My mistake. I did indeed misread. These all sound like reasonable reason to terminate a pregnancy, and the percentages are about what one would expect.
deletedalmost 6 years
I think you misread; I said >75% of abortions occur BECAUSE the mother is not ready, not the other way around.
In any event, I can't find the source I'm quoting on 75% that I found yesterday. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5957082/ gives (USA): >wants to focus on other children 29% >not financially prepared 40% >interferes with future plans 20% >partner related 31% >too young/parents object 25% >risks to maternal/fetal health: 12% >not the right time for baby 36% >not emotionally prepared 19% >want a better life for baby 12% >not mature enough 7% >influenced by family/friend 5% >don't want baby or to place for adoption 4%
Well here is where I think we DO need to step back as men. It is unimaginable to us what it is to give up a child, something you carried in you for 9 months, and that is a part of you, and you see yourself reflected in you when it looks at you. It is driven into you BIOLOGICALLY to love that child, and to form a strong bond with it even before birth. But raising it is something else: To put that burden on a family member is a lot to ask. And to give that baby up to the state, not knowing if it's going to be given a terrible life is a lot to ask of the mother. There are reasons why you don't come across many women who are carrying a pregnancy to term with the plan to give it up for adoption.
Also, to be honest, I really question where to get the statistic that less than 25% of abortions are due to a woman feeling she isn't ready to have a baby.
deletedalmost 6 years
A child depends on their parents food to survive and grow, as they live in the house of the parents. I don't think the parents have the right to kick kids out of the house because they just dont want them anymore!
deletedalmost 6 years
I keep being reminded of the book "Brave New World" which was assigned to me in school, but I never read. Not really relevant, but I think they grew babies in vats or something?
>75% of abortions occur because the mother feels they're not ready to have a baby and can't support it. Nine months is a lot of work to miss, granted, so I don't know the percentage of abortions that occur because of the missing 9 months off work. But in cases where that's not a critical issue, why not let your baby be adopted instead? Give it to your mother, a nanny, or even a stranger.
Megami people are only forced to carry a baby in 5% of abortion cases. In 95% of cases the woman takes an informed risk, and makes her choice. In 95% of cases no one is forcing anyone to have sex
again, she should be able to make this choice even knowing the consequences of having sex is my point. If a woman decides she does not want a child she should have the right to terminate the pregnancy as it is her body and the fetus is inside her body. It is her choice alone, regardless of what you consider to be morally correct, you cannot force a person to birth something they do not wish to do. Nor is there any contract I as a woman sign that says I herby declare in the event that I fall pregnant during sex I will birth the fetus.
No, but you can have your mother, or a nanny, or even a stranger take care of it. That is a GIGANTIC difference.
There is NO "hey, who wants to go through with the rest of my pregnancy?"
deletedalmost 6 years
You still need to feed it. Can I let my child starve because I'd rather spend my money on my brand new television set than on my child?
deletedalmost 6 years
You're actually right here and I was wrong to say you can't sue the company (I interpreted it wrongly) but after reconsidering, the difference to me is your kidney is entirely a part of you, and a fetus is not.
With one, you do not need a woman's body to host it.
deletedalmost 6 years
Megami people are only forced to carry a baby in 5% of abortion cases. In 95% of cases the woman takes an informed risk, and makes her choice. In 95% of cases no one is forcing anyone to have sex.
I think the concept of viability itself is arbitrary. A 30 day old baby, or even a 3 month old baby will not be able to survive unassisted. I don't really see it as any more fundamentally viable than a fetus.
A cold is not human, and birthing a baby will (usually) not kill you.
A fetus is not a human either, biologically or morally is the whole point.
deletedalmost 6 years
I think what I'm saying is closer to that you can't sue the company that gave you the medication.
deletedalmost 6 years
Fetuses satisfy 1 by 18 weeks, 4 by 28 weeks, and 1,3,5 no idea.
[quote=shayneismyname]& btw, I think you are simplifying when you say that women are only in need of abortions because they were irresponsible. there are many, many circumstances where a woman finds herself pregnant and seeking out an abortion that aren't just "oops i'm so irresponsible. I knew all the right info and still found myself in this mess," such as:.../quote] I've made it as clear as I can that I think non consensual sex is an exception, because I think the negative consequences to the women are severe and long lasting and believe that the woman has a choice to carry a child (usually the choice is made during conception, not the case here).
Health risks to the child or to the mother similarly are cases where abortion is acceptable. But these are minorities (<20%).
A cold is not human, and birthing a baby will (usually) not kill you.
It's not arbitrary at all. That's why people make such a big deal about viability, and why many countries base their abortion laws around it. a 1 week old fetus will *not* become a healthy baby if you remove it from its mother's body, hence the general idea that she should have some say in the matter.
It is exactly like me forcing you to live with bacteria that took host in your body for the rest of your life, oh because it is alive , you cannot terminate the bacteria. you are now forced to be rommies forever.
ok but say I take medication, I know the potential risks of kidney failure etc, so I get kidney failure you are saying the doctors are then not allowed to treat em ? because I took the pill willingly knowing the risks and happen to get kidney failure?
deletedalmost 6 years
30 weeks is arbitrary to me. Is a fetus more of a person after it opens its eyes for the first time than 10 minutes before? To me, a 1 week old fetus that will become a healthy baby is as viable as a 30 week old fetus that will become a healthy baby, which is equal in turn to a 30 day old baby.
I reject this on the basis that in this analogy, you never had a choice. This equates to non consensual sex.
With regards to 95% of abortion cases, people are informed and aware of the risks involved. Knowledge of these risks and doing it anyway makes them accountable for their actions. Make the man get a vasectomy for all I care.
I could understand the risks of taking medication, but again 1 consciousness (of objects and events external and/or internal to the being), and in particular the capacity to feel pain 2reasoning (the developed capacity to solve new and relatively complex problems) 3 self-motivated activity (activity which is relatively independent of either genetic or direct external control) 4 the capacity to communicate, by whatever means, messages of an indefinite variety of types, that is, not just with an indefinite number of possible contents, but on indefinitely many possible topics 5 the presence of self-concepts, and self-awareness, either individual or racial, or both
A person does not have to have each of these, but if something has all five then it definitely is a person whether it is biologically human or not, while if it has none or perhaps only one then it is not a person, again whether it is biologically human or not
In a case where all of these conditions are met, has the woman given implicit consent to give birth to a child?
Notice the following: In the uncontroversial examples of implicit consent, it was generally understood that the activity entailed certain responsibilities. But in the case of unwanted pregnancy, there is widespread disagreement about whether unprotected voluntary sex entails being responsible for the life of a fetus. On the other hand, It could be argued that there being a “general understanding” is not necessary for implicit consent
