Abortion

A child after 22 weeks, and don't click if you don't want to be as disgusted as I currently am. Really, why are we allowing this? There are so many people that would do everything to have a child but they have to use the extremily cynical trade that is the adoption (and organ) industry and all the victims it makes. I am not religious, come from the dutch biblebelt but it never clicked with me. But when something is right it is right and this is so very very wrong.

EDIT: We've been here before and it has been very clearly ruled that pictures of late term abortions are not suitable for this site. Picture removed. BG

That is not a foethes it's a baby.

Might want to warn people a bit more before they click. Can't say I was prepared for that, though I agree it is distressing.

As for abortion, for some time I've been of the opinion that it should be made completely illegal in all cases except for medical necessity. I'm not religious, but I also don't see it as a right of man to decide over whether someone should live or never get the chance. Currently it's too easy an alternative for caution or living with consequences.

A necessity for that to work is, as you mention, that the current shambles which is the adoption system is rebuilt from the ground up. At the very least, the Dutch government doesn't support it as a realistic opportunity as a friend found out first-hand, and I wouldn't be particularly surprised if it isn't a similar situation elsewhere.

Let me make this very clear - posted photographs of aborted foetuses are not permitted, nor links to sites that host such pictures. This is an ongoing debate, and these pictures are available to the interested on many sites for the effort of a google search.

This is a PG rated site. Please feel free to continue the debate, but any breaches of the above advice will draw sanction.

:bow:

EDIT: We've been here before and it has been very clearly ruled that pictures of late term abortions are not suitable for this site. Picture removed. BG

Not with me, sorry.

That's OK. By the way, it would be helpful if you could clear your inbox so that private messages can get to you.

:bow:

What's the big deal anyhow? It's nothing more than an excised tumor- just an unwanted growth in the woman's body that a doctor removed for her. :dizzy2:

Just did a google search for it and didn't find it very disgusting/wrong at all.

To me, alot of the dissection stuff is worse, especially if you're going to med school and have to dissect cadavers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xdeathfire

Just did a google search for it and didn't find it very disgusting/wrong at all.

To me, alot of the dissection stuff is worse, especially if you're going to med school and have to dissect cadavers

---

Cadavers from a Homicide maybe.

I absolutely agree. If people can't see the pictures, they may well go around believing the bodies to be "clumps of cells"

go to www.google.com and cut and paste "abortion 22 weeks"

Well this has shocked me terribly. I heard that there are states where women have to look at their kid before an abortian and I found it cruel but I was completily wrong I never knew it was like this. I was always against it out of principle but that principle was that you buy what you break, but this is a whole lot more and there is absolutily nothing that could ever justify this especially when it is in general little more then a quik solution for being careless. This is so very very wrong I don't know where to begin I am absolutily disgusted.

It's worth pointing out that at 22 weeks you're talking about a five-and-a-half month pregnancy. That's quite late to be getting an abortion, I believe. According to 2008 numbers, only a tiny percentage of medical providers will even consider aborting a 24-week pregnancy.

I'm not taking a position, just injecting some facts.

Yeah, Lemur's right. Ron Paul refused to perform one, ever, as far as I know. At least that's what he said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

go to www.google.com and cut and paste "abortion 22 weeks"

---

To be honest, it's hard to believe that people are doing that to what is essentially a part of them...knowing it's true makes it even more terrible.

I'm generally against abortion - I'm for it only if there's been a rape and the abortion is done ASAP, before the baby has any chance to be a baby (essentially), or if the mother will otherwise almost certainly die.

What is above, however, is just terrible.

EDIT: Honestly, who would take a picture like that anyways?

Who would perform an abortion at 22 weeks?

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Who would perform an abortion at 22 weeks?

CR

---

Obviously someone rather sick. Really, if it was rape, you'd think they would have had it much sooner. I'd rather not assume anything, but either there was a large chance of death to the mother, or the parents, as much as I hate to even think this...well...backed out. :whip:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

EDIT: Honestly, who would take a picture like that anyways?

---

That would be your typical anti-abortion extremist. :2thumbsup: He'd also a make a big poster out of the image, paste it to his van, and then drive around with it. :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Who would perform an abortion at 22 weeks?

CR

---

In which countries is abortion at 22 weeks allowed anyway? :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

In which countries is abortion at 22 weeks allowed anyway? :inquisitive:

---

In the US for example - that's one of the reasons why you have such a strong and vocal anti-abortion movement there.
It's unfortunately an "all-or-nothing" game currently, although (at least from what I gathered here and elsewhere) a not so vocal majority would be quite willing to compromise on legal abortions during the first 8-12 weeks of pregnancy.
A pity that the extremists on both ends of the spectrum are dominating the debate and are apparently able to block a compromise. :shame:

Not here. But it shows pretty well what it could have been. 2 weeks or 22 weeks what is the difference it's taking a life, I wish the 'mothers' a grand time trying to work out what their child could have become.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

2 weeks or 22 weeks what is the difference it's taking a life,

---

If that is the case, I wonder if all those who oppose the abortion of 2 week old cells are also advocating a complete ban of alcohol for women and any smoking in the presence of women who could potentially be in the first weeks of a pregnancy...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

If that is the case, I wonder if all those who oppose the abortion of 2 week old cells are also advocating a complete ban of alcohol for women and any smoking in the presence of women who could potentially be in the first weeks of a pregnancy...

---

Going to be very carefull here but I think there is a difference between being irresponsible and not taking responsibility at all. It are not just cells they are a human in progress and we just don't have the right to not allow it to live, if it is unfit for life it will die anyway and I am a lot harsher there but it should get the chance imho being alive is your most fundamental right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

If that is the case, I wonder if all those who oppose the abortion of 2 week old cells are also advocating a complete ban of alcohol for women and any smoking in the presence of women who could potentially be in the first weeks of a pregnancy...

---

Good point, I agree completely! Taking drugs while pregnant hurts the fetus tens or hundreds of times as much as it does a grown-up. Drinking or taking drugs before the 4th month is very harmful, and drinking more than one glass of wine per week after that is also risky. Better to have a mega-celebration party with getting really drunk AFTER the child is born! But then you're probably drunk/high enough by the joy of having a child anyway :2thumbsup: , no drugs can substitute the real joy and happiness that nature can give. :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Going to be very carefull here but I think there is a difference between being irresponsible and not taking responsibility at all. It are not just cells they are a human in progress and we just don't have the right to not allow it to live, if it is unfit for life it will die anyway and I am a lot harsher there but it should get the chance imho being alive is your most fundamental right.

---

I am aware that we are starting to touch a somewhat fuzzy issue here - but would abortion by binge drinking simply be irresponsible and frowned upon or would it already fall under the "not taking responsibility at all" which should be forbidden by law?

If one seriously considers the abortion of 2 week old human cells to be comparable with the murder of a baby - killing the same cells by negligence should not be acceptable at all (even if you are not aware of the pregnancy - ignorance can hardly be an excuse for killing a human being).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

I am aware that we are starting to touch a somewhat fuzzy issue here - but would abortion by binge drinking simply be irresponsible and frowned upon or would it already fall under the "not taking responsibility at all" which should be forbidden by law?

If one seriously considers the abortion of 2 week old human cells to be comparable with the murder of a baby - killing the same cells by negligence should not be acceptable at all (even if you are not aware of the pregnancy - ignorance can hardly be an excuse for killing a human being).

---

In law it would be the difference between neglectance and criminal intent which we handle differently. It's ultimatily up to from which you define it to be alive, I say from the go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

In law it would be the difference between neglectance and criminal intent which we handle differently. It's ultimatily up to from which you define it to be alive, I say from the go.

---

But what if it is neglectance of a kind where you know the consequences of the neglectance will be death? Is there really any reason to treat that differently from murder? Note that in this case the neglectance also isn't inactivity, but rather a deliberate activity which will lead to this consequence, so you can't apply the principle that inactivity can't be a crime in this case.*

* OT: this principle that inactivity isn't a crime, by the way, doesn't really work as intended unless complemented with the idea that certain actions come with responsibilities and that you accept this responsibility by taking that action. For example, that getting pregnant means you have accepted the responsibility for treating your child well, whereas you have no obligations at all before you accept any responsibilities by own choice in this manner. I.e. the idea of "accepted responsibility", which I think is very sensible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rodion Romanovich

But what if it is neglectance of a kind where you know the consequences of the neglectance will be death? Is there really any reason to treat that differently from murder? Note that in this case the neglectance also isn't inactivity, but rather a deliberate activity which will lead to this consequence, so you can't apply the principle that inactivity can't be a crime in this case.*

* OT: this principle, by the way, doesn't really work as intended unless complemented with the idea that certain actions come with responsibilities, such as getting pregnant meaning you have a responsibility for treating your child well. I.e. the idea of "accepted responsibility", which I think is very sensible.

---

How much of a scumbag a drunk roadkiller may be he didn't have the intention but there is such a thing as criminal neglect and that should apply there. It's pretty bad but it's not -not going to say it-

Its funny isn't it , people say oh but what about rape cases and threats to the mothers health/life .
We don't have abortion over here ...well unless of course its a case of rape or threat to health case...in which case it goes through the courts,and medical hearings , and the courts and the courts ...and the courts and medical hearings again ...just to be sure you know as we wouldn't want any mistakes .
So while we don't have abortions we have a process that makes sure any abortions dealt with under the process are in the much later term than they would be without the ban on abortions .
It really is a no-win situation .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

How much of a scumbag a drunk roadkiller may be he didn't have the intention but there is such a thing as criminal neglect and that should apply there. It's pretty bad but it's not -not going to say it-

---

If he drugged himself drunk and went into a car, he probably knew he would be likely to cause death. But if he was so drunk he didn't know that when stepping into the car, then he knew when getting himself so drunk that this would make him lose his capability of resisting the temptation to step into a car and run somebody over, that doing so would likely cause death.

Of course he can, and should be blamed. Just drugging yourself try try and gain legitimacy for committing a horrendous crime should not be endorsed by society. Do you realize the consequences of giving milder sentences just because the murderer was drunk? That means that anyone wishing to murder someone just gets drunk before committing the crime to get a lower sentence, something which would undermine the entire justice system.

Most funny thing is how you consistently show no understanding of people who suffer their entire life and then turn mad and commit crimes, but have compassion for rich problem-free upper-class people who deliberately deprive them of self-control and commit crimes. Self-control is a precious thing that not all people have, and if those who have it don't realize how great a gift it is, then they don't deserve it, or any understanding either. I'd rather pity someone who has lived on the verge of starvation all life, bullied and never loved by any woman, who commits a murder in a sober state, than a rich bully who gets drunk, steps into a car and runs over an innocent person, and says "oops, you can't really blame me, because I was drunk".

http://home.quicknet.nl/qn/prive/h.d.../ambulance.gif

That is a very fine ambulance you found there. I guess it means I've just lost the discussion and have to admit that you're right, which you of course are because you found the nicest ambulance picture of us both. A very fine ambulance. Perhaps you can find a picture of policecar too?

And it was just for you. Nope, you kinda lost me between abortion and my upper class.

Its probably first time when I completely agree with Fragony.
He is absolutely right. Edition of his post by BG is just ugly.
People who are for abortion can say that its ok, nothing bad happens.
You BG don't allow Fragony on showing how "ok" is it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

How much of a scumbag a drunk roadkiller may be he didn't have the intention but there is such a thing as criminal neglect and that should apply there. It's pretty bad but it's not -not going to say it-

---

Of course there is indeed a difference between criminal neglect and intent.
Nevertheless - there are laws against drunk driving for the specific reason that you are endangering other people's lives in a non-acceptable way when you are driving drunk.
If you believe that 2 weeks old cells should enjoy the same legal (and moral) protection as a newborn baby or a 5-months old foetus, you should consequently advocate that behaviour that poses significantly endangers the further development (or even "life") of these 2 week old cells is legally considered to be similar to drunk driving, i.e. forbidden.

I don't want to insinuate that there aren't people who aren't as strongly against drinking/smoking by or smoking in the presence of women who are (even potentially) pregnant as they are against abortion already during the first weeks - however, my subjective impression is that I hardly hear anybody demanding laws that would protect the unborn from the influence of alcohol and nicotine.

I see your point and I have no argument against that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KrooK

Its probably first time when I completely agree with Fragony.
He is absolutely right. Edition of his post by BG is just ugly.
People who are for abortion can say that its ok, nothing bad happens.
You BG don't allow Fragony on showing how "ok" is it.

---

BG just removed it for being a little bit "too much" for younger viewers of this forum. Anyone who thinks they can take it can type in McGruff's way of viewing the picture - Google.com.

"right-wing extremists" are "crazy and sick" for posting those pictures. What about the people who took pictures of the Holocaust victims? Were they sick? Oh, I forgot that the difference was that those victims were human...

Wait, weren't there a number of people who disagreed that they were fully human? I'm sure that they called those photographers sick, too.

The real difference was that those people were forced to bury the bodies for what they allowed to happen.

Bah. If the fetus/baby/clump of cells/whateva is going to get the sack anyway, I really don't see any good reasons why the time it happens should matter.

Except medical reasons for the womans health though. Abortions become bigger operations the longer you wait, so obviously it's best to encourage people to do it as quickly as possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

"right-wing extremists" are "crazy and sick" for posting those pictures. What about the people who took pictures of the Holocaust victims? Were they sick? Oh, I forgot that the difference was that those victims were human...

Wait, weren't there a number of people who disagreed that they were fully human? I'm sure that they called those photographers sick, too.

The real difference was that those people were forced to bury the bodies for what they allowed to happen.

---

I didn't say that anyone was "crazy or sick" for taking that picture. In a way, I'm glad they did - it would raise awareness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

"right-wing extremists" are "crazy and sick" for posting those pictures. What about the people who took pictures of the Holocaust victims? Were they sick? Oh, I forgot that the difference was that those victims were human...

Wait, weren't there a number of people who disagreed that they were fully human? I'm sure that they called those photographers sick, too.

The real difference was that those people were forced to bury the bodies for what they allowed to happen.

---

Medically speaking, at an early stage the pre-fetus isn't really much more human than a bacteria, since it just like a bacteria has only one cell. It takes about 4 months until you can see the difference between a pig/rat and a human fetus. Yet, you think it's ok to kill pigs for eating and rats because they disgust you, but not a fetus whom you can't distinguish from one of those. As for Holocaust victims, to call people that are obviously human non-human is a completely different matter, and I fail to see what the Holocaust has to do with rape victims wanting to have an abortion of a piece of tissue without feelings. The fetus before 4 months hardly has any feelings, and not much more than simple reflexes at most - like a fish or insect which you wouldn't hesitate to kill. The whole argument about that it can't be aborted because it's too close to human doesn't really apply unless you're a militant vegetarian, which I personally am not - nothing is as great as a tasty, well-fried of BBQed steak :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rodion Romanovich

Medically speaking, at an early stage the pre-fetus isn't really much more human than a bacteria, since it just like a bacteria has only one cell. It takes about 4 months until you can see the difference between a pig/rat and a human fetus. Yet, you think it's ok to kill pigs for eating and rats because they disgust you, but not a fetus whom you can't distinguish from one of those. As for Holocaust victims, to call people that are obviously human non-human is a completely different matter, and I fail to see what the Holocaust has to do with rape victims wanting to have an abortion of a piece of tissue without feelings. The fetus before 4 months hardly has any feelings, and not much more than simple reflexes at most - like a fish or insect which you wouldn't hesitate to kill. The whole argument about that it can't be aborted because it's too close to human doesn't really apply unless you're a militant vegetarian, which I personally am not - nothing is as great as a tasty, well-fried of BBQed steak :2thumbsup:

---

Much more human? This is medical speak; that there are grades and levels of humanity?

Actually, looks aren't the qualifier of what a human is. Genetically it is a human - if it is able to progress, it will eventually look like us. Babies don't look like you or I, but we call them human because it is so glaringly obvious that they are. In fact, they look and act more like monkeys with dwarfism. Does that mean that they are not human?

"Hardly any feelings" - that's a good one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Much more human? This is medical speak; that there are grades and levels of humanity?

Actually, looks aren't the qualifier of what a human is. Genetically it is a human

---

So is a piece of skin cells you rub off from yourself every time you scratch yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rodion Romanovich

So is a piece of skin cells you rub off from yourself every time you scratch yourself.

---

No - it has my genetic code - it is a part of me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

No - it has my genetic code - it is a part of me.

---

Yes, and you're a human, as far as I know

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rodion Romanovich

Yes, and you're a human, as far as I know

---

Right, but that little piece of human "bacteria" has a genetic code distinct from both the mother and the father. Numerous traits are already determined.

Big difference from skin, sperm, egg, hair. It is a Whole person, while the aforementioned tiny body parts are not.

I understand where you are coming from. Laws are already too drawn out and many seem to be unnecessary in defending freedoms of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This, in my opinion is of the utmost importance in realization of those freedoms for everyone as we have all been at that stage of our development.


What the... where is "Enjoy crusading for your perfect moral world." from?

Quote:

---

So is a piece of skin cells you rub off from yourself every time you scratch yourself.

---

What TuffStuff said, that argument is empty.

The problem with this debate is that it always get's polarised. I believe that Frag was appaled by how late the abortion was. At what point does it 'become' human. At what point is it just a bunch of tissue.

The heart begins to beat on the 23rd day after conception right? Wikipedia tells me: a six-week-old human embryo can arch its back and neck. By seven weeks, movement in the arms and legs can be detected by ultrasound. In these early movements, the limbs move together; they begin to move independently by the ninth week as the controlling neurons in the spinal cord develop. At week 11, the fetus can open its mouth and suck its fingers; at week 12, it begins to swallow amniotic fluid.

What characteristics define humanity?

What is the difference between a man in a coma (who is predicted to come out of his coma in 9 months), and a baby (who is predicted to be born in 9 months).


Frankly I find it hard to see a real difference, and those who dare to define a date on which a clump of cells becomes a human are treading dangerous territory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Right, but that little piece of human "bacteria" has a genetic code distinct from both the mother and the father.

---

So has a great deal of skin cells you rub off, because plenty of cells end up getting small mutations anyway. Especially skin cells, that are exposed to a lot of rebuilding and sun UV radiation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Big difference from skin, sperm, egg, hair. It is a Whole person, while the aforementioned tiny body parts are not.

---

Cloning says they can likely be made into a whole person. Given that their DNA is often slightly different from the DNA your single pre-fetus cell had when you were in the womb, that is a new, unique person you just scratched off yourself. Not to mention the monkey you see at the zoo has maybe 99% (or was it 95%, doesn't really matter) identical DNA with yourself, but people still think it's ok to keep the "not enough human" monkeys in cages all life. Again, anti-abortion more or less implies veganism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

What the... where is "Enjoy crusading for your perfect moral world." from?

---

lol, it was posted 10 minutes ago

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rodion Romanovich

lol, it was posted 10 minutes ago

---

By me? where?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myrddraal

What TuffStuff said, that argument is empty.

The problem with this debate is that it always get's polarised. I believe that Frag was appaled by how late the abortion was. At what point does it 'become' human. At what point is it just a bunch of tissue.

---

I don't think we should wait with abortions to the time when the fetus becomes suffiently human, but rather to when it becomes sufficiently alive. And it does become alive at about the time when it becomes capable of thinking and comprehens pain and fear. Seing as the nervous system is developed quite late, it should be no problem doing abortions before then.

Quote:

---

by the ninth week as the controlling neurons in the spinal cord develop

---

That seems like a reasonable maximum date.

Quote:

---

What characteristics define humanity?

---

That is a philosophical question which is a whole topic of itself, which I btw think isn't needed here since it was the notion of being "sufficiently alive" that I chose, not of "sufficiently human".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

By me? where?

---

Check recent posts made by user, in your own profile :balloon2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rodion Romanovich

Check recent posts made by user, in your own profile :balloon2:

---

I can't find it. I don't remember ever posting that - I never use "Crusading" in sentences. Except for right here.

You quoted it, would you mind providing a link? I can't for the life of me find where I posted it in the last 4 days. It's not a point that I'm trying to make, It's just that I don't like not remembering things that I quoted as writing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

Of course there is indeed a difference between criminal neglect and intent.
Nevertheless - there are laws against drunk driving for the specific reason that you are endangering other people's lives in a non-acceptable way when you are driving drunk.
If you believe that 2 weeks old cells should enjoy the same legal (and moral) protection as a newborn baby or a 5-months old foetus, you should consequently advocate that behaviour that poses significantly endangers the further development (or even "life") of these 2 week old cells is legally considered to be similar to drunk driving, i.e. forbidden.

I don't want to insinuate that there aren't people who aren't as strongly against drinking/smoking by or smoking in the presence of women who are (even potentially) pregnant as they are against abortion already during the first weeks - however, my subjective impression is that I hardly hear anybody demanding laws that would protect the unborn from the influence of alcohol and nicotine.

---

How on earth are you trying to compare an unhealthy behavior with a deliberate act? Legislation against pregnant smokers would be to limit an unhealthy behavior. That's different than deliberately killing an unborn baby. You're talking about the government barging into people's homes to make sure they're living an approved lifestyle vs the overt act of killing. You may as well equate a mother smoking around her newborn with one who deliberately drowns her baby in a tub. The argument is a red herring.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

"right-wing extremists" are "crazy and sick" for posting those pictures. What about the people who took pictures of the Holocaust victims? Were they sick? Oh, I forgot that the difference was that those victims were human...

Wait, weren't there a number of people who disagreed that they were fully human? I'm sure that they called those photographers sick, too.

The real difference was that those people were forced to bury the bodies for what they allowed to happen.

---

I merely said who likely made and published those photographs. While there is nothing with taking photographs to aid ones case, forcing these sort of pictures upon the public is perverted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

How on earth are you trying to compare an unhealthy behavior with a deliberate act? Legislation against pregnant smokers would be to limit an unhealthy behavior. That's different than deliberately killing an unborn baby. You're talking about the government barging into people's homes to make sure they're living an approved lifestyle vs the overt act of killing. You may as well equate a mother smoking around her newborn with one who deliberately drowns her baby in a tub. The argument is a red herring.

---

That is very interesting.

From what I gathered in the past you are clearly anti-abortion. So you would consider banning abortion to be OK, but regulating behaviour that is known to significantly increase the chance of miscarriages (i.e. to induce abortions) or cause birth defects is "barging into people's homes".

Now how about the drunken driver example (and that is what I am comparing the smoking/drinking during pregnancy to in terms of "criminal level" - as you would notice if you read my previous posts)?
Should drunk driving be allowed in your opinion? What business of yours or the government's is it if I drive home in my car in a drunken stupor? I am certainly not deliberately trying to kill anybody - sure it's a rather unhealthy behaviour (for me and others) but who are you to barge into my home (or my car) and tell me not to drink and drive?
After all it only increases the chance that I have a crash and kill somebody when I drive around drunk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

That is very interesting.

From what I gathered in the past you are clearly anti-abortion. So you would consider banning abortion to be OK, but regulating behaviour that is known to significantly increase the chance of miscarriages (i.e. to induce abortions) or cause birth defects is "barging into people's homes".

---

Do you favor laws banning mothers from smoking in front of their children? What about laws banning parents from taking their children to McDonalds? Or should we jail parents who let their children become obese? This is what your argument is.

Unless the government is going to raise our children for us, it can't completely regulate unhealthy behavior and irresponsible parenting. Parents have legal guardianship of their children and unless they're abusive or criminally neglectful, there's little for the government to do. There's always going to be bad parents. You seem to be saying that there's no difference between a bad parent and a murderous one. Just because I don't want a mother to be able to legally kill her child it doesn't mean I think it's practical or right for the government to monitor every single thing she exposes her child to. I can't believe that anyone would fail to see the difference here.

Drunken driving is a entirely different kettle of fish. Driving on public roads is a heavily regulated and taxed privilege that is granted by the state. The government sets its own rules and regulations for the licensure of drivers and drivers agree to abide by those rules when they receive a license. While I'm sure you'd find my views on drunken driving interesting, they would bear little relevance to the current topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

I can't find it. I don't remember ever posting that - I never use "Crusading" in sentences. Except for right here.

You quoted it, would you mind providing a link? I can't for the life of me find where I posted it in the last 4 days. It's not a point that I'm trying to make, It's just that I don't like not remembering things that I quoted as writing.

---

damn, I'm very sorry, it was a post by another, with a too similar looking (for my poor eyes) avatar. I apologize most humbly :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Do you favor laws banning mothers from smoking in front of their children?

---

Would I believe that a several week fetus is equivalent to a living human being and should enjoy the same protection of its life, then I would indeed favor laws that ban behaviour that bears a high risk of killing that fetus.

Quote:

---

Drunken driving is a entirely different kettle of fish. Driving on public roads is a heavily regulated and taxed privilege that is granted by the state. The government sets its own rules and regulations for the licensure of drivers and drivers agree to abide by those rules when they receive a license. While I'm sure you'd find my views on drunken driving interesting, they would bear little relevance to the current topic.

---

That's a bit of a circular argument - so banning of drunk driving is OK because driving is regulated anyway? Why exactly do you think that the state has more right to heavily regulate driving and by doing so ensuring the safety of its citizens than it would have to protect the life of the equivalent of a newborn?
Just because the state built the road with your tax money?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

Would I believe that a several week fetus is equivalent to a living human being and should enjoy the same protection of its life, then I would indeed favor laws that ban behaviour that bears a high risk of killing that fetus.

---

Then why don't you favor it after they're born? :rolleyes:

This really isn't a productive line of discussion. I suspect everyone here (perhaps even yourself) can see your comparison isn't valid. Wasting time by continually pointing out that the illegality of murder and the illegality of an unhealthy lifestyle are vastly different isn't doing anything for the original topic. Your original argument, I believe boiled down to "How can you oppose abortion and not support laws banning smoking around women who might possibly be pregnant?" There's no comparison there- at all.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

If that is the case, I wonder if all those who oppose the abortion of 2 week old cells are also advocating a complete ban of alcohol for women and any smoking in the presence of women who could potentially be in the first weeks of a pregnancy...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Then why don't you favor it after they're born? :rolleyes:

---

If it can be shown that that smoking in front of your children poses a significant risk to their lives I would indeed favor it

Quote:

---

This really isn't a productive line of discussion. I suspect everyone here (perhaps even yourself) can see your comparison isn't valid.

---

What do you base this suspicion on?

Quote:

---

Wasting time by continually pointing out that the illegality of murder and the illegality of an unhealthy lifestyle are vastly different isn't doing anything for the original topic. Your original argument, I believe boiled down to "How can you oppose abortion and not support laws banning smoking around women who might possibly be pregnant?" There's no comparison there- at all.

---

Nobody forces you to "waste your time" - it is your decision alone to post or not to post.
If you believe the argument is irrelevant to the original topic I guess we have to agree to disagree
Personally I think that pointing out a certain double-standard between calling for state intervention when a mother consciously decides to abort on one hand, and considering it to be a completely personal (albeit perhaps not so nice) decision and no business of the state if you end your pregnancy by consuming nicotine and or alcohol in higher doses on the other hand, is relevant to the discussion.

At what point exactly does it become OK to value personal lifestyle over the "life" of the fetus?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

At what point exactly does it become OK to value personal lifestyle over the "life" of the fetus?

---

The only time your argument even begins to approach validity is when you totally distort the facts, which you've done increasingly as your argument was attacked. You originally tried to claim that it's hypocritical to oppose abortion and not support a smoking ban- that's the practical extension of your "complete ban of alcohol for women and any smoking in the presence of women who could potentially be in the first weeks of a pregnancy..." and it's utter nonsense- a passing whiff of smoke is insignificant. Later you change the charge to the mother's smoking "significantly increasing" the risk of birth defect or miscarriage. It is significant in a statistical sense, but it's far from a guarantee- most women who smoke during pregnancy do not miscarry or have children with birth defects as a result. The differences between complication rates with mothers who smoke and mothers who don't is small. Further, not smoking is no guarantee of avoiding miscarriage or birth defects. We're talking about a few percentage points difference in the overall risk. Then, in a further attempt to prop up your flagging argument you claim:

Quote:

---

Would I believe that a several week fetus is equivalent to a living human being and should enjoy the same protection of its life, then I would indeed favor laws that ban behaviour that bears a high risk of killing that fetus.

---

That claim is downright fallacious in regards to tobacco or alcohol- you've pretty much abandoned all basis in reality at this point.

Quote:

---

If it can be shown that that smoking in front of your children poses a significant risk to their lives I would indeed favor it

---

I'm sure you're familiar with the studies that suggest second hand smoke increases the risk of cancer, emphysema, or a myriad of other illnesses- much like pregnant mothers who smoke have an increased risk of giving their children birth defects. So, I guess you favor a smoking ban, yes?

Quote:

---

What do you base this suspicion on?

---

The obviousness of the arguments.
Your argument is one of opposing murder means the government must take complete responsibility for regulating all aspects of a person's health. Allowing unhealthy behavior is apparently no different than allowing murder in your mind. I'm not sure where this idea comes from, but most should be able to tell there's a difference.

So it would be okay with you for a mum to be, to have a hot bath and a G&T?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

This really isn't a productive line of discussion. I suspect everyone here (perhaps even yourself) can see your comparison isn't valid.

---

.

Quote:

---

Further, not smoking is no guarantee of avoiding miscarriage or birth defects. We're talking about a few percentage points difference in the overall risk.

---

Which is no argument.

Quote:

---

I'm sure you're familiar with the studies that suggest second hand smoke increases the risk of cancer, emphysema, or a myriad of other illnesses- much like pregnant mothers who smoke have an increased risk of giving their children birth defects. So, I guess you favor a smoking ban, yes?

---

Babies become smokers themselves during the pregnancy if the mother is smoking...this is not about second hand smoking.

Quote:

---

Your argument is one of opposing murder means the government must take complete responsibility for regulating all aspects of a person's health. Allowing unhealthy behavior is apparently no different than allowing murder in your mind. I'm not sure where this idea comes from, but most should be able to tell there's a difference.

---

The goverment should not react if a child is being mistreated in a way that may soon lead to death (in this case...miscarriage)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

.
Babies become smokers themselves during the pregnancy if the mother is smoking...this is not about second hand smoking.

---

How? The smoke can't be going into the lungs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

How? The smoke can't be going into the lungs.

---

The poisonous substance from the cigarettes enters the circulatory system of the baby through the blood of the mother. This is what may lead to miscarriage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

The only time your argument even begins to approach validity is when you totally distort the facts, which you've done increasingly as your argument was attacked.

---

I think he raises one hell of a point, and it's a legal argument he makes not a moral. If you want to classify something as being alive you have to be consistent and apply all human rights and that is a juridical minefield, when there is a miscarriage the whateveryoucallitthere would have to do deal with it as if it could have been a crime, you don't want to do that to someone to someone who just lost her baby, there can be so many reasons the pregnancy failed but if you already classify it as being a human you have no ther choice to treat it like that. It is never a good thing to complicate things. I like what they do in Texas(?), they let the mother see what is growing in her, and they should aid her in giving birth to it and finding the baby a good home.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myrddraal

What characteristics define humanity?

What is the difference between a man in a coma (who is predicted to come out of his coma in 9 months), and a baby (who is predicted to be born in 9 months).


Frankly I find it hard to see a real difference, and those who dare to define a date on which a clump of cells becomes a human are treading dangerous territory.

---

It always get wierd and contradictual.

Living, having working organs, brain activity and unique genetical profile isn't foolproof enough to be human.

Conception is also wierd, as you're giving rights based on that the cells will probably eventually growing into what we all agree to be human, but at the same time you're limiting those rights quite severely when it comes to saving them in very early age (the older they're the more rights they seem to get on this), letting it go more or less naturally (notice that the same lack of medical care for any other age would be considered apalling).

Ser Clergance and Fragony is showing on one example of this. There's much more...

I'm not sure, but the nicotine might get past the placenta.

Also it isn't a few percentage points in increase in miscarriage, its more like 50% higher from smoking, plus lower birth weights (which have a host of associated issues) and higher chances that a smoking mother during and after birth will cause problems like asthma in the child.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

they let the mother see what is growing in her

---

They "let her", or they "force her"?

@Pape: The nicotine is the fun part of the tobacco, there are a lot of other nasties there. And once you carry them in your blood, you're bound to transfer them to the baby when you share bloodstreams.

clearly the answer is we should ban all abortion, but make women who would want an abortion take up smoking (or some other drug if they already smoke). that way, the abortion-hopefuls get a chance at their wish without offending the anti-abortionists (or, consequently, the law).

see, smokers aren't "murdering baby humans" they're just rolling the dice.. if the baby comes to term, well, them's the breaks. better luck next time. we could take bets on the outcome. open the books on this bad boy, the revenues will pay for the medical bills!



i think i'll call this cute little guy "johan"

http://psyberia.ru/img/blastocyst.jpg


come on, johan, daddy needs a new pair of shoes!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

They "let her", or they "force her"?

---

Do you have a problem with that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Do you have a problem with that?

---

If they would just let her; nope. Just the way it should be.

If they force her; yes.

Shouldn't be dragged at their hair in front of the monitor, but if they are psychologically up to it I see no problem, might make them consider less convenient but more humanitarian solutions. Middle road would be not covering the procedure in their insurance if they refuse, after all not all possibility's were exploited so why should the collective pay for their convenient bliss.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Shouldn't be dragged at their hair in front of the monitor, but if they are psychologically up to it I see no problem, might make them consider less convenient but more humanitarian solutions. Middle road would be not covering the procedure in their insurance if they refuse, after all not all possibility's were exploited so why should the collective pay for their convenient bliss.

---

Because the atmosphere of such a thing might create an unnecessary trauma for the woman, especially if her psyke is not that strong in the first place(which may not be discovered by the doctors). If she wants to, then by all means, she should of course be able to, but I see no reason to play with peoples minds.

Unless, of course, the idea is to screw up those who take abortions to serve as examples to others.... But that reminds us of a world we don't really want to live in, doesn't it?

Quote:

---

i think i'll call this cute little guy "johan"

---

What was that? :inquisitive: You're misinformed if you think these invisible clumps of cells are what pops out after most abortions.

Again, we polarise the debate, it's either a clump of cells, or a born baby. It's stage of development is pushed out of view by arguments like this.



Thanks for your reply Ironside.

Quote:

---

Living, having working organs, brain activity and unique genetical profile isn't foolproof enough to be human.

---

The danger is that if you expect more for a human to be considered alive, then you must apply those criteria evenly.

What is the difference between the man in the coma and the mostly developed featus? If anything, the mostly developed featus shows more nervous activity. So why not kill off the man in the coma?

The reason we don't kill him is because we respect his opportunity to have a life after the coma. If he has a chance of getting out of his coma, he has the potential for life, and we respect that.

When it comes to an unborn baby, we don't apply the same standards. It's not enough to have the potential for life any more, you have to have something more than that.


This is difficult for me to morally accept.

Quote:

---

Conception is also wierd, as you're giving rights based on that the cells will probably eventually growing into what we all agree to be human, but at the same time you're limiting those rights quite severely when it comes to saving them in very early age (the older they're the more rights they seem to get on this), letting it go more or less naturally (notice that the same lack of medical care for any other age would be considered apalling).

---

Actually as you get older it is often the case that you effectively have less of a right to healthcare. If you're very old and ill, they often consider treating you as an extension of your life (rather than saving it). Often old people with serious illnesses will stop receiving treatment and will be 'allowed to die', often with the consent of the family. At what point is it still worth treating someone, if their old age and health will probably have them back in hospital tomorrow.

When you're in the prime of your life however, people will go to huge lengths to save you from serious injury or illness.

When you're in the womb, you are much more fragile, and it's much more difficult to predict what might cause a miscarriage (and hence very difficult to prevent). I don't think it's a lack of respect for the unborn child that makes the treatment more limited, but rather an actual limitation on what can be done. I'm sure most women who've had a miscarriage would shift heaven and earth to avoid it, but they also probably didn't see it coming.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myrddraal

The danger is that if you expect more for a human to be considered alive, then you must apply those criteria evenly.

---

An example Man "pregnant" with own twin. TBH your "potential" to life is actually the best argument I've heard to why you cannot treat the twin as an alive human.
You could of course within a few years clone the twin and make the twin have the same potential as anybody else, as the genetical code is most likely to be functional.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myrddraal

What is the difference between the man in the coma and the mostly developed featus? If anything, the mostly developed featus shows more nervous activity. So why not kill off the man in the coma?

The reason we don't kill him is because we respect his opportunity to have a life after the coma. If he has a chance of getting out of his coma, he has the potential for life, and we respect that.

When it comes to an unborn baby, we don't apply the same standards. It's not enough to have the potential for life any more, you have to have something more than that.

This is difficult for me to morally accept.

---

The problem with "potential" is that it's a relative concept. At what point does this potential for life start to become absurd to keep up? see above for one example.

And that is the problem, that's a huge area of grey that every time you draw a line you'll get examples of where it should be on the other side of the line.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myrddraal

Actually as you get older it is often the case that you effectively have less of a right to healthcare. If you're very old and ill, they often consider treating you as an extension of your life (rather than saving it). Often old people with serious illnesses will stop receiving treatment and will be 'allowed to die', often with the consent of the family. At what point is it still worth treating someone, if their old age and health will probably have them back in hospital tomorrow.

When you're in the prime of your life however, people will go to huge lengths to save you from serious injury or illness.

---

So due to practical reasons when people are old (aka thier "potential" is low) it's ok to not try to save them. If a foetus (or a child for that matter) has genetical defects (aka thier "potential" is low), is it then ok to not try to save them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myrddraal

When you're in the womb, you are much more fragile, and it's much more difficult to predict what might cause a miscarriage (and hence very difficult to prevent). I don't think it's a lack of respect for the unborn child that makes the treatment more limited, but rather an actual limitation on what can be done. I'm sure most women who've had a miscarriage would shift heaven and earth to avoid it, but they also probably didn't see it coming.

---

Shades of grey as usual. As mentioned smoking is appearently ok to do while smoking, but not recommendable due to the increased risks. To get back on the abortion debate, before it was legal it existed several products with somewhat practical applications, but when used durnig pregnacy had a high risk of creating a miscarriage.
It wouldn't surprice if it's exist products with the same purpose today. Should they be legal? Should they be illegal to use while pregnant? If no, you're de facto allowing private abortions, if yes, you then need to decide on what level this increased risk should be allowed to and either accept that there's gonna be a lot of women peforming this borderline activity and/or have a massive control apparatus that controls that women don't perform these things while pregnant. De facto a grey area.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myrddraal

What was that? :inquisitive:

---

it's a human blastocyst, in utero.

Quote:

---

You're misinformed if you think these invisible clumps of cells are what pops out after most abortions.

---

depends on when the abortion is performed.

Quote:

---

Again, we polarise the debate, it's either a clump of cells, or a born baby. It's stage of development is pushed out of view by arguments like this.

---

the problem here is we have some people who generally want to entirely ban the procedure, thus polarizing the debate a priori.

some people will never abide abortion of any "stage of development" of little johan there, and some people (far fewer, i imagine) will never abide the infringement of a woman's right of determination over her own body. we have to ignore these people if consensus is possible.

now, philosophically speaking, people get tangled up in discussions of what is "human" and what is "alive". but this imprecise language muddles the issue. human fetuses are obviously alive and human, but they are not obviously persons, and that is the issue. legal rights are extended to persons, not clumps of human cells. my severed finger is human and alive (for some time at least), but no one is going to give it the right to vote.

this "potential for personhood" idea is unconvincing. i can't worry about the infinite future, and what possible persons may never be because of my actions. moreover, i can't see what continuity would allow one to equate the identity of a fetus with the identity of persons. it's a fallacious equivalence. i deny that early stages even possess a personal identity, being 'clumps of cells' such as they are.

in addition, a potential-personist should be against any form of contraception, logically speaking, unless the human zygote is magically imbued with some special significance by virtue of having a complete genome (like my severed finger). so unless these same people that want to ban the 'murder of potential people' also want to ban condoms, they are being hypocritical.

i consider the notion that the early stage 'clump of human cells' can be a person to be absurd. but later stage fetuses i think certainly have an argument. but even if we consider the fetus to be a person at some point in development (as almost everyone does), we still have a unique situation on our hands. we have one person literally living inside of and off of another person's body. one of those people is entirely dependent on the other.

there are a couple of interesting thought experiments that illustrate these ideas. i'll try to reproduce them from memory:

1) let's say you wake up one day and find that in the night, someone has hooked up a man without kidneys to your kidney's. effectively, you have become a human dialysis machine. you don't know this person, they are fully awake and conscious, but they have no knowledge of how or why they were hooked up to you. you can easily detach him from your body, but doing so would kill him. do you have an obligation to remain attached to him, preserving his life for the rest of your life? what if it's only a 9-month dialysis, after which he can be detached safely? what if he wasn't awake and conscious, but in a coma?

2) let's say an alien descends from the sky one day and tells you that he's opening a new planet, just a few galaxies over. it's going to be a nice, lush tropical planet full of ewoks and chocolate. but, he's looking for one more ingredient, you. he needs millions of you to make the planet's ecosystem complete. all he needs from you is your consent, and he can painlessly and instantly clone you a million times over and be on his way. there are millions of potential people waiting for you to just say, "okay". do you have any kind of duty to say yes? what does potential personhood really count for anyway?

the obvious retorts to these arguments are something like:

1) women consent to support the pregnancy by virtue of consenting to sex in the first place. therefor, the dialysis analogy does not hold.

2) the potential of a fertilized ovum is different from the potential of a cloned human, because it's either activated in some sense, or more 'natural'.


no matter how you fall on that though, clearly the idea of potential is complicated and doesn't resolve the issue at all, imo.





what we are left with is a balancing of a woman's rights to freedom and self-determination against the right to potential personhood, at least until the fetus is viable outside of the woman's body. how you weigh those two things determines where you are in the debate. imo, potential personhood doesn't count for much. and i think abortion up to the point (roughly) at which the fetus could exist independently of the mother's body should be permissible (whenever that may be.. end of first trimester? end of second? anyone know?).

what are the statistics on abortions anyway? do most of them occur during or after the first trimester?

Sorry Big John, you have a lot of words there but you didn't say much...

Quote:

---

but they are not obviously persons

---

Your entire argument hinges on that assumption that you state as "obvious"- many would disagree. Take that away, and pretty much everything else you've written has no weight.

I will take the time to knock down one of the flimsier arguments that I see again and again in these threads:

Quote:

---

in addition, a potential-personist should be against any form of contraception, logically speaking, unless the human zygote is magically imbued with some special significance by virtue of having a complete genome (like my severed finger). so unless these same people that want to ban the 'murder of potential people' also want to ban condoms, they are being hypocritical.

---

A sperm or an egg will never grow into anything on their own- much like your severed finger. When combined they are indeed "magically imbued" (it's actually scientific, but if you prefer to think it magic I wont stop you) with the ability to grow into adulthood.

Quote:

---

1) let's say you wake up one day and find that in the night, someone has hooked up a man without kidneys to your kidney's. effectively, you have become a human dialysis machine. you don't know this person, they are fully awake and conscious, but they have no knowledge of how or why they were hooked up to you. you can easily detach him from your body, but doing so would kill him. do you have an obligation to remain attached to him, preserving his life for the rest of your life? what if it's only a 9-month dialysis, after which he can be detached safely? what if he wasn't awake and conscious, but in a coma?

---

Add to this that the comatose person had no say in being attached to you and it might turn into an interesting debate about abortion as a result of rape. However, the huge majority of abortions are from consensual sex.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Sorry Big John, you have a lot of words there but you didn't say much...

---

something is better than nothing.

Quote:

---

Your entire argument hinges on that assumption that you state as "obvious"- many would disagree. Take that away, and pretty much everything else you've written has no weight.

---

i said "not obviously persons", i.e. it is not obvious whether fetuses are persons or not. can't say i'm surprised you chose to read your own meaning into it, though.

Quote:

---

I will take the time to knock down one of the flimsier arguments that I see again and again in these threads:A sperm or an egg will never grow into anything on their own- much like your severed finger. When combined they are indeed "magically imbued" (it's actually scientific, but if you prefer to think it magic I wont stop you) with the ability to grow into adulthood.

---

a fertilized egg won't grow into anything on it's own either. don't believe me? take the fertilized egg out of the woman and drop it on the ground. let's see how often it grows up into a construction worker.

Quote:

---

Add to this that the comatose person had no say in being attached to you and it might turn into an interesting debate about abortion as a result of rape. However, the huge majority of abortions are from consensual sex.

---

i already noted this criticism to the dialysis analogy, try reading a whole post before jerking both your knees.

myself, i don't think that a woman deciding to have sex automatically means she can't decide later that she doesn't want to devote the next 9 months of her life to the blastula mitosizing in her uterus.


as i said, the question boils down to, at what point does the right to potential personhood of the embryo overtake the rights of self-determination and freedom of a woman? at birth? when the fetus could survive independently? first trimester? conception? and why?

why not actually address the real issue instead of creating strawmen? something is better than nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big_John

myself, i don't think that a woman deciding to have sex automatically means she can't decide later that she doesn't want to devote the next 9 months of her life to the blastula mitosizing in her uterus.

---

If you have consensual sex, you are accepting the risks of such behaviour freely, including a possible pregnancy. If you are not prepared for that, use birth control. If there is still a pregnancy, it is your responsibility as a result of having considered the benefits of having sex. The baby should not be an inconvenience to be thrown aside after consensual sex, it should be nurtured and cared for as if it were planned.

I will attempt to create an analogy. If I asked my father to help me paint my house, and he broke a bone in the process (the "inconvenience"), I would be obliged to care for him until he recovered. Not the best analogy, but you can see my point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

If you have consensual sex, you are accepting the risks of such behaviour freely, including a possible pregnancy. If you are not prepared for that, use birth control. If there is still a pregnancy, it is your responsibility as a result of having considered the benefits of having sex. The baby should not be an inconvenience to be thrown aside after consensual sex, it should be nurtured and cared for as if it were planned.

---

what baby? we're talking about embryos.

and what if the couple does use birth control, but it fails. is abortion OK in that case?

Quote:

---

I will attempt to create an analogy. If I asked my father to help me paint my house, and he broke a bone in the process (the "inconvenience"), I would be obliged to care for him until he recovered. Not the best analogy, but you can see my point.

---

no, i really can't. again, i've already noted the consent counter-argument. but why does consent at one point automatically mean inability to change one's mind? what if the woman consented under the belief that the father would help support the future child, and then the dude dies?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big_John

and what if the couple does use birth control, but it fails. is abortion OK in that case?

---

No. The point is that you willingly took the risk. I have no problem with an abortion after a proven rape. However, if you take the risk, you accept the potential outcomes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

No. The point is that you willingly took the risk. I have no problem with an abortion after a proven rape. However, if you take the risk, you accept the potential outcomes.

---

but why does consent to the risk in the past automatically overrule free choice in the future?

The debate on abortion hinges (mostly) on when you consider the foetus to actually become a human being in it's own right. If you can't pinpoint the moment do you want to hedge on the side of caution or the side of liberality?

For myself I can't prove that a one celled embryo isn't a human being so I can't in good concience ever back abortion.