Question for the atheist converts

[_Moniker]

I could tell you stories... surely you don't expect me to know every single instance of why someone makes this decision?

No. I know plenty of people who've had abortions myself. I've consistently indicated that each situation is individual.

You asked about irresponsibility and inconvenience. You used question marks. I thought you wanted me to answer as to situations. I think there are women that get pregnant under lots of different circumstances that wouldn't fit with irresponsibility or necessarily abort merely because they were inconvenienced.

So, you're okay with a parent forcing a child to get an abortion then?


No. I've consistently answered no to that question in this thread.

Yet, you SAY you support a parent making the medical decisions for a teen. Yet, you don't really. For if the decision is to have the teen get an abortion you don't support it. I keep repeating the question in hopes you would make that connection....

Because one is someone that is actually fully human -- has dreams, fears, hopes, etc... The other does not. Why would I choose to advocate for something that does not have any quality of being a human over someone that does?

Because it has no one else to advocate for it, as it cannot advocate for itself. Otherwise, you are engaging in a slippery slope argument that could affect rights for disabled, infants and animals.

You're advocating for the unborn, aren't you? I'm comfortable advocating for the women and their choices. I advocate for all sorts of policies and there are those that disagree with me and I don't mind them doing so. I think that's funny you mention disabilities and animals 'cause I'm a current advocate for children with disabilities (my profession) and was active in animal rights when I was younger. My slope must not be too slippery.

So, you would force a teen to carry the pregnancy to term and then place for adoption?

No. I thought I was clear on this one, too. I would make adoption available as an alternative where the families of the birth father and mother were unable or unwilling to care for the child.

Adoption ALREADY is available! Why would you need to make it an alternative? It's already in place as an alternative.

???

Do you want to punish women for poor choices?

No, it might seem that way to you, but my interest is in the unborn child. How exactly is a woman "punished" for having a pregnancy as the natural consequence of mating?

Well, some of your statements about the women made it seem as if you thought that a woman shouldn't have sex unless she was ready to be a mother. Married women have abortions, as well. There are a variety of reasons these things happen. Tarski related a story about a condom being messed with. There are women who use birth control and they fail. I imagine this is a slim case of abortions, yet it occurs.

I think the state adopting a child is a HORRIBLE idea!

I never suggested the state adopt the child. If you misunderstood and thought that, I apologize.

I didn't understand why you mentioned the state in relation to adoption. Adoption is already available as an alternative....

Force her to carry the child to term and then the state takes the child? This sounds draconian!

You've clearly misunderstood me, as that was not at all what I said.

I guess I did. I don't understand why you were mentioning the state in conjunction with an already viable option of adoption.

Well, that's the problem. You are OKAY with a parent making the medical decision for the child that lines up with YOUR decision. Right?

No, again you've misunderstood. I don't think you can have the parents be guardians of their minor child in all instances except this.

[/quote]

What? You say that you want parents to make the medical decisions. Yet, you say you're against the parent making the medical decision for the teen to abort.

[_the road to hana]

Also, I'm curious as to why you don't consider a teratoma or a fetus in fetu to be human. Is it because they are not viable on their own after 9 months of gestation?

Yes. I've consistently made viability a requirement in this discussion.

I see and that's fine. What if the fetus in fetu can survive outside the host with the proper medical treatments? Should one then attempt to keep it alive as with Terri Schiavo?

No, I would argue against that.

Terri had a normal life until her accident. I consider that quite a different situation.

(yes, I think it would have been better for him to divorce her and leave her to her parents. I have my reasons, but let's not get sidetracked).

I agree. Since the thread is about how people have or have not changed their position on abortion after leaving Mormonism, Terri Schiavo's case is a side tangent.

[_the road to hana]

Is anyone else confused in discussions with Hannah when she uses the term "child" to refer to the unborn fetus/embryo? That's been slightly confusing for me!

I explained that elsewhere in this thread. I'm using child as a designation of relationship (parent-child), not one of age. I can use "offspring" if you prefer, but that is my intent. It does not mean to imply a particular age.

I thought that was clear; perhaps it wasn't.

(p.s. Just a side note, "Hana" is not my name. It's a place. So "Hannah" isn't really a substitute for it. It's not a big deal, just wanted to clarify.)

[_the road to hana]

But, again, you're comparing the unborn child to someone who is actively doing something to threaten another person. All the unborn child is doing is living.

I'm not so sure about that. If the unborn child is an ectopic pregnancy, then it is threatening the life of the mother as well as its own life.

Ectopic pregnancy is actually an excellent example.

[_asbestosman]

Terri had a normal life until her accident. I consider that quite a different situation.

But if someone were born in a state similar to what Terri was like after the accident, would it then be okay to simply let her die instead of leaving her on life support? (By the way, I started a Terri thread in the Off Topic forum).

[_the road to hana]

I don't see the problem with a "delete button" at all, by the way.

As is your prerogative. As far as I know, this thread isn't a contest. It was an honest inquiry as to whether or not people's positions had changed on the topic since leaving Mormonism. I don't regard it as a debate, just an interesting discussion.

The consequences for the mother of the aborted fetus would be dwarfed by the potential consequences for an unwanted pregnancy that is carried out - that would impact the future child, the mother, probably the mother's family, the local community, tax payers, etc...

[_the road to hana]

You asked about irresponsibility and inconvenience. You used question marks. I thought you wanted me to answer as to situations.

No, those were mostly hypothetical.

I think there are women that get pregnant under lots of different circumstances that wouldn't fit with irresponsibility or necessarily abort merely because they were inconvenienced.

I would agree.

you SAY you support a parent making the medical decisions for a teen. Yet, you don't really. For if the decision is to have the teen get an abortion you don't support it. I keep repeating the question in hopes you would make that connection....

I'm going to stop the presses here and try to clear this up before it gets any further. I'm pretty sure my statement was in response to a question about "in my ideal world," not in the world as we currently know it, which will impact several of your responses below.

You're advocating for the unborn, aren't you? I'm comfortable advocating for the women and their choices.

It's not apparent to me they have to be mutually exclusive. I'm not interested in advocating against anyone.

I advocate for all sorts of policies and there are those that disagree with me and I don't mind them doing so. I think that's funny you mention disabilities and animals 'cause I'm a current advocate for children with disabilities (my profession) and was active in animal rights when I was younger. My slope must not be too slippery.

There's a peripheral discussion I'd like to pursue here later, but will set it aside for now.

Adoption ALREADY is available! Why would you need to make it an alternative? It's already in place as an alternative.

See my response above regarding the original question. I was asked to respond regarding my "ideal world," not the world as it currently exists.

Married women have abortions, as well. There are a variety of reasons these things happen. Tarski related a story about a condom being messed with. There are women who use birth control and they fail. I imagine this is a slim case of abortions, yet it occurs.

I would argue against abortion being used as a form of birth control, as noted above in this thread.

I didn't understand why you mentioned the state in relation to adoption. Adoption is already available as an alternative....

See above. You need to read the original statements in context, I believe.

What? You say that you want parents to make the medical decisions. Yet, you say you're against the parent making the medical decision for the teen to abort.

Only because, as noted above, in my "ideal world," abortion wouldn't exist. And the question originally posed to me to which I was responding had to do with my ideal world, not the current one. That's why you're confused and reaching incorrect conclusions.

[_Moniker]

You asked about irresponsibility and inconvenience. You used question marks. I thought you wanted me to answer as to situations.

No, those were mostly hypothetical.

I think there are women that get pregnant under lots of different circumstances that wouldn't fit with irresponsibility or necessarily abort merely because they were inconvenienced.

I would agree.

you SAY you support a parent making the medical decisions for a teen. Yet, you don't really. For if the decision is to have the teen get an abortion you don't support it. I keep repeating the question in hopes you would make that connection....

I'm going to stop the presses here and try to clear this up before it gets any further. I'm pretty sure my statement was in response to a question about "in my ideal world," not in the world as we currently know it, which will impact several of your responses below.

You're advocating for the unborn, aren't you? I'm comfortable advocating for the women and their choices.

It's not apparent to me they have to be mutually exclusive. I'm not interested in advocating against anyone.

I advocate for all sorts of policies and there are those that disagree with me and I don't mind them doing so. I think that's funny you mention disabilities and animals 'cause I'm a current advocate for children with disabilities (my profession) and was active in animal rights when I was younger. My slope must not be too slippery.

There's a peripheral discussion I'd like to pursue here later, but will set it aside for now.

Adoption ALREADY is available! Why would you need to make it an alternative? It's already in place as an alternative.

See my response above regarding the original question. I was asked to respond regarding my "ideal world," not the world as it currently exists.

Married women have abortions, as well. There are a variety of reasons these things happen. Tarski related a story about a condom being messed with. There are women who use birth control and they fail. I imagine this is a slim case of abortions, yet it occurs.

I would argue against abortion being used as a form of birth control, as noted above in this thread.

I didn't understand why you mentioned the state in relation to adoption. Adoption is already available as an alternative....

See above. You need to read the original statements in context, I believe.

What? You say that you want parents to make the medical decisions. Yet, you say you're against the parent making the medical decision for the teen to abort.

Only because, as noted above, in my "ideal world," abortion wouldn't exist. And the question originally posed to me to which I was responding had to do with my ideal world, not the current one. That's why you're confused and reaching incorrect conclusions.

Hana (sorry for typing Hannah earlier -- I think of everyone as "names" on this board:), I hadn't read any of your earlier statements. I replied to dart and then you replied to me. That's the only discussion, between you and I, that I've paid attention to. I never asked you about an ideal world. You made a statement in reply to something I said to dart:

I think whether it be a child or a grown woman that the only one that should make this decision is her.



Should a minor child be able to make all other medical decisions on their own behalf?

I then asked you to keep it within the framework of abortion. Then asked you if you believed TRULY that an adult could make a decision for a minor child that would have the minor get an abortion. We're not in your ideal world. So, in the world we are currently living in do you truly support the belief that an adult can make this medical decision (force a teen to get an abortion) for their child? The answer is no. So, in the world we live in you do not support the idea that an adult can make this decision when it goes against the one you would choose.

[_the road to hana]

We're not in your ideal world. So, in the world we are currently living in do you truly support the belief that an adult can make this medical decision (force a teen to get an abortion) for their child? The answer is no. So, in the world we live in you do not support the idea that an adult can make this decision when it goes against the one you would choose.

I'd say that's an oversimplification and mischaracterization of my position. I'll sleep on it and see if I can explain better later.

[Guest]

We're not in your ideal world. So, in the world we are currently living in do you truly support the belief that an adult can make this medical decision (force a teen to get an abortion) for their child? The answer is no. So, in the world we live in you do not support the idea that an adult can make this decision when it goes against the one you would choose.

I'd say that's an oversimplification and mischaracterization of my position. I'll sleep on it and see if I can explain better later.

OK, I've slept on it and here's my (hopefully) clearer statement of position.

I believe as long as the law supports the decisions for minor children being made by their parents or guardians, this should extend to medical care, and parents and guardians should be expected to make the best medical choices possible on behalf of their children. I do not believe children under the age of majority should be making any major medical or surgical decisions on their own behalf, including but not limited to surgery, cosmetic or otherwise, or termination of pregnancy, without parental consent.

If a parent or guardian makes a medical or surgical decision on a minor child's behalf that is ultimately not in their best interest, they should be held responsible.

I don't believe a child should be "forced" into any medical or surgical procedure that cannot be demonstrated to be in the minor child's best interest, and the child should have recourse to legal action if this is in debate.

If a child wants a procedure (in this case, an abortion), and the parents deem it is to be done, then the child is not being "forced" into it. The only situation in which a child is "forced" into the procedure is one in which she is unwilling to undergo procured abortion, and the parents impose their will on the child. Again, I believe she should have recourse to the courts if she believes this is unjust or demonstrated to be not in her best interest.