Something I realized (abortion)

Author: TheUnderdog

Posts

Total: 36
Topic's author
#1
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,276
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
The most hardcore right wing abortion position is, "legal only with risk to the mother's life".

Every pregnancy is a threat to the mother's life.

Legalize abortion up until the moment of birth.

It's small government and we can't go around treating the zygote equally to the woman.  That's socialist.

Fuck socialism and the free market (including Big Tech) is based.
#2
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 564
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
Do you realise up until birth means you're literally supporting the slaughter of a human baby being technically non-murder?

Like I don't think people grasp this, you are actually murdering a baby in the third trimester by any scientifically valid way of analysing what a human baby is. We arbitrarily and wrongly call day '0' after he/she is born but this is completely incorrect in scientific terms of when that being began properly being formed, it's simply upgrading within the womb to its birth (or slightly before because the opposite of premature birth happens too where he/she's 'downgrading' and leading to stillbirth if you don't get the baby out ASAP).
#3
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 269
Posts: 7,568
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@RationalMadman
Every abortion is murder of a baby.

Even refusing to reproduce means you are murdering a baby that would be alive if you chose to reproduce.
#4
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 336
Posts: 866
3
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
3
4
4
-->
@TheUnderdog
"Every pregnancy is a threat to the mother's life."

How so?


#5
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 336
Posts: 866
3
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
3
4
4
-->
@Best.Korea
Are you genuine or looking for shock value?
You can message me the response if you wish.
#6
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 269
Posts: 7,568
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Mall
I am looking for shock value.
#7
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 336
Posts: 866
3
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
3
4
4
-->
@Best.Korea
Too bad well it may not be too late 

You did say you can argue from both sides.
Topic's author
#8
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,276
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@Mall
"Every pregnancy is a threat to the mother's life."

How so?
Any pregnancy can kill a mother (even if the odds of killing the mother are about .000000001%).  The chance still exists.

If this is too petty for you, then please state a minimum risk of death you would force on the mother in order to protect her baby.
Topic's author
#9
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,276
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@RationalMadman
Do you realise up until birth means you're literally supporting the slaughter of a human baby being technically non-murder?
If the alternative is imposing a chance that the mother dies, then yes.  This applies to every pregnancy.

If you think this is too cruel, then please state a minimum chance of death you would force the mother to endure in order to save her baby.

But if I had to pick between killing a mother (100% certainty) or killing a 2 year old baby (100% certainty), I'm picking the person that won't be a burden to the state for 20 years.

I don't want kids.  I would rather have a 5 year old die than have me die.  If you think that is too psychotic, then you haven't thought it through.

You ask the typical person is they are willing to spend $1/day sponsoring the life of a child, and they would say, "No".

If the typical person is unwilling to spend $1/day on a child, then why should I be willing to spend my life on a child?
#10
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 564
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@TheUnderdog
This last post tells us all we need to know about you as a human being.
Topic's author
#11
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,276
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@RationalMadman
You didn't deny my post.

What is the minimum percentage of risk of maternal death needed to legalize abortion in your view?
#12
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 564
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@TheUnderdog
Idk how you quantify that, I can name the conditions or situations where I'd consider allowing it.

I am confused though. C-sections exist and are excellently done with extremely high success rate these days. Unless she has a condition where the fetus itself is harming her or vice versa, you can let her incubate the fetus in her womb and avoid natural childbirth via c section, very often.

If she has suddenly developed cancer while pregnant, I would support premature birth if possible if the formed baby has let's say more than 14% chance of survival. Id base it on that statistic. If lower based on all past events, towards 10 percent or below chance, I would consider abortion pretty justifiable. Idk the full circumstances in what you are asking.
#13
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,275
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@TheUnderdog
The most hardcore right wing position is.

Fuck the mother.

Not literally.

Though you never know.

People who function at the edge of reason are a tad unpredictable.


Though in the main, abortion is a solution to an unwanted pregnancy rather than about killing babies.

And can be sorted out in the first few weeks after conception, if not the next morning.


Did you no that about 20% of pregnancies abort naturally?

And a woman is born with approximately 2million eggs, of which perhaps 500 will be ovulated, and on average only about 2.4 will be successfully fertilized.

So in the hardcore right wing mind, that's about 1999997.6 potential babies that the bitches murder in a life time.


And what about all those sperm you ejaculate into oblivion?

Estimated to be about 1 billion per month.
#14
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 336
Posts: 866
3
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
3
4
4
-->
@TheUnderdog
How do we know there's a slight chance in every pregnancy?
#15
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Mall
How do we know there's a slight chance in every pregnancy?
this doesn't make sense. It's like saying there is a chance of having an accident when driving a car. Maybe you will, maybe you wont. There is no way to know. That is why there is a chance. Lots of pregnancies have complications. Some of those complications are fatal. There is no way to know who will have them and who won't. 

#16
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,845
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@zedvictor4
And a woman is born with approximately 2million eggs, of which perhaps 500 will be ovulated, and on average only about 2.4 will be successfully fertilized.

So in the hardcore right wing mind, that's about 1999997.6 potential babies that the bitches murder in a life time.
No one can honestly believe that there are more than a hundred people in this world who think gametes have human rights. They think zygotes have human rights.

Why strawman?


#17
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 336
Posts: 866
3
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
3
4
4
-->
@HistoryBuff
Ok this is in a variable sense outside the mother herself, such as anything happening such as somebody coming into the hospital shooting the mother.
But what I was asking was about something specific I may not know about that this individual did know that is a general risk within the pregnancy across the board, do you follow?

Like the general risk across the board for all gun fights is somebody can get shot.

But assuming a mother is healthy, proper childbearing and birth delivering condition, all her vital and medical levels are where they are for delivering, what is the risk other than things outside her?

Going back to the car accident illustration, assuming my car is inspected, in well-functioning order, what is the risk with it itself other than other things outside of it to conflict?

So let us have clarity here. Also, complications in pregnancy would not fit all pregnant women because there are women that are healthy, proper childbearing and birth delivering women. Women expected to have problems are medically advised and diagnosed prior or misdiagnosed. This is why constant routine examinations are crucial the same as with maintenance and inspections on vehicles.


#18
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,275
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Because very few people consider it.


The human condition is, to be selectively moral.


Some people do not consider zygotes, hence we invented abortion.

Some people do not consider other people, hence we invented war and killing equipment.

Some people do not consider other lifeforms, hence will kill them for both amusement and sustenance.


Such is the human condition.
#19
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Mall
But what I was asking was about something specific I may not know about that this individual did know that is a general risk within the pregnancy across the board, do you follow?
there are certainly risk factors that can be known in advance. If the woman has certain diseases or genetic history. This would make some cases more risky than others. But there are things we simply cannot detect or predict. so no pregnancy is ever risk free. 

Going back to the car accident illustration, assuming my car is inspected, in well-functioning order, what is the risk with it itself other than other things outside of it to conflict?
to you, what constitutes a risk? Are you only referring to death? Medical complications of pregnancy that that temporarily or permanently harm a woman are relatively common. Tearing, bleeding, feeling loss, brain chemistry changes that can lead to depression etc. If it is only death you are considering, then on average the risks are low, but certainly not 0. If you are also including all the other forms of harm a pregnancy entails, then it is much higher. 

Also, complications in pregnancy would not fit all pregnant women because there are women that are healthy, proper childbearing and birth delivering women.
if we had perfect knowledge we could predict who would and wouldn't have complications. But we do not have that. A woman who appears perfectly healthy can drop dead without any indication something is wrong before it is too late. There is no way anyone can say that a specific woman has no risk of complications. 

Women expected to have problems are medically advised and diagnosed prior or misdiagnosed.
key word here is expected. Many women are not expected to have complications, but they do.

This is why constant routine examinations are crucial the same as with maintenance and inspections on vehicles.
this is true. This reduces the risk of complications and helps to catch them before they become fatal. But nothing is certain. Many women die from pregnancies. Many more are permanently harmed by the process. 
Topic's author
#20
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,276
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@RationalMadman
I am confused though. C-sections exist and are excellently done with extremely high success rate these days. 
I would imagine cutting open a pregnant women's stomach is going to be a very big threat to her life.  I wouldn't want someone cutting my stomach open.

If lower based on all past events, towards 10 percent or below chance, I would consider abortion pretty justifiable. Idk the full circumstances in what you are asking.
If it's 10%, then that means you would be willing to kill one woman (and her fetus, because death of mother means death for the fetus as well) for every 10 fetuses you save.  If that's your standard, then that is fair, but understand that.  You also would need to punish the woman for aborting if her odds of death are below 10%.


Topic's author
#21
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,276
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@Mall
There is always a chance of death for future events.  There is a chance that I die tomorrow (even if it's slight).

No pregnancy has a 0% chance of death.
#22
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 336
Posts: 866
3
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
3
4
4
-->
@HistoryBuff
"Many women are not expected to have complications, but they do."

That's misdiagnosis like I said.

"But nothing is certain. "

I don't believe no thing is certain. Some things have to be certain which we call facts.

"Many women die from pregnancies."

They die from some reason, not for none.
It either comes from misdiagnosis, unknown diagnosis or against medical advice.

Like I said , we have these examinations for women that are in proper condition. Any woman that has had a complication, something caused it. It didn't just happen. Whether it was picked up or not is another thing. If you're saying there is risk for always missing the proper diagnosis....OK.

But there are women that have successfully delivered and were never at risk themselves not counting external conflicts. I want to drive those distinctions out, no pun intended in regards to what we've been communicating.






#23
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 336
Posts: 866
3
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
3
4
4
-->
@TheUnderdog
A chance of you dying is different from a chance of it being a boy or girl being born when it was already verified.

So you either can verify somebody is in proper child bearing child delivering state or you have not or made an error. 

You can verify if your lungs , kidneys, colon, eyes, etc. are functioning properly with proper tests. 

Granted you'll be alive. That's the only factor that throws out all these other verifications. But the point of these tests is proper function while you're alive because not being alive is obvious what their functions are then.

So when you say "oh I can be dead later, there's the risk in that. Then none of these organs will be live and working likewise with a woman dying before, during, after childbirth. All that's risk".

But my initial question really has nothing to do with the risk of a person's life but the pregnancy itself such as a breach which is not across the board for all pregnancies.

But I got my answer from you. I think you're looking at anything as a risk outside of the pregnancy itself which I'm clear on now. That's what I explained to another individual.
#24
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Mall
"Many women are not expected to have complications, but they do."

That's misdiagnosis like I said.
Not exactly. There certainly are cases where a doctor misdiagnoses and leads to complications escalating. But there are cases where there aren't warning signs to diagnose. You can't diagnose something no one saw. 

"But nothing is certain. "

I don't believe no thing is certain. Some things have to be certain which we call facts.
I mean medically. There is no such thing as certainty in medicine. A doctor can do everything right, and the patient dies. On a different day with a similar patient a doctor could make a mistake and they could be fine. If we had perfect knowledge of people's health and risk factors, we could make perfect decisions. But we do not have that. 

"Many women die from pregnancies."

They die from some reason, not for none.
It either comes from misdiagnosis, unknown diagnosis or against medical advice.
All you seem to have done is confirm that I am right. Lots of women die as a result of pregnancy. 

Any woman that has had a complication, something caused it. It didn't just happen. Whether it was picked up or not is another thing. If you're saying there is risk for always missing the proper diagnosis....OK.
I am saying that there is always risk. Even if you have the best doctor in the world, things could be missed. Complications can arise with no warning signs. Your point seems like it is trying to split hairs by describing why I am right. So I'm not sure what your point is. 

But there are women that have successfully delivered and were never at risk themselves not counting external conflicts.
this is objectively not true. There has never been a pregnancy that was without risk. You cannot say there is no risk because it is not humanly possible to know everything about the woman's health, risk factors etc. Without being god, you cannot say that a pregnancy has no risk. 
Topic's author
#25
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,276
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@Mall
A chance of you dying is different from a chance of it being a boy or girl being born when it was already verified.
The only difference is proportion.

How big does the proportion have to be to justify abortion to save the mother’s life?
#26
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 336
Posts: 866
3
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
3
4
4
-->
@TheUnderdog
That'll apparently be up to the mother and or appropriate party for justification.

Why?

People have different levels or what you call proportions whatever you want it call it for justice.
#27
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 336
Posts: 866
3
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
3
4
4
-->
@HistoryBuff
"But there are cases where there aren't warning signs to diagnose. You can't diagnose something no one saw. "

What was wrong with the healthcare professional or technology that something was missed?

A mother in healthy condition doesn't just go unhealthy without some kind of cause. So healthy mothers in and of themselves don't have an adverse risk with pregnancy. Whether it goes undetected or not or misdiagnosed is another subject .

Back to the question, a strong medical malpractice suit is coming down the pike if an acceptable explanation is not given for signs of a risk going unnoticed. Was it too early to tell? Are there not standard tests for a mother in proper condition? This is why there are ultrasounds , mammograms, medical family history, blood tests.

"A doctor can do everything right, and the patient dies. On a different day with a similar patient a doctor could make a mistake and they could be fine. If we had perfect knowledge of people's health and risk factors, we could make perfect decisions. But we do not have that."

There is a reason and cause for everything and or for all this. I'm just making the point that we know a healthy person does not have any unhealthy factors to cause adverse risks of themselves. I believe the original point from the other individual was that there are risks outside of a healthy individual which I didn't get. That's because healthy ones to themselves don't, so there's no risk across the board for every case as every case doesn't have that risk .


"All you seem to have done is confirm that I am right. Lots of women die as a result of pregnancy. "

I don't think I ever took that position that they don't. You didn't deny my statement of misdiagnosis, unknown diagnosis or against medical advice. My point again is a woman in proper condition. Saying that there could be a risk with her herself or going undetected obviously excludes the proper condition group of women as fact. We're really just talking passed each other. I mean it happens.

"So I'm not sure what your point is. "

I'm just making the point that we know a healthy person does not have any unhealthy factors to cause adverse risks of themselves.

"this is objectively not true. There has never been a pregnancy that was without risk. You cannot say there is no risk because it is not humanly possible to know everything about the woman's health, risk factors etc. Without being god, you cannot say that a pregnancy has no risk. "

A person that has had no complications in the pregnancy would of meant that there was no cause of complications. A person that is truly not at health risk for anything is not at it. Just straightforward as that.
You individuals that go on assuming that there is or will be is just what that is. If a person truly isn't, it isn't there.


Topic's author
#28
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,276
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@Mall
That'll apparently be up to the mother and or appropriate party for justification.
Leaving the decision up to the mother for all pregnancies is pro choice for all pregnancies.
#29
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 336
Posts: 866
3
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
3
4
4
-->
@TheUnderdog
All mothers aren't necessarily pro choice for abortion.

So when we say leave it up to all mothers, a set of those mothers will believe it's justified to die in order for the baby to live or will always choose for the baby to live meaning the only justification.

That's why I say levels of justification are different. Some people will choose either or based on whatever justification they arrive at in their minds while others by default just act upon belief to have(birthing) children without deciding.
Topic's author
#30
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,276
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@Mall
Pro choice doesn't mean pro abortion; it means they want abortion to be legal despite it killing the unborn.

Pro life means you want to ban abortion in order to save the unborn despite the risk to the mother's life because the certainty of fetal death is a bigger concern than the possibility of maternal death.