PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Abortion Debates
     Time to end pregnancy

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
celticgreen

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

OK, here's something I just don't get. Maybe those of you who are pro-choice can explain this one.

Pro-choice people support abortion in the first few months, because it's the mother's right to decide not to have a baby, even after conception.

Pro-choice people don't seem to support a mother's right to induce delivery in the last 2 months or so, when the baby is considered viable, for convenience sake.

Why the difference?

The way I see it, to be consistant, one who says that a mother has the right to end a pregnancy for any reason,  should also have that right at the end of a pregnancy, when the induced labor would result in a live birth. Maybe the mother is tired of being pregnant. Maybe she has a career goal that will be derailed if it's delayed by 2 months. Maybe that career derailing will have a severe financial impact. Maybe she would prefer not gain more weight.

Of coures an induced labor before term will mean a higher risk to the baby than natural labor at term, but isn't the right to end a pregnancy about the mother, not the unborn, possible child?

If the mother has the right to end a pregnancy, and since pro-choice people don't consider abortion murder, why don't they support ending a pregnancy toward the end of term. Isn't the right to end a pregnancy, according to the pro-choice pov, about the mother's rights? Why strip her of those rights at the end of a pregnancy?

If the unborn aren't humans with rights, if the unborn is viable, anyway, why not allow elective induced labor?

Is abortion in the early stages, according to the pro-choice view, the only valid way and time to end a pregnancy?
 


Posts: 22 | Posted: 5:07 PM on July 13, 2005 | IP
Charliegone

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wow you sure have a lot questions, well I think the question is rather when does life really start or rather when does the unborn start to feel something.  As it has been stated I believe it begins in the 2nd trimester. Still it is completely legal to have an abortion after this time( which I find kind of disturbing). Even though I still believe people have a choice before this time. I don't agree they have a choice after it.  If people don't have kids, tie your damn tubes!
 


Posts: 11 | Posted: 10:38 PM on July 16, 2005 | IP
celticgreen

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

But abortion isn't about the potential baby. It's about ending a pregnancy that the mother doesn't want to continue with.

I just wonder why they aren't campaigning to expand that right, especially in this atmosphere of attacks on the right they have now.

Why not advocate induced labor in the last months, when the fetus is viable.

Abortion isn't about killing a baby, according to the pro-choice crowd. It's simply ending a pregnancy. Since, according to them, the material that's aborted isn't human, it's not murder. At the end of pregnancy, induced labor would result in a live birth.

Pro-choice people, if abortion is about ending a pregnancy (not getting rid of a baby), and the mother has the right to choose to end a pregnancy at her convenience, so long as it doesn't kill someone, why not campaign for allowing near end of term induced labor?

Should women be forced to carry a pregnancy to term, if an induced labor would also result in a live birth? Why limit the right to end a pregnancy to the beginning of pregnancy? Shouldn't she also have the right to end a pregnancy, so long as no one is killed, near full term, at her convenience?
 


Posts: 22 | Posted: 2:43 PM on July 17, 2005 | IP
K8

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Please - just because someone may support a certain act doesn't mean they must support it under all circumstances. What of those who only support abortion if the mother's life/health is threatened? It's perfectly acceptable to support an act AND pose certain restrictions on it also.
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 01:55 AM on July 20, 2005 | IP
celticgreen

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"just because someone may support a certain act doesn't mean they must support it under all circumstances."

But that's the point. Why oppose elective induced labor to end a pregnancy early? It certainly meets all the requirements of abortion in the early stages of pregnancy. No one dies. It's the mother's body, so the mother's choice to be or not to be pregnant? Or to be pregnant for only as long as she chooses, so long as no one dies.

What is the real difference?

"What of those who only support abortion if the mother's life/health is threatened?'


For those who oppose abortion unless the mother's life is in danger, this wouldn't even be a question, as early term abortion isn't. This is a question for those who support elective abortion for any reason the mother chooses.

Why not let her also end a pregnancy a little early?  Isn't it her choice to be pregnant or not. And to end it when she chooses, so long as a viable pre-human isn't killed in the process?

Labor is induced before term for medical reasons all the time, with no harm done to the baby. Why not at the convenience of the mother?  Would a week make any difference? Or two? Heck, 2 weeks early is considered normal. Why not let the mother induce labor then, if it will help her keep her job, gain less weight, go on the family vacation that was planned a full year before, or for whatever reason she chooses?

Isn't it the mother's choice? If the baby isn't killed or hurt, what difference does it make? Why not allow her the same right at the end of pregnancy as she has at the beginning?

The reasons may be exactly the same, and the outcome is the same. No viable pre-human is killed.

Joan
 


Posts: 22 | Posted: 08:53 AM on July 20, 2005 | IP
K8

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I don't think i'm quite understanding your point - what is your opinion of late-term induced labour?
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 02:50 AM on July 21, 2005 | IP
celticgreen

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"I don't think i'm quite understanding your point - what is your opinion of late-term induced labour?"

I think it's a really stupid idea. But I don't see how those who support abortion could have a problem with it. If it's all about the mother's right not to be pregnant, why limit that right to only the beginning of pregnancy, when they say it's not murder, when inducing labor a few days early would result in a healthy baby.

Would abortion rights advocates have a problem with allowing women the right to choose exactly which day to end their pregnancies at the end of term? Would one day be a problem? A few days? A week or two? A month?

Joan
 


Posts: 22 | Posted: 08:49 AM on July 21, 2005 | IP
Cush

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from K8 at 01:55 AM on July 20, 2005 :
Please - just because someone may support a certain act doesn't mean they must support it under all circumstances. What of those who only support abortion if the mother's life/health is threatened? It's perfectly acceptable to support an act AND pose certain restrictions on it also.


2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health.

If that was the only reason that women could have a legal abortion...

There are approximately 46 million abortions conducted each year Worldwide.

46mil x 2.8% = 1,288,000


Wow.  That's still a LOT.


 


Posts: 13 | Posted: 11:26 AM on July 21, 2005 | IP
K8

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I suppose those who support abortion may not necessarily support induced labour because they deal with two different things - abortion is about not having a child, while induced labour results in a child. They seem to be two different issues.
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 02:19 AM on July 25, 2005 | IP
celticgreen

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"- abortion is about not having a child, while induced labour results in a child. They seem to be two different issues.
"

I think, according to the pro-choice side, abortion is about not being pregnant. According to their view, there is no baby involved in an abortion.

Abortion and inducded labor accomplish the same goal - ending a pregnancy early.


 


Posts: 22 | Posted: 11:04 AM on July 25, 2005 | IP
K8

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I've never thought of abortion as being about 'not being pregnant' - it's the child that changes your life, not the pregnancy.

And on another point, i have a feeling that induced labour isn't a priority for women because any woman who has decided to carry a child to full term is more likely to want the safest and most natural birth possible when it comes to the growth and development of the baby. Having a baby two months early will not affect a woman's career, weight, or general happiness in a positive way, so why would they bother?
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 02:01 AM on July 27, 2005 | IP
celticgreen

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I have to disagree, because those arguments could be made for the whole 9 month deal. 9 months - really only the 6 weeks that a woman is out of work - is no different from ending the pregnancy 2 months early.

It's about not wanting to be pregnant any more, and plent of women give their careers as a reason. If a big thing at work is coming up in 8 weeks, and you are due in 4, what, according to the pro-choice stance, is to stop this woman from giving birth 2 weeks early to be back and ready to delve into the new project which will likely result in a big raise or promotion/raise? Why should she not be able to choose when to end her pregnancy? If her career is a good enough reason in the early stages, why isn't it a good enough excuse at the end?

I gained 10 of the 28 lbs I gained in the last two months. - 8 in the last week! It was mostly fluid, and I had a little trouble with heavy feeling legs. I also had to leave work 2 weeks early. Who is to say that all of that isn't too much for another woman? What if she chooses not to gain an extra 8 lbs in the last week? To risk being pulled out earlier than she told her boss? Why can't she plan her delivery - according to the pro-choice stance?

"i have a feeling that induced labour isn't a priority for women because any woman who has decided to carry a child to full term is more likely to want the safest and most natural birth possible when it comes to the growth and development of the baby. '

I agree. It's probably not something most people would agree with. But we all know people who have scheduled c-sections. And they plan those around their family's schedules. Have the baby  earlier in the week (vs Friday), so you can be home on the weekend, when your husband and mother are able to help. Schedule it for after junior's soccer finals, because you can. Schedule it the day before your MIL's b-day party, because you don't really want to go. ;-)

Joan
 


Posts: 22 | Posted: 09:26 AM on July 27, 2005 | IP
K8

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It's not a priority for most women, so no one's really motivated to fight for it.
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 02:07 AM on August 4, 2005 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.