Jump to content

Terryl Givens Weighs in on Ethics of Abortion


Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I already said that I cannot speak for women who have had abortions, but I did say:

I am not asking you to speak for other women.  I am asking you what you think.

Link to post
8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Not at all.  You asked "whether the government can be allowed to force ANY person to help another human being stay alive by keeping them inside their bodies."  Put another way, can the government place constrains on abortion.  The answer is plainly yes.  That's not an argument, circular or otherwise.  It's just a statement of fact.

Thanks,

-Smac

I did not ask, I framed the issue:

Quote

This is not about women's rights because they are female. It is about whether the government can be allowed to force ANY person to help another human being stay alive by keeping them inside their bodies. 

I do not think that the state should be allowed to do that, even if it already does it to some extent.

Link to post
Just now, pogi said:

I am not asking you to speak for other women.  I am asking you what you think.

And I answered you:

Quote

Donating blood is one kind of medical procedure that cannot compare to what a woman's body provides for her unborn child. If there was some medical procedure that exactly corresponded to it, my answer would be yes. I certainly think that people take into consideration the biological toll events can have on their bodies.

 

Link to post
15 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

And I answered you:

 

That is not an answer.  I asked if you think that women are having abortions because they don't want to donate blood specifically.  I asked if you really thought that was part of their decision process.

 

Link to post
4 minutes ago, pogi said:

Which is why it is not illegal.

You must be cautious and circumspect because criminalizing induced abortions makes it possible to criminalize spontaneous abortions.

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

Except the woman's body is not the target of an abortion. 

It usually is. The vast majority of abortions, nonsurgical abortions, consist of preventing the woman's body from maintaining a pregnancy.

10 minutes ago, pogi said:

 The procedure is largely on another human body, killing it by torture. 

Any procedure that removes a nonviable unborn human being from a woman's womb is going to involve killing them directly or indirectly. Even inducing a full-term birth is considered abortion in some states, if the baby is expected to die after being born. I acknowledge that abortion kills another human being. 

Link to post
4 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

You must be cautious and circumspect because criminalizing induced abortions makes it possible to criminalize spontaneous abortions.

How?

Link to post
27 minutes ago, pogi said:

Except the woman's body is not the target of an abortion.   

Anything penetrating a woman's body is targeting her body, imo.  It may not be the only target, but it is acted upon and therefore targeted.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
7 minutes ago, pogi said:

That is not an answer.  I asked if you think that women are having abortions because they don't want to donate blood specifically.  I asked if you really thought that was part of their decision process.

 

I do think my answer was adequate given the context. But, yes, I think that can be the case. I think there are women who do not feel like their bodies are capable of doing what it takes to donate blood on a constant basis.

I lost thirty percent of my blood when my eldest was born, due to placental abruption. I had to have infusions of iron during the pregnancy with my twins. The toll all that blood donation takes on our bodies is real, and I can understand if some women feel like their bodies cannot afford it.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
3 minutes ago, Calm said:

How?

I probably should have said that criminalizing induced abortions makes it more possible to criminalize spontaneous abortions. Once the ending of a pregnancy becomes the business of the state, woman who have miscarriages can become suspected for inducing abortions. Whereas if induced abortions are legal, miscarriages would not be considered a potentially illegal act.

Link to post
42 minutes ago, Calm said:

Anything penetrating a woman's body is targeting her body, imo.  It may not be the only target, but it is acted upon and therefore targeted.

I recognize that dilation and extraction is an invasive procedure, and that the woman's body is the target of dilation, but the sole purpose of dilation is to reach and extract the main target of the procedure.  The forceps are not directly targeting her body.  All of the instruments used are targeting the babies body, to pull it apart and extract it piece by piece.     The primary target/purpose of the procedure is not to dilate, but to extract the main target.  The dilation is simply indirectly required to extract the baby.   Put another way, if it wasn't for the baby, there would be no purpose for the procedure because her body is not the main target and dilation would serve no purpose as there is no target to extract. 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

I do think my answer was adequate given the context. But, yes, I think that can be the case. I think there are women who do not feel like their bodies are capable of doing what it takes to donate blood on a constant basis.

I lost thirty percent of my blood when my eldest was born, due to placental abruption. I had to have infusions of iron during the pregnancy with my twins. The toll all that blood donation takes on our bodies is real, and I can understand if some women feel like their bodies cannot afford it.

During pregnancy, the woman increases production of blood by 20-30%.  Absent any abnormal medical condition, pregnancy does not equate to a loss of blood.  Just take your iron and vitamins and there will be no deficiency.  The loss of blood in a placental abruption does not go to the baby, it cannot therefore be considered a "donation" of any sort to the baby.  That is an abnormal medical condition and has nothing to do with aborting a healthy fetus to save blood.    

I am not arguing that pregnancy can't take a toll on the woman's body, but it is NOT due to a lack or deficiency in blood supply to her body, and pregnancy is NOT considered a disease that needs medical attention to correct - it is considered a healthy state of being and natural condition. 

Edited by pogi
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

I probably should have said that criminalizing induced abortions makes it more possible to criminalize spontaneous abortions. Once the ending of a pregnancy becomes the business of the state, woman who have miscarriages can become suspected for inducing abortions. Whereas if induced abortions are legal, miscarriages would not be considered a potentially illegal act.

There is nothing criminal about it.  I think what you mean to say is that a woman is more likely to be falsely charged with abortion.  That is different from saying that spontaneous abortions may be criminalized. It is not and never will be criminal. 

Following the same logic, criminalizing murder makes it more possible to wrongly charge people with murder when it was natural death.  Should we decriminalize murder for that reason? Of course not. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
1 hour ago, pogi said:

I recognize that dilation and extraction is an invasive procedure, and that the woman's body is the target of dilation, but the sole purpose of dilation is to reach and extract the main target of the procedure.  The forceps are not directly targeting her body.  All of the instruments used are targeting the babies body, to pull it apart and extract it piece by piece.     The primary target/purpose of the procedure is not to dilate, but to extract the main target.  The dilation is simply indirectly required to extract the baby.   Put another way, if it wasn't for the baby, there would be no purpose for the procedure because her body is not the main target and dilation would serve no purpose as there is no target to extract. 

 

And if a man rapes a woman so that he can get a kid out of it, is she not a target then because there is no purpose for the rape without the pregnancy, etc.?

Link to post
1 hour ago, pogi said:

pregnancy is NOT considered a disease that needs medical attention to correct - it is considered a healthy state of being and natural condition

If considered without the context of the individual, I would agree....but in combination with a particular woman's health, this isn't true imo.

And if she is aware of this, she should be doing everything to avoid pregnancy including abstinence if she doesn't currently have another form of birth control also imo until she feels prepared to handle the consequences....but even with some foreknowledge, I doubt many will be able to predict twists and turns.

As a personal comment....eons ago I was told never to donate blood....for the same reason pregnancies sped up my degenerative disorder.  If I knew then what I know now....maybe I would have chosen to adopt (since I wouldn't have known my kids and wouldn't have had to choose).  Taking iron and supplements doesn't work for me, btw.  I don't absorb the iron and I get side effects from pretty much everything but Vit d and probiotics and actual food.  I'm not drawing any conclusions here, it is just interesting to me personally that the thread took this turn.

Link to post
1 hour ago, Calm said:

And if a man rapes a woman so that he can get a kid out of it, is she not a target then because there is no purpose for the rape without the pregnancy, etc.?

I think we are using “target” in different ways.  It seems like a semantically misunderstanding.

The woman is not a target of harm in abortion.  She is not a victim - the baby is.  She is a target of harm in rape, she is a victim.  The baby is the primary target of harm in abortion and obviously suffers the greatest consequence.  
 

 

 

Link to post
1 hour ago, Calm said:

If considered without the context of the individual, I would agree....but in combination with a particular woman's health, this isn't true imo.

And if she is aware of this, she should be doing everything to avoid pregnancy including abstinence if she doesn't currently have another form of birth control also imo until she feels prepared to handle the consequences....but even with some foreknowledge, I doubt many will be able to predict twists and turns.

As a personal comment....eons ago I was told never to donate blood....for the same reason pregnancies sped up my degenerative disorder.  If I knew then what I know now....maybe I would have chosen to adopt (since I wouldn't have known my kids and wouldn't have had to choose).  Taking iron and supplements doesn't work for me, btw.  I don't absorb the iron and I get side effects from pretty much everything but Vit d and probiotics and actual food.  I'm not drawing any conclusions here, it is just interesting to me personally that the thread took this turn.

Clearly there are exceptions to everything.  I am responding in generalities as her comment was that women should generally have the right to abort ANY baby despite the lack of any medical indication to abort to protect the woman from medical harm.

Link to post
8 hours ago, pogi said:

During pregnancy, the woman increases production of blood by 20-30%.  Absent any abnormal medical condition, pregnancy does not equate to a loss of blood.  Just take your iron and vitamins and there will be no deficiency.  The loss of blood in a placental abruption does not go to the baby, it cannot therefore be considered a "donation" of any sort to the baby.  That is an abnormal medical condition and has nothing to do with aborting a healthy fetus to save blood.    

I am not arguing that pregnancy can't take a toll on the woman's body, but it is NOT due to a lack or deficiency in blood supply to her body, and pregnancy is NOT considered a disease that needs medical attention to correct - it is considered a healthy state of being and natural condition. 

You're objecting to lack of complete correspondence between donating blood and pregnancy when I have clearly stated multiple times and you have also stated that there is no human condition comparable to pregnancy.

Pregnancy is a natural part of the human condition, and with it comes risk of death and other health problems. The impacts of pregnancy on the woman's health, both temporary and permanent, can have a substantial impact on her and her ability to live and to care for others. The impact of a temporary condition can have permanent consequences.

My overall point still stands.  

8 hours ago, pogi said:

There is nothing criminal about it.  I think what you mean to say is that a woman is more likely to be falsely charged with abortion.  That is different from saying that spontaneous abortions may be criminalized. It is not and never will be criminal. 

 

I do not think you have the ability to predict the latter. But criminalizing induced abortion makes both situations more possible. 

8 hours ago, pogi said:

 

Following the same logic, criminalizing murder makes it more possible to wrongly charge people with murder when it was natural death.  Should we decriminalize murder for that reason? Of course not. 

Murder means unlawful killing, so "criminalizing murder" is redundant.

Link to post
8 hours ago, pogi said:

Clearly there are exceptions to everything.  I am responding in generalities as her comment was that women should generally have the right to abort ANY baby despite the lack of any medical indication to abort to protect the woman from medical harm.

I also think that spouses should have the right to leave their marriages without cause. That does not mean I want all married people to get divorced, though. And before you object to the comparison, how about we agree on what the situations have in common? 

Do you agree that the survival of the unborn is complex and dependent on many variables?

Do you agree that as human beings we can impact the survival rates of the unborn?

Hopefully you agree with both of the above. I think that the attitudes and approaches towards caring for the unborn and for marriage impacts their overall health and survival. I think that the approach of enforcing total marriage success is counterproductive. Likewise, I think the attitude of enforcing carrying pregnancies as a way to protect the unborn is also counterproductive. 

Link to post
4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

But criminalizing induced abortion makes both situations more possible. 

Were women in the past criminally charged in the cases of spontaneous abortions?

Link to post
7 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

You're objecting to lack of complete correspondence between donating blood and pregnancy when I have clearly stated multiple times and you have also stated that there is no human condition comparable to pregnancy.

Pregnancy is a natural part of the human condition, and with it comes risk of death and other health problems. The impacts of pregnancy on the woman's health, both temporary and permanent, can have a substantial impact on her and her ability to live and to care for others. The impact of a temporary condition can have permanent consequences.

My overall point still stands.  

I do not think you have the ability to predict the latter. But criminalizing induced abortion makes both situations more possible. 

Murder means unlawful killing, so "criminalizing murder" is redundant.

Woman’s physical bodies are impacted through child rearing too.  That doesn’t give them the right to take the life of their child to preserve the relatively minor harm on the mother’s body.  What about the impact on the babies body (something that you continually downplay in favor of the woman)?  How does this scenario seem balanced and fair to you?

Your argument about criminalizing spontaneous abortion is about as likely as criminalizing the natural death of a child.  It feels desperate and strained.  Not a good argument for pro-choice.


 

 

 

Edited by pogi
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I also think that spouses should have the right to leave their marriages without cause. That does not mean I want all married people to get divorced, though. And before you object to the comparison, how about we agree on what the situations have in common? 

Do you agree that the survival of the unborn is complex and dependent on many variables?

Do you agree that as human beings we can impact the survival rates of the unborn?

Hopefully you agree with both of the above. I think that the attitudes and approaches towards caring for the unborn and for marriage impacts their overall health and survival. I think that the approach of enforcing total marriage success is counterproductive. Likewise, I think the attitude of enforcing carrying pregnancies as a way to protect the unborn is also counterproductive. 

Both partners walk away in a divorce. In abortion, one walks away and the other torturously gets torn apart and has their brains squashed out and are left literally in pieces. 

You lost me as to how legalizing the torturous killing of an unborn child because the mother doesn’t want to donate her blood or care for the child is less counterproductive than adopting the child.
 

Risk vs harm for the baby.  Think about it.

Edited by pogi
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
2 hours ago, Calm said:

Were women in the past criminally charged in the cases of spontaneous abortions?

El Salvador has had some issues blurring the line. AFAIK there have been some cases attempted in the US. There is an example of a woman being penalised for burying a stillborn baby, and another for discarding a miscarried fetus in panic.

Link to post
1 hour ago, pogi said:

Woman’s physical bodies are impacted through child rearing too.  That doesn’t give them the right to take the life of their child to preserve the relatively minor harm on the mother’s body.  

A woman can separate herself from the impact of child rearing without killing her child. A woman cannot separate herself from the risks of childbirth and continued pregnancy in the same way. The attachment is literal, not merely legal or social.

1 hour ago, pogi said:

What about the impact on the babies body (something that you continually downplay in favor of the woman)?  How does this scenario seem balanced and fair to you?

I absolutely address that by arguing in favor of what reduces abortions and what helps the unborn and babies in general. A law criminalizing abortion if it causes more suffering would be a pyrrhic victory indeed, right?

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Your argument about criminalizing spontaneous abortion is about as likely as criminalizing the natural death of a child.  It feels desperate and strained.  Not a good argument for pro-choice.

It's pretty concrete and logical, and stating the obvious issues related to the road of criminalization.

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Both partners walk away in a divorce. In abortion, one walks away and the other torturously gets torn apart and has their brains squashed out and are left literally in pieces. 

Again, yet again, and again and again, I am talking about what reduces the total abortion rate, where less abortions occur, not more. Hopefully you agree that reducing the ripping apart of babies' bodies is better than not. 

1 hour ago, pogi said:

You lost me as to how legalizing the torturous killing of an unborn child because the mother doesn’t want to donate her blood or care for the child is less counterproductive than adopting the child.

Have you ever been on this side of the argument, Pogi? Have you really understood the facets I have talked about?

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Risk vs harm for the baby.  Think about it.

I absolutely have thought about it. That is the point at which I began thinking about abortion years ago. Over the years, I have made pretty much every argument you have in this thread and others as well. Eventually I started to understand that what actually happens matter much more than ideology and good intentions.

Link to post
1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

El Salvador has had some issues blurring the line. AFAIK there have been some cases attempted in the US. There is an example of a woman being penalised for burying a stillborn baby, and another for discarding a miscarried fetus in panic.

Those two are about what they did with the body afterwards rather than the spontaneous abortion itself. Not the same thing. Was this when abortion was criminalized?

Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...