Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.

baby's rights versus women's rights..

123457

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Another point I'd like to discuss is the following - I've frequently heard pro-choicers say that some people's (meaning pro-lifers) views on the matter shouldn't be forced upon the rest. I agree with this statement completely, but what I find contradictory is that the act of abortion in itself is doing exactly that: forcing the mother's choice over the child's. If one group of people aren't allowed to force their decisions on another group, then what gives some people the right to force their decisions on unborn babies?

    I realise this may come down in the end to if you consider a feotus as a person, or at least as a holder of a person's rights or not. To me, this is the crux of the debate tbh. I guess I generally do, but since I'm not completely decided on this point, this is the starting point of my confusion I guess.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I find it difficult to know where to stand as one of my best friends had an abortion. I think it is up to the individual personally and in her circumstances it wasn't as if she got pregnant on purpose, some medication she was taking stopped the pill from working.

    I am a complete pacifist even to the point where I would not deliberately harm a plant or insect unless I absolutely have to, so in general I don't think I'd ever have an abortion myself. However, I don't think anybody is in the right to judge somebody's actions unless they have been through exactly the same life experiences and know what's going through that person's head.

    For example, a young woman may be mentally unfit to have children, or financially unable to keep them so in her eyes, it is more compassionate not to bring the child in to the world. Therefor abortion is an act of compassion, not a brutal horrible act of murder as some would have you believe. Then there's the case of drug addicts where the child could be born a coke-head, or there's an issue where it could kill the mother, or where the child would be born in agony.

    I've never had an abortion, but I can't ever imagine that people go to have one and walk out without feeling some amount of guilt, or uncomfortable about it. So I think calling it a 'murder' is disregarding a lot of surrounding factors and the notion that each case is individual. After all, who are we to judge unless we've experienced it ourselves?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    bluewisdom wrote:
    what I find contradictory is that the act of abortion in itself is doing exactly that: forcing the mother's choice over the child's. If one group of people aren't allowed to force their decisions on another group, then what gives some people the right to force their decisions on unborn babies?

    The baby is not an independent life-form until it is born.

    Until then, the mother is boss, and the mother gets to choose.

    It's not a contradictory position for those of us who don't believe that abortion is murder.

    To answer the question, I am pro-choice in general, but if my wife was to have an abortion without telling me or against my wishes it would destroy our marriage.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    \
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    sophia wrote:
    Therefore, I think it's an extension of her body to do with as she chooses, regardless of what other people consider the correct course of action. A foetus lives parasitically off the mother, draining her resources and putting a great physical strain on her; I refuse to see why she should be held hostage to this and forced to continue with it against her will.

    Telling it like it is :thumb:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    The baby is not an independent life-form until it is born.

    And that's the crux of it really. Either you agree with that statement, or you don't
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    \
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fiend_85 wrote:
    And that's the crux of it really. Either you agree with that statement, or you don't

    How can you disagree with the statement ? :chin:

    He said 'independant".
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well, actually, there can be. Or the debate wouldn't exist would it? Plenty of people would say there's more to independence than being able to survive on your own.

    Take a cancer patient away from life-support, and they will certainly die, so is it an independent life-form?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fiend_85 wrote:
    Well, actually, there can be. Or the debate wouldn't exist would it? Plenty of people would say there's more to independence than being able to survive on your own.

    Take a cancer patient away from life-support, and they will certainly die, so is it an independent life-form?

    No. What do you think life-support means ?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    \
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yes, it is different. Consider this an important step though, if you can understand why people view a foetus as an unborn child long before it can actually survive outside the womb, you have at the least grown as a person, this is always the case when you can see the other side's point of view (I realise I'm probably sounding slight patronising, sorry).

    I can be very practical. I may be totally against abortion, but it's not fair to deny it to other women, especially as all that will happen is they'll have it done in a dirty back alley with a rusty coat-hanger, endangering themselves in the process.

    However, it remains to be that what kermit started out with is where the views are divergent. And people genuinely believe that as soon as you have conceived a child, it is real, and separate, even if it needs help to survive, this is mostly religious. But that doesn't make it less valid, plenty of atheists hold the view as well based on their own moral inclinations.

    Essentially, no-one really approves of abortion, it's a not very nice way to have to deal with a situation that should be covered in joy. The difference is whether you agree with the choice, or if you think abortion should be banned.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    \
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    That's fine. I understand that better than you think. At the very least, christians should know better, it's not biblical to expect non-christians to have christian morality. We're told not to measure them by the same standards we're expected (and completely fail over and over again, afterall we are still human) to uphold.

    As far as I'm concerned, the choice makes much more sense. If you don't want an abortion, as you rightly say, don't have one, but it is no-one's place to judge the woman who wants or needs one.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    \
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well, not everyone is as clever as us.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    \
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Sofie wrote:
    and please spell my name right
    Sorry about the misspelling.

    Sofie wrote:
    Never actually answered this question. In general, I am aginst abortion.
    Out of curiosity, why? I can understand not wanting one yourself, but what is it to you if other women have abortions?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru


    Out of curiosity, why? I can understand not wanting one yourself, but what is it to you if other women have abortions?
    because if they see the foetus as a human being with the same rights as anyone else, then theyre not gonna be very happy in the knowledge that people are killing them all the time. Just like it makes no real difference to me if someone kills any other random person i dont know, but im still pretty much anti-mass genocide. People who are completely pro-life see abortion as murder and all the abortions that happen every day as mass genocide pretty much. A lot of people seem to have weird views on it because they just dont like abortion if its a normal baby concieved under normal circumstances, but are fine with the idea of abortion if the pregnancy occured because of rape or because the baby was disabled. I dont get those half-arsed views tbh. If its a baby, its a baby, product of rape or not, whether its got two heads and no legs or not. If you dont see it as a baby with rights, then it doesnt matter what your reasons for abortion are, its all ok, as long as thats what you really want.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's not a fine with, more of an easier to understand thing.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Giving a foetus equal rights to the woman carrying it wouldn't just affect abortion. There have been documented cases where women have endured unwanted medical intervention in order to preserve the foetus against their wishes e.g. a c-section. In one particular case I remember reading about, a woman did not want to deliver triplets by c-section (for her own personal reasons) and wanted to deliver vaginally. The hospital went behind her back in obtaining a court order, the three foetuses became wards of court, and the woman's husband had to be carried away by 4 security guards while the woman was prepped for surgery, screaming in hysterics.

    Then there's monitoring women during their pregnancies to ensure optimum foetal health. Cigarettes, alcohol, chocolate, sugar, too much fat etc.?

    Ain't just limited to abortion, but most of the lifers forget that.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    \
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yeah, I suspect even some pro-choicers would feel the same. But I believe every competent person has the right to refuse medical treatment, even if they're pregnant and it would cause damage/death to the foetus.

    When I was writing my dissertation, my tutor showed me this fantastic quote about how pregnancy turns your body into a public telephone box where strangers feel like they can come in and say whatever they want etc. *wouldn't appreciate unwanted advice during pregnancy* ;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    go_away wrote:
    In one particular case I remember reading about, a woman did not want to deliver triplets by c-section (for her own personal reasons) and wanted to deliver vaginally. The hospital went behind her back in obtaining a court order, the three foetuses became wards of court, and the woman's husband had to be carried away by 4 security guards while the woman was prepped for surgery, screaming in hysterics.
    .
    why didnt she want the C section, and why did the hospital insist on it?
    I take it they were thinking the babies would have died, in which case its tricky, but at the point of labour - blimey, If they dont have rights at that stage, its tricky. I do see what you mean though, but without knowing the full story its hard to comment too much.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    \
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    From what I can remember, it was a US hospital, and the woman was from an African country, where she was soon to fly back to, and having a c-section meant that aftercare would be difficult for her to obtain, and also, her and her husband wanted other children, and they knew that the town they were in, in Africa, they wouldn't have the technology etc on hand to help if a VBAC became complicated, so it was mainly to do with any subsequent children they had.

    I can't remember why the hospital insisted, while deliveries of multiples are difficult, I don't think there was an immediate physical risk like eclampsia that warrented a section. I just find it very uncomfortable reading knowing that the couple didn't even know that the hospital were applying for a court order.

    There was a case a few years ago where a woman in the US was charged with murder for refusing a c-section. Caused uproar, charges were later dropped, but because it was the US, didn't surprise me.

    There's a book by Rachel Roth called 'Making women pay, the hidden cost of foetal rights' and it documents all those cases.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But then I guess I'm a pro-death slutbag with no morals too, because I care more about women than foetuses.

    Wait, we care? I thought it was because we got huge amounts of arousal from being killrrz
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    \
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Do, it's very US orientated, but it covers a lot of stuff, including women's employment, citizenship etc. Also covers cases like Ayesha Madyun's
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    go_away wrote:
    From what I can remember, it was a US hospital, and the woman was from an African country, where she was soon to fly back to, and having a c-section meant that aftercare would be difficult for her to obtain, and also, her and her husband wanted other children, and they knew that the town they were in, in Africa, they wouldn't have the technology etc on hand to help if a VBAC became complicated, so it was mainly to do with any subsequent children they had.

    I can't remember why the hospital insisted, while deliveries of multiples are difficult, I don't think there was an immediate physical risk like eclampsia that warrented a section. I just find it very uncomfortable reading knowing that the couple didn't even know that the hospital were applying for a court order.

    There was a case a few years ago where a woman in the US was charged with murder for refusing a c-section. Caused uproar, charges were later dropped, but because it was the US, didn't surprise me.

    There's a book by Rachel Roth called 'Making women pay, the hidden cost of foetal rights' and it documents all those cases.
    I know what you mean. i heard about the murder case thingy too, and I agree with you there, although I just think its nuts that a woman would deny treatment that would save her childs life, and I think that in that case, morally, it is damn close to murder or at least death by negligence if all evidence would suggest that the baby would have survived otherwise, but i can totally see why that cant be made law. I find it really hard when its pretty much at the point of birth as no, i dont see that the mother has more rights than a newborn baby, and the difference between a 37 week foetus and a newborn baby is only the time it takes to give birth.
    I think that the story about the african couple you mentioned is also dodgy and weird that shes more worried about any subsequent children she may have, than the threee babies she was about to deliver. The story does smack to me of being racist though and they would have been less likely to do that to a white person, but then again, it is America and they seem a lot more anti pregnant women in favour of the baby, than UK people in general.
Sign In or Register to comment.