The abortion debate...

[Mwalimu-G]

SPECIAL SERIES Roe v. Wade and the future of reproductive rights in America

7 persistent claims about abortion, fact-checked
May 6, 20226:31 AM ET
JACLYN DIAZ
KOKO NAKAJIMA
NICK UNDERWOOD

A line of anti-abortion demonstrators watch as abortion rights demonstrators chant in front of an unscalable fence that stands around the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., on Thursday.
Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images

Since the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision ruled that women have a constitutional right to end their pregnancies, proponents and opponents of abortion rights have worked to own the conversation over the issue.
In 2019, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that 629,898 legal induced abortions were reported across the United States.
Lingering claims circulate about abortion, including about the safety of it, who gets abortions and even who supports or opposes access to abortion.
Below, seven popular claims surrounding abortion get fact-checked.

According to the Pew Research Center's polls, 37% of Americans want abortion illegal in all or most cases.
But an even bigger fraction — around 6 in 10 Americans — think abortion should be legal in all or most cases.

Current abortion rates are lower than what they were in 1973 and are now less than half what they were at their peak in the early 1980s, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive health research organization that supports abortion rights.
In 2017, pregnancy rates for females age 24 or below hit their lowest recorded levels, reflecting a long-term decline in pregnancy rates among females 24 or below.
Overall, in 2017, pregnancy rates for females of reproductive age hit their lowest recorded levels, with 87 pregnancies per 1,000 females ages 15 to 44, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

The annual number of deaths related to legal induced abortion has fluctuated from year to year since 1973, according to the CDC.
An analysis of data from 2013 to 2018 showed the national case-fatality rate for legal induced abortion was 0.41 deaths per 100,000 legal induced abortions, lower than in the previous five years.
The World Health Organization said people obtaining unsafe abortions are at a higher risk of death. Annually, 4.7% to 13.2% "of maternal deaths can be attributed to unsafe abortion," the WHO said. In developing regions of the world, there are 220 deaths per 100,000 unsafe abortions.

Trans and nonbinary people have undergone abortions as well.
The Guttmacher Institute estimates in 2017, an estimated 462 to 530 transgender or nonbinary individuals in the U.S. had abortions. That same year, the CDC said, 609,095 total abortions were carried out in the country.
The Abortion Out Loud campaign has collected stories from thousands of people who have had an abortion. Included are stories from trans and nonbinary people who have had an abortion — such as Jae, who spoke their experience.

"Most abortions in 2019 took place early in gestation," according to the CDC. Nearly 93% of abortions were performed at less than 13 weeks' gestation.
Abortion pills, which can typically be used up to 10 weeks into a pregnancy, made up 54% of abortions in 2020. These pills were the primary choice in the U.S. for the first time since the Food and Drug Administration approved the abortion drug mifepristone more than 20 years ago.

State legislatures have been moving to adopt 20-week abortion bans, with abortion opponents claiming fetuses can feel pain at that point. Roughly a third of states have implemented an abortion ban around 20 weeks.
But this contradicts widely accepted medical research from 2005. This study, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, concluded that a fetus is not capable of experiencing pain until somewhere between 29 or 30 weeks.
Researchers wrote that fetal awareness of pain requires "functional thalamocortical connections." Those thalamocortical fibers begin appearing between 23 and 30 weeks' gestational age, but the capacity for pain perception comes later.

The argument against abortion has frequently been based on religion.
Data shows that the majority of people who get an abortion have some sort of religious affiliation, according to the most recent Guttmacher Institute data, from 2014.
The Pew Research Center also shows that attitudes on whether abortion should be legal vary among evangelical Protestants, mainline Protestants and Catholics.

For the full article with graphics...

7 persistent claims about abortion, fact-checked

Several not-quite-right claims have continued to linger about abortion since the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.

www.npr.org

 

[JazzMan]

Abortion is murder, especially for these ladies who sleep around and don't want to deal with the consequences are responsibilities of their decision. It should only be allowed in cases of rape and medical emergencies like ectopic pregnancies. Hawa vinyangarika either wavae condom ama wafunge miguu. Sio lazima wadinywe.

 

[Burner]

Abortion is murder, ... It should only be allowed in cases of rape and medical emergencies like ectopic pregnancies.

These two statements are in diametric opposition to each other. You in one sweep categorised it as murder (which has a very precise legal definition) and then also given exceptions for the same thing.
At what point is it ok for an abortion procedure to be done and not another? Where do you draw the line?
Also, what about instances where contraceptives simply fail?
What about if the pregnancy will not carry to term because of other medical factors e.g genetic issues? Or even if it does go to term the quality of life is sure to be poor?

 

[Mzichi]

These two statements are in diametric opposition to each other. You in one sweep categorised it as murder (which has a very precise legal definition) and then also given exceptions for the same thing.
At what point is it ok for an abortion procedure to be done and not another? Where do you draw the line?
Also, what about instances where contraceptives simply fail?
What about if the pregnancy will not carry to term because of other medical factors e.g genetic issues? Or even if it does go to term the quality of life is sure to be poor?

That abortion is murder is absolutely true...

Otherwise, why should there be a time limitation on when abortions can be legally sought?

Why is it improper to abort an 8 month old baby, but okay a 4 month old baby?

The idea that abortion is a contraceptive option is one of the worst human formulations... worse than slavery.

If we cannot defend those who can't defend themselves, we are a lost people.

Don't argue for the exceptions to justify the norm.

The norm for abortions is that they are contraceptive in nature. Ectopic and rape pregnancy are so fringe, it's dishonest to argue for one to defend the other.

Let's focus on the contraceptive approach to abortion, which is well over 90 p.c of abortion cases.

 

[JazzMan]

These two statements are in diametric opposition to each other. You in one sweep categorised it as murder (which has a very precise legal definition) and then also given exceptions for the same thing.

Abortion is murder, it's literally snuffing out a life. The fact that the life is yet to develop to survive by itself doesn't diminish the fact that it's a life. This life, however, is dependent on the mother and can end up putting the life and well-being of the mother, both physically and psychologically, in jeopardy. An example is an ectopic pregnancy and rape where in the former, it's impossible to get that pregnancy to term and even lead to loss of life for the mother, and in the latter ends up causing psychological distress which could also lead the mother to uncouth solutions to rid herself of the problem.
Also, murder can be defined using different lenses, from legal, medical, social and religious. Also, law is made for man, not the other way round.

At what point is it ok for an abortion procedure to be done and not another? Where do you draw the line?

The reason for conception taking place, and the medical well-being of the mother.

A woman shouldn't lose her life because of an ectopic pregnancy. It's easier to abort than to attempt to sustain that pregnancy. In the case of rape, the mother is affected both physically and psychologically. This can end up causing psychological distress and an unwanted burden.

These other vinyangarikas who have sex for economic purposes should not get a pass simply because they have a vagina.

Also, what about instances where contraceptives simply fail?

Use condoms and their 98% effective rate and learn their safe days if they cannot abstain.

What about if the pregnancy will not carry to term because of other medical factors e.g genetic issues?

This is covered under medical emergencies

Or even if it does go to term the quality of life is sure to be poor?

Define quality of life. Just because a child is likely to develop asthma is no reason to procure an abortion. Congenital blindness also isn't a reason to procure an abortion. That child, though with challenges, can still lead a fulfilling and fruitful life.

 

[Mishale]

pretending that we care so much about the well-being of the unborn child that can't defend themselves just coz they are inside the mother's womb, but don't care what happens to them after they are born is worse than abortion.

remember, PRETENDERS are worse than MURDERERS.


(am always impressed at how, at any one time the world is always at war. whether its Blacks vs Whits, Men vs Women, Straight vs LGBTQ, Christians vs Muslims, Pro-life vs Pro-choice........)

 

[wrongturn]

people should just abstain or use protection or get a vasectomy. Abortion should be for emergencies and not for fun or escaping responsibilities

 

[Mzichi]

pretending that we care so much about the well-being of the unborn child that can't defend themselves just coz they are inside the mother's womb, but don't care what happens to them after they are born is worse than abortion.

remember, PRETENDERS are worse than MURDERERS.


(am always impressed at how, at any one time the world is always at war. whether its Blacks vs Whits, Men vs Women, Straight vs LGBTQ, Christians vs Muslims, Pro-life vs Pro-choice........)

So when we say don't kill street kids, it makes no sense because no one is busy feeding them?

By your logic, we should all accept the murder of street kids and orphans that no one takes care of?

That's warped logic...

Worse than abortion????

Not taking care of children you did not conceive is worse than murdering children you conceived?????

That makes sense how???

 

[It's Me Scumbag]

Y'all here proselytizing coz no one aborted ya asses,right? With all your shortcomings and strengths and craziness.
That alone is a case against abortion. And of course,in extreme cases exceptions exist.

 

[Burner]

Abortion is murder, it's literally snuffing out a life.

The medical definition of abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. Words like "life" "kill" or "murder" are avoided because of the religious, social and cultural meanings they carry. And it is a medical/scientific term that specifically avoids those tones.
The reason it is worded that way is because there is no legal system that sanctions murder (which in itself is legal conclusion of an event of how a death occured. And in most, if not all jurisdictions is unlawful.)
This is why I say your statement is opposition to itself.

Use condoms and their 98% effective rate

That 2% failure rate for a condoms or any other contraceptive is acceptable when its just you having sex 6 times a month. But when its hundreds of millions of people having sex in the span of 1 month, the number of unwanted pregnancies start to add up despite your best and most sincere efforts to avoid them.

Define quality of life. Just because a child is likely to develop asthma is no reason to procure an abortion. Congenital blindness also isn't a reason to procure an abortion.

I mean severe brain and/or body developmental issues. A situation where the fetus is carried to term but the child now is brain damaged or will need palative care from the rest of its life.
Or the fetus begins to develops with signs of medical issues that will get severely worse after they ar born e.g bone cancer.

I dont know if you know of violinist thought experiment argument for the ability to opt for an abortion (copied from Wikipedia):
You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.

So you didnt volunteer for this setup and yet here you are, hooked up to this person and keeping them alive. Or perhaps you did volunteer and now are having second thoughts. The point is, shouldnt you still have the right to refuse to continue with this arrangement despite what will happen to the violinist? should the violinist, the society or the law be able to compel you to keep this person alive?

(Note: yes i know the analogy isnt perfect but is there just draw parallels on choice)

 

[Aviator]

Niggas, do you realize you are incapable of getting pregnant, and by extension, abortion?
You are like a cow-less farmer who nonetheless goes ahead to attend a cattle dip meeting. Discuss more useful stuff, like the determination of stellar parameters through the use of all available Flux Data and Model Spectral Energy Distributions.

 

[Mzichi]

The medical definition of abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. Words like "life" "kill" or "murder" are avoided because of the religious, social and cultural meanings they carry. And it is a medical/scientific term that specifically avoids those tones.
The reason it is worded that way is because there is no legal system that sanctions murder (which in itself is legal conclusion of an event of how a death occured. And in most, if not all jurisdictions is unlawful.)
This is why I say your statement is opposition to itself.


That 2% failure rate for a condoms or any other contraceptive is acceptable when its just you having sex 6 times a month. But when its hundreds of millions of people having sex in the span of 1 month, the number of unwanted pregnancies start to add up despite your best and most sincere efforts to avoid them.


I mean severe brain and/or body developmental issues. A situation where the fetus is carried to term but the child now is brain damaged or will need palative care from the rest of its life.
Or the fetus begins to develops with signs of medical issues that will get severely worse after they ar born e.g bone cancer.

I dont know if you know of violinist thought experiment argument for the ability to opt for an abortion (copied from Wikipedia):
You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.

So you didnt volunteer for this setup and yet here you are, hooked up to this person and keeping them alive. Or perhaps you did volunteer and now are having second thoughts. The point is, shouldnt you still have the right to refuse to continue with this arrangement despite what will happen to the violinist? should the violinist, the society or the law be able to compel you to keep this person alive?

(Note: yes i know the analogy isnt perfect but is there just draw parallels on choice)

So, you say abortion isn't murder because the law and hospitals word it so?

What of slavery, was it okay because the intellectuals and lawyers of the day deemed it right and Blacks were considered genetically inferior?

If someone had said slavery was wrong, would you have considered the statement 'in opposition to itself' because of the law too???

And the violinist experiment is just hypocritical...

Babies rely on their parents for survival for waaaaay longer than 9 months. Or are you of the opinion that the child comes out of the womb able to survive on its own?

By the violinist logic, what keeps a mother from opting out of raising a 2 month old baby?

I mean, if the pregnancy was unwanted, why shouldn't she be able to decide to not breastfeed the child and have it die of starvation?

In the violinist example, this would equate to keeping the violinist alive for 9 months but are still required to keep them alive for two more years, as an example.

Should the fact that you kept them alive for 9 months obligate you to keep them alive for another year?

Do you see how logically incoherent the argument with the violinist example is?

By your logic, why then would it be wrong to terminate an 8 month old pregnancy?

 

[Burner]

So, you say abortion isn't murder because the law and hospitals word it so?

I say abortion should be addressed in its strict terms. The reason it is phrased that is so that there is no bias carried over. When the definition is the termination of a pregnancy, anything and everything that makes a pregnancy stop in those strict terms an abortion.
Do you see the ridiculousness in saying the woman committed murder because she had a miscarriage?
Murder is the unlawful killing of a person. And definition of a "person" is where the issue lies what n it comes to abortion.

What of slavery, was it okay because the intellectuals and lawyers of the day deemed it right and Blacks were considered genetically inferior?

If someone had said slavery was wrong, would you have considered the statement 'in opposition to itself' because of the law too???

This speaks to morality of the issue. At no point have I argued for or against a moral position on the subject.

And the violinist experiment is just hypocritical...

Babies rely on their parents for survival for waaaaay longer than 9 months. Or are you of the opinion that the child comes out of the womb able to survive on its own?

By the violinist logic, what keeps a mother from opting out of raising a 2 month old baby?

I mean, if the pregnancy was unwanted, why shouldn't she be able to decide to not breastfeed the child and have it die of starvation?

In the violinist example, this would equate to keeping the violinist alive for 9 months but are still required to keep them alive for two more years, as an example.

Should the fact that you kept them alive for 9 months obligate you to keep them alive for another year?

Do you see how logically incoherent the argument with the violinist example is?

By your logic, why then would it be wrong to terminate an 8 month old pregnancy?

The violinist analogy is meant to show your how choice and rights can be trampled because of the rights you bestow on another.
The analogy is meant to be taken from the perspective that the foetus/embryo (aka violinist) is at that stage a human life as pro-life side who say. So you are attached this person that you:
Scenario 1: did not agree to be attached to.
Why should you be forced to use your body to sustain them to a point when they can be taken care of by someone else or themselves?

Scenario 2: agreed at first but change your mind
You find the toll taken on your body is excessive. You do not want to be in this position anymore. Arent you justified in changing your mind?

There is no situation that i am aware of in any country where a person can be compelled by the law, society or religion to give up or give use of their body to sustain another's life. E.g No one or no entity can force you to give your blood to a person in surgery...or your kidney to a person in renal failure. You cant even be forced to give bone marrow to your own child if you choose not to.
So what is it about women and their uterus that changes this and allows us to deny them the right to refuse to give up a part of themselves to another entity?

 

[JazzMan]

The medical definition of abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. Words like "life" "kill" or "murder" are avoided because of the religious, social and cultural meanings they carry. And it is a medical/scientific term that specifically avoids those tones.
The reason it is worded that way is because there is no legal system that sanctions murder (which in itself is legal conclusion of an event of how a death occured. And in most, if not all jurisdictions is unlawful.)
This is why I say your statement is opposition to itself.

Unfortunately, this life we live cannot only be defined using medical terms. There are social, financial, psychological, and also physical attributes to conception, pregnancy, and abortion. We cannot just choose to look at one aspect (medical) and eschew the rest. A decision on abortion should strive to look at all spheres, not just the one that suits your intended actions.

Both the English and Legal dictionaries define murder as the unlawful killing of another human being without justification or excuse. The degree of development of that human being is nowhere in the definition as parameters to which murder becomes lawful.

That 2% failure rate for a condoms or any other contraceptive is acceptable when its just you having sex 6 times a month. But when its hundreds of millions of people having sex in the span of 1 month, the number of unwanted pregnancies start to add up despite your best and most sincere efforts to avoid them.

It can also be said because condoms have 2% failure rate doesn't automatically mean that 2% will strike when spread out to a larger demographic. That number is left for extreme cases where the condom is intentionally misused. By using a condom, the people doing so already know they are avoiding disease and even pregnancy, and will want to keep things that way by not misusing that condom.

I mean severe brain and/or body developmental issues. A situation where the fetus is carried to term but the child now is brain damaged or will need palative care from the rest of its life.
Or the fetus begins to develops with signs of medical issues that will get severely worse after they ar born e.g bone cancer.

On this one at least we can agree. In cases of severe developmental issues that will lead to the child and the family having a poor quality of life and have no ability to get medical/palliative care, it is reasonable. However, the degree and definition of severity has to be strict in definition. The bar has to be very high for a condition to be medically declared severe.

I dont know if you know of violinist thought experiment argument for the ability to opt for an abortion (copied from Wikipedia):
You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.

So you didnt volunteer for this setup and yet here you are, hooked up to this person and keeping them alive. Or perhaps you did volunteer and now are having second thoughts. The point is, shouldnt you still have the right to refuse to continue with this arrangement despite what will happen to the violinist? should the violinist, the society or the law be able to compel you to keep this person alive?

That one bolded line has destroyed your own analogy. Most of these women procuring abortions had sex WILLINGLY. They were not kidnapped or raped. They are fully aware of the consequences of sex but still chose to engage in it.

@Mzichi has poked enough holes in this analogy and it completely ignores, overlooks and overwrites the physical, sexual and medical attributes that make man and woman, and also the natural phenomena that are sex and conception. Sex between a man and a woman leads to reproduction. Yes, a woman didn't choose to be a woman at birth, but they still are the gatekeeper to reproduction. If she chooses not to have sex, no conception will take place. They don't get do-overs because they failed to educate themselves, or completely ignored the kind of burden a pregnancy will place on their lives.

Simply because a woman comes from a poor background, yet she willingly had sex, is not an excuse for abortion. She has the choice to say no. However, they now want to pretend that they never knew conception would not happen and want to use abortion as a last resort contraceptive method. In a case where coitus willingly took place, the outcome of the coitus should not now be termed as an inconvenience.

 

[Mzichi]

I say abortion should be addressed in its strict terms. The reason it is phrased that is so that there is no bias carried over. When the definition is the termination of a pregnancy, anything and everything that makes a pregnancy stop in those strict terms an abortion.
Do you see the ridiculousness in saying the woman committed murder because she had a miscarriage?

Do you understand the difference between an abortion and a miscarriage? How do you even conflate the two?

Murder is the unlawful killing of a person. And definition of a "person" is where the issue lies what n it comes to abortion.

Do you see a problem with determining who is a person and who is not? This is the very ideology that fueled EVERY genocide, literally!!!

This speaks to morality of the issue. At no point have I argued for or against a moral position on the subject.

The comparison between slavery and abortion isn't a moral question, it's a logical question. If it's okay to terminate a pregnancy, and it isn't murder, What then was wrong with the enslavement of black people, yet the laws allowed it?

If we deem something right because it's legal, then the murder of kaffirs by the Taliban is right because their laws allow it. Not a moral question, but a question of logical incoherence. Your logic must hold even when pursued to its logical conclusion.

The violinist analogy is meant to show your how choice and rights can be trampled because of the rights you bestow on another.
The analogy is meant to be taken from the perspective that the foetus/embryo (aka violinist) is at that stage a human life as pro-life side who say. So you are attached this person that you:
Scenario 1: did not agree to be attached to.
Why should you be forced to use your body to sustain them to a point when they can be taken care of by someone else or themselves?

Scenario 2: agreed at first but change your mind
You find the toll taken on your body is excessive. You do not want to be in this position anymore. Arent you justified in changing your mind?

You didn't answer my question. Why then would it be wrong for a mother to stop caring for a 2 month old baby? Following your logic, why would that be wrong? If the mother needs to work and hates breastfeeding the infant, why not let it starve and free herself from the burden?

There is no situation that i am aware of in any country where a person can be compelled by the law, society or religion to give up or give use of their body to sustain another's life. E.g No one or no entity can force you to give your blood to a person in surgery...or your kidney to a person in renal failure. You cant even be forced to give bone marrow to your own child if you choose not to.
So what is it about women and their uterus that changes this and allows us to deny them the right to refuse to give up a part of themselves to another entity?

False!!!
You can't abort an 8 month old baby legally can you? Can you abort a 7 month old baby like you can a 3 month old baby legally?

So you see, your argument is predicated on a falsehood

 

[Mzichi]

There is no situation that i am aware of in any country where a person can be compelled by the law, society or religion to give up or give use of their body to sustain another's life. E.g No one or no entity can force you to give your blood to a person in surgery...or your kidney to a person in renal failure. You cant even be forced to give bone marrow to your own child if you choose not to.
So what is it about women and their uterus that changes this and allows us to deny them the right to refuse to give up a part of themselves to another entity?

The factual errors in this statement!!!

Also, have you heard of good Samaritan laws?

And do you understand the special demand placed on relationships?

i.e A parent is obligated by law to take a child to hospital if they are sick. A parent is obligated to feed their child... etc

Heck, in countries like Kenya, a parent is obligated to educate their child!!!!

So, you are obligated to take care of what you conceive... and in some instances, you are obligated by law to help strangers!!!!

 

[Burner]

Unfortunately, this life we live cannot only be defined using medical terms. There are social, financial, psychological, and also physical attributes to conception, pregnancy, and abortion. We cannot just choose to look at one aspect (medical) and eschew the rest. A decision on abortion should strive to look at all spheres

I partially agree with you. Yes, you normal daily life cannot be defined by medical terms, however, the question of abortion directly requires you to look at it from a scientific/medical view alone. Why? because you now enter murky waters of philosophy which no court can make any ruling. You cannot make a ruling based on sphere's of social, cultural or religious attributes in a matter such as these because you are asking the courts to side with a culture or religion and that is a whole tin of worms.

Both the English and Legal dictionaries define murder as the unlawful killing of another human being without justification or excuse. The degree of development of that human being is nowhere in the definition as parameters to which murder becomes lawful.

Then the debate would become when is the embryo a human being? If you say from conception, one would need to show that this embryo is distinct from any other in the animal kingdom. Failure to do so would prevent you from claiming murder.

That number is left for extreme cases where the condom is intentionally misused. By using a condom, the people doing so already know they are avoiding disease and even pregnancy, and will want to keep things that way by not misusing that condom.

This is a reach. But i will grant you the argument and say of that 2%, 1 percent misuse the condom. So 1% use the condom properly and the condom just fails structurally. Assume 1000 ladies having sex of that number, the the 1% percent (10 chics) the condom fails. Of those 10, 2 result in a pregnancy. Are these two justified in getting a condom since it was through no fault of their own having tried to prevent getting paged in the first place?

In cases of severe developmental issues that will lead to the child and the family having a poor quality of life and have no ability to get medical/palliative care, it is reasonable. However, the degree and definition of severity has to be strict in definition. The bar has to be very high for a condition to be medically declared severe.

Why would you invoke strict definitions here but not in the definition of abortion where you would want to take into consideration other factors?
And even if the family is able to afford the medical/pallitive care, is it still not reasonable to get the abortion to prevent any harm or pain in the first place?

That one bolded line has destroyed your own analogy. Most of these women procuring abortions had sex WILLINGLY. They were not kidnapped or raped. They are fully aware of the consequences of sex but still chose to engage in it.

I also added that you can start of willingly and change your mind in that analogy. It does not negate that their right to refusal should be taken away. And in the analogy, the kidnapping part can be completely removed. It is why i noted that it isnt perfect. Assume you are told you must be attached to a person for 9 months to save their life. where and how does your bodily autonomy get overidden to ensure the life of another?

hey don't get do-overs because they failed to educate themselves, or completely ignored the kind of burden a pregnancy will place on their lives.
Simply because a woman comes from a poor background, yet she willingly had sex, is not an excuse for abortion. She has the choice to say no. However, they now want to pretend that they never knew conception would not happen and want to use abortion as a last resort contraceptive method.

this is a complete strawman. There are plenty who are educated, know exactly what burden the pregnancy will bring, they are not necessarily poor, had sex willingly and sometimes unwillingly.

 

[Burner]

Do you understand the difference between an abortion and a miscarriage? How do you even conflate the two?

If you read the medical definition of abortion there is no conflation. It covers both in the umbrella of the definition.

Do you see a problem with determining who is a person and who is not? This is the very ideology that fueled EVERY genocide, literally!!!

I agree. So it is incumbent on those claiming that a 1wk embryo is the same a 1wk old baby and everything inbetween.

The comparison between slavery and abortion isn't a moral question, it's a logical question. If it's okay to terminate a pregnancy, and it isn't murder, What then was wrong with the enslavement of black people, yet the laws allowed it?

The fact that you use works like "okay" and "is it right" speak to permissibility and ethics which are moral issues.

If we deem something right because it's legal, then the murder of kaffirs by the Taliban is right because their laws allow it. Not a moral question, but a question of logical incoherence.

Morality and legality are not necessarily tied. Is it illegal to jay-walk? yes. Is it immoral? I dont think it is. So you are still trying to tie this to morality. Whether the law allows it or not does not speak to the deeds morality.

You didn't answer my question. Why then would it be wrong for a mother to stop caring for a 2 month old baby? Following your logic, why would that be wrong? If the mother needs to work and hates breastfeeding the infant, why not let it starve and free herself from the burden?

The fact that this mother has brought carried the pregnancy to term and is keeping it means she has agreed to take care of this child. She is to care for the child in her custody in the best means she is capable. Why would it be wrong to stop breastfeeding it? because it would cause that baby harm and affect its wellbeing. However, she still has the choice to stop breastfeeding this child and free herself of the burden by relinquishing that child to the state or persons who are willing to take up that charge for her.
So my question is, why should the very same choice not be available to her before the baby is there at all in the first place?

False!!!
You can't abort an 8 month old baby legally can you? Can you abort a 7 month old baby like you can a 3 month old baby legally?
So you see, your argument is predicated on a falsehood

I grant you this point. Let me clarify myself for going forward with any discussion with you and @JazzMan . I do not advocate for any late term abortions when brain function is apparent and pain receptors are developed. For my line of arguement, let me say my term limit would be say 12wks (3 months).

The factual errors in this statement!!!

Also, have you heard of good Samaritan laws?

And do you understand the special demand placed on relationships?

i.e A parent is obligated by law to take a child to hospital if they are sick. A parent is obligated to feed their child... etc

Heck, in countries like Kenya, a parent is obligated to educate their child!!!!

So, you are obligated to take care of what you conceive... and in some instances, you are obligated by law to help strangers!!!!

here it is you who is in error. Good Samaritan laws do not compel this. Infact it is there to protect you from civil suits in your bid to offer assistance to someone in need and you injure them.
Yes as a parent you are obligated to take care of a child, feed, protect, educate them and all that good stuff. But if my child needs a kidney transplant, and I am a match, there is no legal precedent that can be issued forcing me to go to hospital to have it removed and transplanted in my kid. I would like to see any case where a similar thing has occurred.

 

[JazzMan]

I partially agree with you. Yes, you normal daily life cannot be defined by medical terms, however, the question of abortion directly requires you to look at it from a scientific/medical view alone. Why? because you now enter murky waters of philosophy which no court can make any ruling. You cannot make a ruling based on sphere's of social, cultural or religious attributes in a matter such as these because you are asking the courts to side with a culture or religion and that is a whole tin of worms.

As I stated earlier, laws are made for man and not the other way around. These laws we make are informed by the various spheres of life, including philosophy which has a major bearing on jurisprudence in law. You cannot separate law from sociology, psychology, and philosophy. Each has an effect on the other and that's why great lawyers and justices study all. Also, all three are greatly affected by the social, religious, and cultural standing of the society practising it. It's not too long ago that white people had thought of Africans as subhuman and made slavery legal, but was it right?

Shariah law is a valid legal system, yet it is informed entirely by religion, and it affects the culture of Muslims and the subsequent laws they make. Those same laws sort of apply here with the Kadhi's courts. So, yes, Kadhis do make rulings entirely on culture and religion. Remember, one of the sources of Kenyan law is customary law which is entirely informed by tribal social and cultural norms.

Abortion is not only a medical matter. It is also philosophical, psychological, and sociological. Philosophical in the sense of questioning why it is necessary that women who know the consequences of sex would choose to subject themselves to such a process. It is psychological in the sense that how will the process affect the mother, her mental faculties, and the relationships she's engaged in. It's sociological because abortions affect the bearing a society will take and inform how societies will act in the future.

If you look at the US now, abortion is used a tool of hypergamy by women. If a woman hates you mid-pregnancy, they simply abort your child and move on, as if that child is a parasite. Do you think those women are okay afterwards psychologically? Won't the knowledge of the abortion affect her social standing and outlook? What if they are in religious congregations and the word comes out, isn't there going to be backlash further diminishing her social outlook? Would a man, knowing well that woman is likely to abort his baby that he actually wants, going to commit to such a woman?

Then the debate would become when is the embryo a human being? If you say from conception, one would need to show that this embryo is distinct from any other in the animal kingdom. Failure to do so would prevent you from claiming murder.

Just because medicine labels it as an embryo doesn't stop it from having human life. The level of development of that human does not matter.

This is a reach. But i will grant you the argument and say of that 2%, 1 percent misuse the condom. So 1% use the condom properly and the condom just fails structurally. Assume 1000 ladies having sex of that number, the the 1% percent (10 chics) the condom fails. Of those 10, 2 result in a pregnancy. Are these two justified in getting a condom since it was through no fault of their own having tried to prevent getting paged in the first place?

This is why I also included learning safe days, a part of the ovulation cycle where women cannot conceive as part of the contraception process. Ignorance is not a defence.

Why would you invoke strict definitions here but not in the definition of abortion where you would want to take into consideration other factors?
And even if the family is able to afford the medical/pallitive care, is it still not reasonable to get the abortion to prevent any harm or pain in the first place?

Because people have been known to take advantage of loose definitions to commit these heinous acts. Also, I have defined abortion as murder, which is a singular definition. The only exceptions should be in cases where the life of the mother is in peril (ectopic and other naturally occurring or caused by medical emergencies such as accident trauma), did not willingly participate in conception (rape) and the medical/palliative costs of taking care of that child are beyond reason.

I also added that you can start of willingly and change your mind in that analogy. It does not negate that their right to refusal should be taken away. And in the analogy, the kidnapping part can be completely removed. It is why i noted that it isnt perfect. Assume you are told you must be attached to a person for 9 months to save their life. where and how does your bodily autonomy get overidden to ensure the life of another?

Women should realise that life is sacred, it's not something you commit to start but then curtail that life midway because they no longer feel like it. If they don't want a child, they have the option of placing the baby for adoption or giving it up to a children's home. Life is not subject to their indecision and they should take responsibility for their decisions.

By the way, this whole debate on abortion is simply women refusing to be accountable.

this is a complete strawman. There are plenty who are educated, know exactly what burden the pregnancy will bring, they are not necessarily poor, had sex willingly and sometimes unwillingly.

So, they are refusing to be accountable for their decisions

 

[Burner]

As I stated earlier, laws are made for man and not the other way around. These laws we make are informed by the various spheres of life, including philosophy which has a major bearing on jurisprudence in law. You cannot separate law from sociology, psychology, and philosophy. Each has an effect on the other and that's why great lawyers and justices study all. Also, all three are greatly affected by the social, religious, and cultural standing of the society practising it.

Shariah law is a valid legal system, yet it is informed entirely by religion, and it affects the culture of Muslims and the subsequent laws they make. Those same laws sort of apply here with the Kadhi's courts. So, yes, Kadhis do make rulings entirely on culture and religion. Remember, one of the sources of Kenyan law is customary law which is entirely informed by tribal social and cultural norms.

Unless one is in a theocracy, then by all means use whatever religious rules to set your laws. However, if your governing system is not faith based, it would be absurd to use faith as a basis for any legal ruling. I would argue that culture should also not be used in the legal ruling. Because what happens when you have a citizen of that country that doesnt hold those religious or cultural beliefs? have a new precedent on a case by case basis? Culture is fluid and in many respects so is religion. You need something more objectively fair.

Abortion is not only a medical matter. It is also philosophical, psychological, and sociological. Philosophical in the sense of questioning why it is necessary that women who know the consequences of sex would choose to subject themselves to such a process. It is psychological in the sense that how will the process affect the mother, her mental faculties, and the relationships she's engaged in. It's sociological because abortions affect the bearing a society will take and inform how societies will act in the future.

While those aspects do have an impact on the person getting the abortion, isnt it still for them to decide based on those very factors whether they should procure one or not? Remember, the immediate argument isnt whether it's right or wrong. Its why women shouldnt have the right to the procedure? By all means, tell them to consider all these before hand, but ultimately the choice to do so should legally and safely should not be taken away.

Because people have been known to take advantage of loose definitions to commit these heinous acts. Also, I have defined abortion as murder, which is a singular definition. The only exceptions should be in cases where the life of the mother is in peril (ectopic and other naturally occurring or caused by medical emergencies such as accident trauma), did not willingly participate in conception (rape) and the medical/palliative costs of taking care of that child are beyond reason.

I still refute this point. Abortion cannot be murder. If murder is the unlawful killing of a person how can you then unlawfully but lawfully kill a person because they are a product of rape? because that is what you are essentially saying.
And again if you use this definition of murder and what constitutes a person includes a zygote, then use of a contraception would be considered premeditated murder considering the prevented a person from coming into being. If there is a loose definition being made, it is this one of yours.

If you look at the US now, abortion is used a tool of hypergamy by women. If a woman hates you mid-pregnancy, they simply abort your child and move on, as if that child is a parasite. Do you think those women are okay afterwards psychologically? Won't the knowledge of the abortion affect her social standing and outlook? What if they are in religious congregations and the word comes out, isn't there going to be backlash further diminishing her social outlook? Would a man, knowing well that woman is likely to abort his baby that he actually wants, going to commit to such a woman?

I dont know. These things affect people differently on individual basis. In so far as to why you should decide for them based on these particular factors, you shouldnt.

Women should realise that life is sacred,

You would have to define sacred, then demonstrate that it is. Simply stating it does not make it so.

it's not something you commit to start but then curtail that life midway because they no longer feel like it. If they don't want a child, they have the option of placing the baby for adoption or giving it up to a children's home. Life is not subject to their indecision and they should take responsibility for their decisions.
By the way, this whole debate on abortion is simply women refusing to be accountable.

Firstly, you would have to define life.
Secondly, Your blanket statement that they committed to start the life is false start. We have established not everybody agrees or consents to get pregnant.
Third, I would say asking for an abortion is taking responsibility for their actions. This is the very definition of accountability. Forcing someone to go through something they clearly do not want to do is cruel. And lest you forget, those same factors, religious, financial, social, psychological and physical factors also weigh on someone who has to carry a pregnancy they dont want to term.

So, they are refusing to be accountable for their decisions

How? Their decision (assume willingly had consensual sex) resulted in a pregnancy. They are deciding they dont want to be pregnant any more and opt for a procedure to end it. How is that not being accountable for their decision?