Which of the following women/young girls should be "allowed" to have an abortion?

Come on - if abortion is so evil then the answer should be "none of the above" and this is the answer in those countries that do not have a "life and health of the mother" clause in anti-abortion laws. And it is in those countries that have the highest maternal deaths from illegal abortion and medical complications of pregnancy

If however you allow ANY of the above it renders anti-abortion laws a farce. Many countries, my own included, have abortion laws written into the criminal code - laws that carry severe criminal sentences and yet abortion is performed here legally - because of that "health and safety" clause

So, which of the above do not "deserve" to have access to a safe, secure and private abortion?

 

I voted for all of the above........

but with the comment that women don't need any reason to get an abortion....they should never have to justify their reason....and the word allow, which I see you have in quotation marks so I think we're on the same page, should even enter the conversation. ...it's offensive.



That said, you made a very good point.

 

Just trying to get some to think beyond the "ban it now because it is a baby killer" mentality - not sure if they will but one can try

 

In the USA, I strongly suspect the issue of abortion is another hot button issue politicians/corporations use to keep Americans divided. In order to maintain the status quo of "pay to play" in our political circles the nation must remain divided and distracted. Media on both "sides" of the political spectrum play the masses perfectly. The "right" media enrage pro lifers endlessly to keep them hating the "liberals". The "left" media play a similar game with other hot button issues. Meanwhile, nothing really gets done.
I voted "All of the above" and here is why. IF conservatives could make abortion illegal, they would have to attach a penalty of murder/manslaughter for anyone getting an abortion, as well as any abortion provider. Murder of course, a felony would be punishable by life in prison. I sincerely doubt even the most hardcore conservative politician would vote to enact a law making anyone who gets an abortion a murderer, and hence send them to prison for life. Therefore, the issue of abortion is a moot point. It is simply a hot button issue that is used as a dividing factor, NOT as a legitimate attempt at stopping abortions. The "right" needs sensitive issues like this to keep it's base energized. The left on the other hand uses the phrase "war on women" to energize it's base and keep them at war with pro lifers. All the while it is business as usual with politicians doing the bidding of the corporate world at the expense of our country.
United we stand, Divided we fall. Most people will agree as a country, we are falling hard.

 

7. A woman seeking an abortion outside the state-regulated abortion market.

I voted yes to all except 'none of the above', of course.

 

Sadly this is already happening in the USA - a 16 year old crack addict was charged with murder when her baby was stillborn

A distraught woman who attempted suicide whilst pregnant was convicted

And there are many more of NATURAL miscarriages and still births being taken to court

Google up "depraved heart murder"

 

Question : Assuming that abortions were to be paid for by the person getting the abortion, would your #7 not violate the freedom of the people to choose who they use for their medical needs?

- - - Updated - - -

I wonder if a co-joined twin can be charged for taking a drug that effects their joined twin?

 

I don't follow - please explain.

It's their body. They should be able to shoot themselves in the head if they want, or have an unregulated abortion.

 

As far as I am aware (and I could be wrong) the state cannot restrict people from choosing which medical supplier they use ie if I wanted to use a medical supplier outside of the state I live in, the state I do live in cannot stop me from doing so.

Would your #7 not violate that?

Fully agree.

 

Yes and no

The states here regulate the medical suppliers to ensure quality control but I think SP is missing a point

The REAL issue with illegal abortion is the disability caused to the women who survive

Average cost of treatment for Sepsis is between $50 if you are lucky enough that one packet of antibiotics will work to more than $50,000 if ICU is required

Unfortunately more often than not with illegal surgical interventions - ICU is required

 

Yes I understand that the state can regulate medical suppliers, however as far as I am aware they cannot stop you using a medical supplier that is regulated in another state, as long as it meets the regulations.

Not only is the cost of Sepsis higher but also the cost to the taxpayer through increased welfare and care homes .. oh hang on I forgot they don't want to fund that either.

I did a calculation of the increase in funding for care homes should abortion be banned .. it was absolutely huge.

 

Interesting

So far the vote is 9:1 and the person who voted for 'none of the above' does not seem to want to defend their views by posting on this thread

 

one example possibly two are the only cases I would agree the women to be allowed to an abortion
the 14 year old pregnant by the mother boyfriend yes she should be allowed to have an abortion because she wasn't old enough to agree to consensual sex there for she didn't get pregnant by her consent

the Woman with severe mental health if they are severe enough to make it so she isn't capable to give consent for sex then yes she should be allowed to have an abortion

It all hinges on if the person understand sex can lead to pregnancy and if they are at the age and mental capacity to give that consent, because when you give consent for an action you are giving consent for the possible consequences of that action if you are informed of those consequences

 

And the anencephalic? This is where the brain does not develop - when born these poor wee things only usually live a day or two

 

there has been a case of one living for two years

 

You need to brush up on your own laws, for one consenting to sexual intercourse is not consenting to pregnancy especially if you get the person at conception ideology legally accepted, consent to one person for one action cannot be legally seen as proxy consent to another person for another action, furthermore the act of sexual intercourse is not what causes pregnancy, the only entity that can turn a non-pregnant woman into a pregnant one is a fertilized ovum that implants into the uterine wall.

Secondly, no person is expected to suffer prolonged injury due to a risk they have taken.

Thirdly informed consent can be revoked at any time, for any reason, as noted in the legal definition of informed consent - "Consent must be voluntary and patient should have the freedom to revoke the consent." ergo informed consent does not bind a person, it only has "power" to the point where the person, by word or action, explicitly says "no".

The fact that a person may be informed of the risks does not mean -

a) that they cannot alleviate any injury caused by taking that risk
b) The law recognizes in many ways how people can consent to factual, necessary causes of accidents and injuries imposed by other people without consenting to the legal causes of accidents. The "mere fact that one is willing to incur a risk that conduct in a deliberate violent act will be committed", for example, "does not mean one is willing for such conduct to be committed" - Source : W. Page Keeton, Dan B. Dobbs, Robert E. Keeton, and David G. Owen; Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts, 5th Ed, Page 113 What this means is that just because normal consensual sexual intercourse usually precedes pregnancy does not mean that a woman has consented to pregnancy.

 

yes it can if the person is informed that giving consent for one action by one the one you are giving consent to is informed of the consqunce of the action of another
for example I want to sign a lease to rent an apartment from you and in the lease I ask for you to allow my cousin with a dog to come in visit because it is possible he might want to, and you agree. you just gave consent for the action of another by agreeing the action from me . you was informed of the consequences of me signing the lease which is the possible visit from my cousin with a dog and you agreed
so yes you can give consent to one that also gives consent for another if you are informed

wrong again you are not allowed to withdraw consent after the fact a women cant wake up the next morning of consensual sex then remove that consent and scream rape

getting pregnant is a single action which you gave for by accepting the informed consequences for having sex

I will give you an example
you give me consent to punch you in the face twice I say " are you sure the consequence might be I break your nose" you reply "I understand I will accept the risk"
I punch you in the face and the consequence is in fact I do break your nose
now you can withdraw the consent for the second punch but cant after the fact of the first punch and because your nose remains broken caused by the first punch then shot me and claim self defense because your nose remained broken after your attempt to with draw consent

I will give you another example
I ask you if a can ride my dirt bike on your lawn and you agree I then inform you it might tare up your grass you still agree. now I ride on your lawn and you see that it does in deed tare up your grass. yes you can now withdraw consent and tell me to stop but you cant hold me liable for the grass that as already been torn up

 

and there is nothing to stop me withdrawing that consent at any time for any reason .. unless it is part of the contract we both sign .. however if it is part of the contract it is also a known condition, one that has been raised and agreed to, please show where pregnancy is a known agreed condition within consent to sexual intercourse .. unless you can prove that the man or woman have agreed to the condition of pregnancy as part of the consent to sexual intercourse then you have nothing.

There is no after the fact, in case you did not know pregnancy does not occur during sexual intercourse.

Tell me what legal right there is for me not to get my nose fixed after the fact .. the fact of the matter is that there is no legal restriction on me getting my nose fixed, just as there is no legal restriction on a woman getting her womb "fixed" after sexual intercourse .. by your logic me giving you permission to punch me even though I am informed of the risks means I must be denied medical attention should any injury occur and that is absurd.

 

Neither does the fact I gave you consent stop me from repairing my lawn, does it?

 

because it is an a informed accepted risk. sex can lead to pregnancy it is common knowledge there for giving consent for sex you are in fact accepting the risk giving consent for the possible consequences because you are informed of those consequences

we aren't discussing the legal right to abortion we are discussing if giving consent for sex also is giving consent for the possible consequences of having sex if you are informed of those consequences and it doesn't allow you to withdraw consent after the fact there for withdrawing consent for the consequences and it doesn't matter if the consequences happen at a later time
which I have undisputedly proven you do
there for it voids the argument and defense that a women didn't give consent to become pregnant and use that as justification to be allowed to have an abortion

 

that isn't the argument. the argument is does giving consent for sex gives consent for pregnancy
just like giving me consent to ride my dirt bike on your lawn gave consent to the possible consequence of it damaging the grass if I informed you of those consequences

 

Accepting a risk does not mean accepting the injuries incurred from that risk, which I ample showed by citing the legal standard applied - "The "mere fact that one is willing to incur a risk that conduct in a deliberate violent act will be committed", for example, "does not mean one is willing for such conduct to be committed"" - Source : W. Page Keeton, Dan B. Dobbs, Robert E. Keeton, and David G. Owen; Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts, 5th Ed, Page 113" Some, of course, will say that if a woman consents to sexual intercourse with a man, then she has consented to the condition of pregnancy that may be subsequent to sexual intercourse if or when a sperm joins with an ovum and the fertilized ovum then attaches itself to the woman's uterus, thereby triggering the condition of pregnancy in a woman's body. However, the law does not require that people who consent to an action must necessarily consent to conditions that are subsequent to that action. For example, people who consent to sexual intercourse and subsequently contract HIV are not deemed to have consented to contracting HIV. To the contrary, they are free to eradicate HIV from their bodies. Similarly, people who consent to smoke and then find that they have lung cancer in their bodies are not required to consent to lung cancer in their bodies. Much to the contrary, they are free to eradicate the lung cancer.

The right to abortion is very much part of consent, by your logic a person who consents to engage in sexual intercourse also consents to contracting HIV based on the "common knowledge" that sexual intercourse incurs the risk of contracting HIV and before you go down the road of saying HIV is not "a human being" and as such the state has no interest in protecting it, the fact that the fetus is a state-protected entity, or even legally declared to be an unborn human being with the same rights as a born human being, does not give the fetus a right to transform radically a woman's body and liberty, since no born person has such a right. To the contrary, a woman has a right to eradicate the pregnant condition in her body even if she consented to an action--sexual intercourse--that was an action upon which acquiring the condition depended.

 

Just because you ride in a car does not mean you give consent to be in a car accident.

Just as with riding in a car, there are sometimes accidents in relation to sex = accidental pregnancy.

Even if in some warped world you were able to argue that consent to sex was consent to pregnancy. Consent to pregnancy does not entail consent to continuing a pregnancy.

Consent to a "risk" of pregnancy is one thing. Consent to allowing a pregnancy to continue is a completely separate question.

 

the natural intention of driving a car isn't to get in an accident
the natural intention of sex is pregnancy

 

The natural intention in the mind of one wanting to engage in sex is pleasure. When I look at a hot woman and my loins fire up the intent is not "I want to have a baby".

There are cases where one has sex with the intent of pregnancy, but this is not always, nor even generally the case.