Q:You DO know that a delivery is much more dangerous to a mother than an abortion, and in her condition she may not have had the strength to do so? The outcome would have been the same, anyway: their child would have died. What's wrong with an abortion then? Everyone medic should know that you should not leave a dying fetus inside of a woman, it is a health risk. As the midwife in the article you quoted says, there were plenty of indicators for a necessary abortion for the survival of the mother.
1) shouldn’t we be working to make delivery much safer rather than priding that abortion is safer than delivery?
2) I still haven’t seen any sources or submissions where anyone got any information. Being that it’s like 4 months after the fact, I’m sure Ireland has had enough time to conduct a thorough investigation about the incident. Surely that will be all over the web.
-JustinQ:jamesisnotpoliticallycorrect tumblr com/post/6021620920/when-a-child-is-aborted Can you explain why this doesn't hold water? Without bringing up God, please. I'm a Christian too, but you can't argue the Bible with people who don't follow it!
Anonymous
Okay, so here’s the text.
When a child is aborted.
That child is not sad.
That child is not angry.
That child is not wondering what kind of life he could of lived.
That child does not think, “Mother, why did you not love me?
That child is not thinking at all.
The only people it immediately affects, are the parents.
It’s their decision, no one else’s.Not the government.
Not yours.
And not your God’s.
The first problem is that the person believes that a right to life is dependent on the sentience of the human or some other acquired characteristic, attributing that one must have emotions or cohesive thought to be considered a person. Apathy, the state of indifference, or the suppression of emotions, is actually diagnosed as a psychological condition. If all those who are suffering from apathy aren’t persons, then people suffering from other mental or psychological illnesses, such as: CADASIL syndrome, depression, Alzheimer’s disease, Chagas’ disease, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, dementia, Korsakoff’s syndrome, excessive vitamin D; hypothyroidism; hyperthyroidism; general fatigue; Huntington’s disease; Pick’s disease; progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP); schizophrenia; schizoid personality disorder; bipolar disorder; Asperger’s Syndrome, and others along with your occasional heroin addict are also not people, since they cannot feel emotion. From the side of cohesive thought, no one can tell what another person is thinking. Brain activity can be measured, but not thought. Brain activity in the unborn usually starts at about 8 weeks, which is 3-4 weeks after the heart starts beating.
The second issue is that this person is saying killing your own child is the decision of the parents and no one should have a say (yes, abortion kills a child). I’m pretty sure this person is calling Casey Anthony a terrible person and deserves to rot in jail. In all honesty, there is no difference between what Casey Anthony did and what people getting abortions are doing.
The third issue is that the person says that it’s not the government’s issue nor choice as to what parents do. Currently, it is the government’s issue because the government subsidizes Planned Parenthood aka America’s largest abortion provider. Also, the government outlaws murder, which means Casey Anthony doesn’t have the ability to kill her child when he becomes an inconvenience to her. However, pregnant women have a supposed “right” to kill their children because the child is an inconvenience.
Clearly this person is an atheist, but God isn’t needed to argue abortion, nor is the Bible. The members of this blog do it all the time. Abortion has never been a “religious only” issue (though I’m almost certain all religions condemn it). Abortion is a systematic killing of humans. That’s what it boils down to and people try to justify it by telling themselves that they are not a person (or even human). Others have done this before against other groups. Nazi Germany redefined “person” to exclude Jews. Because Jews weren’t persons, they were legally and systematically killed “for the good of Germany.” Blacks weren’t legally persons in America. I really don’t need to say much about that. Lastly, Abortion supporters don’t consider the unborn to be persons, legally or philosophically. This justifies the oppression of the unborn.
-Justin
Q:You seem to be missing some steps in what killed her. The cause of the sepsis was the decaying placenta and infections from her open cervix. Had she gotten an abortion the source of the infection would have disappeared, and the treatment would have been much more successful. Or she wouldn't have gotten a sepsis infection at all. if they'd done it quickly. She got it because of the fetus, had the fetus been removed, i.e the source of infection, she would have been okay.
I see no evidence of this. From what I’ve read, the woman had back pains and had routine tests done and was told to go home. An hour later, she rushed back to the hospital. Similar tests were done with similar results. In-depth analysis showed that there was a cervical dilation and the medics said the baby could not be saved. They were to be there for 4-5 hours then could go home (I assume they thought there would be a miscarriage and the entire ordeal would be over in said time), however, she remained in agony for two days. She did wanted to make sure that the baby did live though. She wanted to make sure that medics saved the child first and foremost.
I do not know what the medics did and there is 2 independent, ongoing investigations for this as of right now. However, instead of an abortion, the medics could have tried to deliver the baby, tended to Mrs. Halappavavar and put the baby in an ICU tending to both of them. Instead, they did not. I would blaim this on malpractice rather than denied abortion.
-Justin
P.S. I’d like to know where you got your information. I can’t find that anywhere.
Q:What is your take on the Savita Halappanavar case?
She died from septicemia, or blood poisoning, meaning that doctors did not administer antibiotics in time. I feel the doctors are human and they make mistakes. Perhaps they froze and had no idea what to do in such a situation and I believe they failed to do the duty of attempting to save both lives. However, we won’t know until the independent investigations report their findings. It’s a terrible tragedy that two lives had to be lost, but killing the child would not have done anything to help her because the death was caused by septicemia.
-Justin
P.S. your other 5-part question is sitting here in the ask, but I feel like the question is for Jo, so I’m not going to touch it. Just letting you know.
Q:I honestly think there will always be debate: there is no "right" side. It comes down to morality: is one human's right to their body greater than another's right to live? It's an issue of morality, and the law has already ruled on which right it believes supersedes the other. I know which right you believe takes precedence-but why not work harder to make it more economically feasible to have children (so that they're more wanted) or decrease the rate of unexpected pregnancies? (1/2cont. later)
Anonymous
2/2If anti-abortion could ally with pro-choice when it comes to maternity leave reform, childrens’ & mothers’ welfare, and sex education (comprehensive but opt-outable), then there would be more resources available to make children and pregnancies more wanted and more cared for, thus making abortion less wanted. While I don’t agree, I can understand your value of life over privacy, but why then are you socially conservative in all else? Why is life more important than my body but not your money?
Why is “right” in quotes?
If it comes down to morality, there definitely is a right and wrong side. Morality isn’t relative, it’s objective and the law isn’t the measure of what is moral (see slavery, genocides [the Holocaust Armenian genocide, Rwandan genocide, etc], adultery, “unfair” wages in business, etc) and, though legal, abortion is definitely not moral.
Why don’t we make it more economically feasible to have children, instead of killing them because they are “inconvenient.” Kind of in the same way of it making more sense to lift those in poverty out of poverty rather than killing them because they are a inconvenience.
Unexpected pregnancies come from infidelity and fornication. Eliminate those two and you’ll see a significant drop in unexpected pregnancies and single parents. Culturally accepting products and services that produce the Peltzman effect with sex (condoms, birth control, abortion, etc.) won’t eliminate the very things that create unexpected pregnancies. The “oh, they’re just going to do it anyway, so we’ll give them products and services to ‘protect’ them” is the whole reason this problem exists.
Maternity leave is up to the employer and employee, not the government. If you want reform, consult your employer.
Children and mother’s welfare? We don’t need anymore unfunded liabilities. In fact, we need to cut back on those that we already have.
Sex education needs to include abstinence (which most public schools don’t do) and need to only include diseases, what intercourse is, and the undeniable end to sex, which is pregnancy. Some public schools are including gay sex, oral sex, and random stuff that has nothing to do with what sex-ed should be about. I would prefer if it be left to the parents and yes, opt-out too.
More resources need to be given to pregnant women. There are many crisis pregnancy centers and Catholic institutions designed for exactly this. Telling women what is going to happen during pregnancy, tips, support, love, etc. This is what women need, not abortions.
Without life, you have no privacy. Without life, you have no body. Right to life supersedes all rights for without it, there are no other rights.
Social conservatism is the preservation of traditional values and moral objectivity which include, but are not limited to: Pro-life (anti-abortion, anti-euthanasia, anti-ESCR, anti-eugenics, anti-human enhancement, anti-human cloning, anti-capital punishment), abstinence, school prayers, gun ownership, traditional marriage, fidelity, and some even say gender roles and creationism. I am socially conservative because I agree with essentially all of these things. As you can see, this has nothing to do with my money. Personally, these are the things that I advocate for. I couldn’t care less if you did the opposite of these (except anything that is against pro-life) like don’t own a gun, engage in promiscuity or infidelity, or don’t believe in creationism.
Life supersedes everything, including money. However, if you want be promiscuous, or buy birth control, or whatever else it is that you want to do with what is actually your body and no one else’s (sex, tattoos, piercings, random risky activity), then you are free to do so. Just don’t do it with my money (hinting at publicly funded anything).
-Justin
Q:Oh hi. I noticed you signed a previous ask as "Justin". This leads me to believe you are a cis-gendered male. Which also leads me to believe that you will never die because of pregnancy and should, therefore, allow women the right to control their own bodies. And anything made within them.
Nope. I’m a transsexual. My birth name was Justine but i don’t feel like i’m a girl. I always wanted to be a guy so I changed my name to Justin.
It doesn’t matter your gender or orientation, only women can get pregnant. Stop dragging stupid, unrelated, made-up terms to help your non-existent argument.
Yes, I am a male. I have male sexual organs and I will never know what it’s like to be pregnant or have a period or get punched in the boobs, but none of this matters when it comes to women trying (and succeeding) in killing their own offspring. This isn’t “wrinkly, old, white men trying to control women’s bodies.” This is citizens understanding that the offspring, regardless of the stage of development, is NOT THE WOMAN’S BODY. The offspring has the unalienable right to life, meaning that s/he cannot be killed because of inconvenience or any other ridiculous reason. This is a completely different human being we are talking about with unique DNA, a different brain, heart, and body. I couldn’t possibly care less if a woman decided to eat drink and smoke her life to death or sleep with as many guys as she can in one night, or get tattoos, or get piercings because in this case, this is actually her body.
-Justin
Q:Building off your belief that consent to sex is consent to pregnancy (not my belief, but I find that point interesting). What about the right to withdraw consent? If you have sex, you can withdraw consent during it. If you agree to surgery, you can withdraw consent until you're under anaesthesia. If you're pregnant, why can't you withdraw consent, at least in the first trimester? Even if someone initially consents to something, forcing them after they withdraw consent isn't okay.
Anonymous
Yes, you can withdraw consent from something that you are able to withdraw from and doesn’t obstruct the rights of another. You can withdraw consent from sex. However, withdrawing consent from pregnancy means you have to kill someone, which violates the right to life.
-Justin
Q:So wouldn't forcing someone to do work (be pregnant) against their will be involuntary servitude and therefore a violation of the 13th amendment?
THANKS FOR SHOWING ME AN ARGUMENT I’VE NEVER SEEN. Seriously, you have no idea how happy I am right now :’)
okay. There are a few things wrong with your argument:
1. The biggest problem I see is the alternative. In order to rid herself of this unwanted work, a woman must kill her own child. If a woman decides that her two-year old is too much work, she can’t just kill him/her. In the same way, a woman who decides that her unborn child is too much work should not be able to just kill him/her. Shouldn’t our fundamental right to life come before all other rights? If our right to life doesn’t come before other rights, then your argument makes sense. This brings me to my second point.
2. The right to life supersedes our other rights. Without life, all other rights are meaningless. Think about it for a second. If all rights were equally valuable, then the radical jihadists who were responsible for what happened on 9/11 had just as much a “right” to religious freedom as their victims had a right to life.
It’s important that we acknowledge that at the foundation of all rights is the right to life. This right has precedence over all other rights.
3. 99% of the time, pregnancies are caused by consensual sex. Almost all of the time, the woman has willingly had sex. If a man is playing catch with his son outside and accidentally breaks the neighbor’s window, is he responsible to repair the window? Yes! People are responsible for the results of their actions. In the same way, a woman who has sex is responsible for the result of her actions. This isn’t involuntary servitude, it’s responsibility.
-Jo
Q:What if the woman is raped? She can't have an abortion then. It's hardly her child. She did not consent to it. She can go through 9 months of misery, while carrying a baby that she is forced to have. The stress will be very unhealthy for both her and the child. When she gives birth, it may be as mentally traumatizing as the rape itself. Then she can give the child up to a foster home and hope for the best or deal with seeing her rape daily. Don't say this is an unlikely scenario.
Anonymous
Let’s say that she decided to keep her child. A few months later, she was the proud mother of a healthy little girl. She was so ready to make a new life and forget about the horrible things that had brought her to that point. However, as soon as she saw her daughter for the first time, she was struck by the resemblance between her daughter and the man who had raped her.
She can go through 18 years of misery while caring for her child. The stress will be very unhealthy both for her and her daughter. Every time she sees her, it may be as mentally traumatizing as the rape itself. She could give her daughter up to a foster home and hope for the best or deal with seeing her rapists face daily. Don’t say this is an unlikely scenario.
If she can kill her daughter while she’s still in the womb, why can’t she right when she’s born? Think of the trauma. Think of the pain. Somehow, trauma and pain aren’t enough to justify killing another human being.
Your argument makes a whole lot of sense if the unborn are nothing more than random cells or tissues. This, however, simply isn’t the case. Before we answer the question, “can we kill it?” we should answer the question, “what is it?” When the answer to this second question is a human being, then it’s only obvious that we shouldn’t be able to kill it.
Have a wonderful day, anon :) Btw, keep the questions coming. I love discussing these very important issues that our culture faces.
-Jo
Q:so to prevent abortion, make it harder to get birth control for everyone and not have free healthcare that would take care of the woman during pregnancy? or should women just not have sex unless strictly to procreate?
Anonymous
- best way to prevent abortion - have sex when both people are open to having children when married. Promiscuous, recreational sex leads to unwanted pregnancy. Unwanted pregnancies lead to abortions.
- free healthcare?
- it takes two to tango. Men and women shouldn’t have sex unless they are OPEN TO THE POSSIBILITY of pregnancy and married, not strictly since, you know, that’s what sex does…gets people pregnant.
I’ve probably said this a million times by now. Sex isn’t solely for procreation, but sex and procreation should not be separated.
-Justin
Source: abolishabortion
