Abortonist Kermit Gosnell convicted of first-degree murder, sentenced to life

Toujours said:

I think there's a moral/legal disconnect here. I'm not arguing that all women should use abortion as birth control or that all women should make their choices without consulting the fathers of the children. What I am saying is that legally, it is impossible to make a law like this that will not legally allow men to dictate how women use their bodies, which is a fundamental right.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. I may have some minor legal objections that in the bigger picture wouldn't amount to much, but most of what I've been saying is more of a moral or logical argument.

Back to the initial thread topic... would the verdict have been different somewhere else?

I mean, if a man takes advantage of a woman who's, say, unable to give consent then it's rape and no woman should be forced to carry a pregnancy caused by a rape.

Click to expand...

Of course not. That was part of the big exception list I had written in my very first post (including unable to finance a child, mental health problems, physical risks involved in the pregnancy (mother may die), abusive environment (drugs, violence, assault), etc.)

The only reason you shouldn't be allowed to abort really is if you were irresponsible. What constitutes irresponsible? Not using birth control methods, esp. condoms (when they are readily available at clinics for free). That's pretty much saying, "I might get pregnant, but whatever. I'm consenting to sex and I know what may happen." The risk is acknowledged when birth control is not used; the woman then acknowledges the risk and should take responsibility for what happens because of those risks i.e. conception and giving birth. Adoption is always an option after that point.

And for Livewire, the "hook" is a small insert that some women choose to use long-term. It's inserted into the uterus where, to my understanding, it removes the lining where an embryo would otherwise implant itself. This causes even fertilized eggs to disintegrate because they cannot latch onto the side of the uterus. It is not painful, from what I've heard, and few people experience complications from the implant itself. The name itself is very crude for the topic, though. Just think of it as disrupting the lining, thus disabling pregnancies to occur. Kinda like how pills disrupt hormone levels and reduce the chance of becoming pregnant; same idea, but the "hook" lasts long-term.

I already acknowledged, too, that some of these methods cost a bit, but if you can't afford it, you should be reassessing sex altogether. That said, telling teenagers to not have sex is like telling bees not to collect honey or the waves not to crash and disturb the sand. It's going to happen anyway. That's where the government should come in and reassess how they finance birth control for teenagers, young adults, etc. and make it more accessible so that abortions do not have to occur due to being irresponsible (at least, not as often).

Also, the two parties involved - male and female - are responsible for their actions, and as I've mentioned before, if one or the other doesn't want to use protection properly, a) the act should not be committed, b) whoever is being immature needs to grow up before engaging in sex, or c) if none of the above, maybe reconsider the relationship altogether.

IMO a woman or a man who is not honest about birth control or who purposefully avoids it / does not want to use it, and they know that it is not the time to become pregnant / father a child or that the other individual does not want to be pregnant / father a child, then whoever is thinking of being irresponsible by avoiding contraceptive - the man or the woman - has no respect for the other person in the relationship.

I've heard of men who don't use contraceptive on purpose and the woman falls pregnant. That's a common story, but there's the other side of the coin: the woman wants to get pregnant but the man doesn't want to father a child. I have a family member who pulled a stunt on her significant other, saying she was on the "pill" but wasn't, and she got pregnant against the other person's wishes. Why should he be responsible for it when he was but a sperm donor, really? All these stories about "Boohoo daddy's not paying support." My mother never paid my dad support for her four kids - two were his, and two were my mother's (one the result of cheating)! It's an uncommon story, a single father raising the kids, but it should still receive the same attention. I hate all this "victim" stuff some moms pull. Like someone else said, I think the matter is extremely sexist and biased in favour of the mother. The father has no rights / is of no importance.

Anyway. Maybe roaming a bit off-topic.

Basically, both men and women need to take responsibility for their actions. There are methods of contraceptive out there, some of which are free. School, the Internet, youth groups, etc. are sources of information, if needed. A woman has 100% the right to abort if she was raped, cannot financially support the child, is under eighteen years of age (hand-in-hand with finances, really), is homeless, is mentally unfit, or the pregnancy risks to hurt or kill the mother during the term / at birth. The government should protect the foetus' rights in the case where basically, the woman or man decided to not use contraceptive and conceive, looking to abortion as a last-minute contraceptive. They should be held responsible and accountable for their actions in these cases, unless they fall under the above categories (not a legal adult (<18), unfit, homeless... Read list ^).

Also, I don't find any of this to be rude, impolite or offensive. I'm not a man instructing women how to use their bodies; I am a woman who shares a common viewpoint about it, even lenient about circumstances. You (& your significant other) didn't use the information given / use contraceptive / visit the clinic for free condoms. You (& your significant other) screwed up. You and your significant other are responsible for the result. On a perhaps unscaled point, if you fail a test because you didn't study, then sucks to be you; deal with it because you're at fault for that. You didn't ask questions, study, or do your homework. The two scenarios are incomparable in "degree," but hold the same moral at the end: if you mess up, take responsibility. Doesn't matter what it is. You're accountable. Just a hard way to learn a life lesson.

Also, tossing this in there: I don't judge women who choose to abort. I have no right to judge them. I can have my own opinion, and I can voice it (not to her face particularly, because it might hurt her feelings). I'd be friends with anyone, pro-choice or whatever. Doesn't matter to me. It won't change how I feel about the topic lol and I won't try to change their standpoint because they have every right to their opinion, just as you guys do. All I'm doing is explaining how I see it and in no way am I preaching or targeting anyone, telling them they're bad people or w/e because of their choice / having aborted / anything :) I just have a strong opinion that conflicts with others', and that's OK.

Just proves my point from earlier that there can never be abortion laws or "limits" that appeals to or pleases everyone.

If they should be held accountable for their actions, why give a out for those who don't have the financial means to care for the child? The same for those who find themselves homeless? Why shouldn't they be held accountable for their actions?

Same to those underaged - Should they be given a out, or should this be a life lesson to them? You know, teaching them that all actions have consequences, and that they will be held accountable for them?

For these cases, the child can still, and by law should be required to, be given up for adoption.

As you given it, risks the mother during pregnancy or birth, this would apply to every pregnancy. While modern medical technology has made it safer, it is still entirely possible for a otherwise healthy woman to die giving birth. Rare yes, but still possible. Rather broad statement, but as all pregnancies pose a health risk, does this mean that you support all abortions? Or is in in just cases where their is a higher then average risk?

Higher than average. A health risk is moreso that the mother has an abnormal risk of dying from giving birth or carrying to term. Maybe she has a tumor. Maybe she has an underlying condition that will cause her a great deal of pain and internal damage. Maybe she's a hemophiliac and has a very, very high chance of bleeding out and dying while giving birth because of it. It is not the average joe; it is whether or not a medical condition exists that would make the pregnancy have a higher-than-normal chance of causing ill to the mother.

Yes, mothers can still die giving birth, regardless medical advances, but the "risk to the mother" part is, again, focused on pre-existing conditions that will aggravate the pregnancy or cause further risk to the mother.

x

As for why there are certain conditions, that's where leniency comes in (and where you try to reason with others, really). Some people want all abortions banned, and I don't agree with that. Even with the "conditions" I've set and agree with, I'd prefer carrying to term and adopting instead; however, I've tried to come up with scenarios where abortions may be more "understandable" based on the environment and situation.

A homeless person could not afford a child if they cannot even clothe themselves. This is not a good living condition for a newborn and can be a basis for the CPS to come and remove the child altogether. The environment needs to be good to benefit the child's development. If you cannot guarantee that it will have food, then aborting it (or, preferably, adopting it out) is an option. It would not be healthy for the child to live in such conditions.

Teenagers are, unfortunately, "wild" nowadays. Parents are afraid of their kids, so they can walk all over them and do what they want; which is why, perhaps, they are more promiscuous and act "maturer" than they are. Hormones, too, and media only worsen the scenario. It's pretty much a given that in North American society, teenagers are going to engage in sex and you can't stop them from doing it. If they get pregnant, then, who raises the kid? The parents shouldn't be responsible for their child and their child's child, yet the law would force them to at least keep caring for their offspring (and therefore, the new baby, too, since it'd be living in the same quarters). That's not fair.

I also think that for a teenager, forcing them to be a mother when they aren't ready only makes them a waste of space in society (not being productive, rarely ever finish secondary / post-secondary as a result). The kid who wanted to be a doctor now won't be because she's a mom at fifteen. This regresses society. There's no excuse regardless, information and condoms being readily available, but they are given the benefit of "ignorance" until they become legal adults.

In all honesty, though, if not for the fact the parents would get the short end of their stick (supporting child & grandchild), I'd want teens to carry to term, too. I just feel bad for the parents of pregnant teens and the fact that tax dollars are wasted on supporting them on welfare. Teen moms actually achieving something is uncommon (pregnancy is difficult and raising a child is full-time, and the government doesn't make daycare cheap or readily available) while if they got a "second chance" through abortion, we might have more doctors available (or other professionals due to actually completing post-secondary).

The conditions I listed, other than rape, unfit mentality / psychology, and physical issues in birth, are somewhat-agree & somewhat-don't, but enough that I'd be OK with those scenarios if ever it were the case. I'm trying to be lenient and open to how others might feel, esp. pro-choice individuals (in all scenarios). I think there are limits and I try to be reasonable with pro-choice arguments and achieve limits that are "sound" or "reasonable" to me, even if I'd prefer if everyone carried to term. That's just not possible / a reality so I have to alter my view around the fact that banning abortions outright just won't work - but how can we make it work, but still have reasonable limits. That's what that list is. Not too restrictive and gives a second chance to people who cannot support themselves (and where a child would be a very hard burden) or who were ignorant (even with all the information and clinics out there) and made bad choices.

I'm a bit less forgiving for adults, who ought to know better. Which is why I put the <18 limit. Sure, if you're 19, you're probably not ready for a kid either, but I think you're old enough to make good, mature, sound decisions about sex at that point that conceiving shouldn't even be an issue, much less abortion (unless, you know, you were raped or something).

Conditions = Just not trying to be too narrow-minded in a society where a complete ban on abortions is really not realistic.

I think this discussion becomes much more productive if we examine it from a societal standpoint rather than on the individual whether we are condemning or condoning anyone's actions. Regardless of whether the behavior is moral is debatable, essentially, we should examine societal gain if we are to either ban, allow, and to which extent regarding abortion practices. The reason why we have personal rights is that it either does not directly affect other people or that those personal rights are for the betterment of society, which must be measured objectively.

We cannot simply state that abortion is wrong in many or most cases because a human could have been brought into the world. If one is to argue against abortion, please demonstrate how abortion, which is elected by the woman bearing the fetus, negatively affects society, and conversely, how banning woman from having abortions positively affects society.

Thus far, I've only heard abortion is wrong because it is immoral, which is essentially a circular argument. Taking little into account of the economic/security repercussions involved with banning abortions, which I explain briefly in a previous post. Essentially, from the statistics on that post, it is clear that the majority of these women are young, single, and indigent, not yet establishing themselves in careers or otherwise. Thus, having a child would likely inhibit the woman from going to college or sustaining long-term employment, and then, we either supplement the costs of childcare through social welfare funding (which increases tax burdens or inflation) or we simply do not assist the woman and child; this would incite riot and violent political dissidence. As a society, it is objectively "moral" to do that which benefits the whole of society best. Thus, it would make most logical moral sense, from this point alone, that our society allow abortions to be employed. That is just one of many statistics and logical arguments to be made for the case in support of abortion.

Can anyone in support of banning/limiting abortions explicate an objectively moral argument? If so, I'd genuinely would like to hear why.

Essentially, from the statistics on that post, it is clear that the majority of these women are young, single, and indigent, not yet establishing themselves in careers or otherwise. Thus, having a child would likely inhibit the woman from going to college or sustaining long-term employment, and then, we either supplement the costs of childcare through social welfare funding (which increases tax burdens or inflation) or we simply do not assist the woman and child; this would incite riot and violent political dissidence.

Click to expand...

And I think this is a sound argument for allowing abortions to occur. There is no societal gain if people just reap the benefits of welfare, etc. It would deter society not to allow a woman planning to be a doctor or a working professional (and who has the mindset, ambition and potential to become such a professional) simply because she or her partner messed up and she got pregnant.

For society, this is a good thing, and it makes sense, but even if it does make sense logically (as to promote more working professionals, say, and less taxes going towards avoidable situations / causes), it's unfortunate for the foetus in the sole case where the mother was pregnant due to irresponsible sex and now said foetus is a "burden" to her even though in a way, she chose that route for herself. Now, it becomes grey if the father was irresponsible and it's now screwing up the woman's life because he put the condom on (or something similar), but again there are ways for women to prevent it without relying on the man for "protection" all the time via condoms. That's foolish.

Now, something against abortion may be the demographic transition model. Canadian society has steadily become "less babies" and "more old people," making the possibility of higher taxes per Canadian a valid idea for the future (as to cover the taxes lost by an abundance of non-tax paying (retired) seniors). Putting limits and "conditions" on abortions would allow our society to go from the curious and new "Stage Five" (an unknown, new stage where the population is not replenishing itself and there are tons of seniors - think upsidedown pine tree) back to the healthy mid-Stage Two and Stage Three (my idea of growing population, but not expontentially as seen typically in Stage Two).

Conditions and limits would allow for Canada (and the States, probably, given we share similar histories) to jump from decreasing / stable population, pending year of data, to slowly increasing, which IMO I think is healthy. It would definitely relieve the impending tax burden when war veterans and "baby boom" kids (and the subsequent mini "baby boom") all retire. Who will replace that tax revenue? The much lower working adult population that's left. That's more tax per person, and it'll definitely make life harder (and reduce maybe the frequency or availability of social services i.e. road work, hospitals, schools, "free" systems like health care) for the average individual.



Between 2-3 will allow us to at least replenish that population, but the obscure Stage Five is awful. Stage Four is dubbed "contracting" = decreasing population... Stage Five is worse than that due to a sudden jump in a few decades of lots of babies to not even two babies per person.

1.59 children born/woman (2012 est.)

Click to expand...

From: http://www.indexmundi.com/canada/demographics_profile.html

That's not even high enough to replace the mother and father. If some cases of abortions were restricted by limits and conditions (case-by-case) we might be able to change that at least.

Then there's the idea of: do we even need more humans? 7,000,000,000 is enough, too.

So much to think about and consider.

Maybe I'll do a T-Chart later, but I think I've made the conditions (from my own standpoint) known above i.e. abortion is OK in cases of rape, financial instability (can't support kid), <18... Among the many others.

I disagree with the conviction entirely. In or out, he performed the same function. I do not see any moral wrongdoing on his part.

FreakyLocz14 said:

Why should we hold men responsible for the choices that they make, but not women? How is that not indentured servitude? That sounds pretty sexist to me.

Click to expand...

And your solution is to make both people indentured servants? How is that any better?

I generally hold the belief that if someone believes they are not ready to be a parent, it's probably true. If someone has good reason not to bring a child into the world, I see no problem with allowing an abortion. I'm not going to get into the discussion about exactly when we should draw the line, but I do believe that abortion has a net positive effect. I see no problem with allowing it in most cases, ethically speaking.