe that it's not even a woman's rights issue because well, she stopped being a full person with rights once she got pregnant, right Balerion? And you complain about Islam and Muslims abusing their women? You can't even give a shit if women die because they can't access safe abortions. Hypocrite much?

You'd be right at home in Saudi Arabia. They go for the crap you just spouted in a big way there.