Saturday, January 16, 2010

Question for prochoicers

There are cases, such as this recent one, in which a woman doesn't realize she's pregnant until she's giving birth.

The Discovery Health web site lists reasons that women don't realize they're pregnant. A lot of them sound like the reasons women undergo late abortions:

10. Fetus is small, inactive, and/or carried toward the back of the womb.
Believe it or not, sometimes babies just don't make a lot of commotion in utero. In addition, some women's babies rest naturally toward the back of the womb, so that motion and kicking aren't easily detected from outside the mother's body. Many women believe that fetal movements are just irregular or strong digestive activity!

9. Recent previous childbirth.
Many women continue to believe that they cannot get pregnant right after giving birth, or while they are breastfeeding. Additionally, menstrual cycles can be irregular, and women can continue to bleed vaginally for several weeks after childbirth. ....

8. Dieting.
Women who are very active and watch their weight religiously may crank up their fitness routine and/or begin dieting when they notice a weight gain. Because of this, they may not gain weight as their pregnancy progresses.

7. Stress.
Stressful jobs, family, and personal lives contribute to irregular periods, and may cause women not to pay attention to their menstrual cycle, or to chalk up missing periods to stress.

6. Fetus is mistaken for a tumor or cyst.
In some cases, particularly when a woman has a history of endometriosis, fibroid cysts, or other tumors of the reproductive system, a fetus can be mistaken for a new or recurring tumor.

5. Obesity.
Carrying a lot of excess weight can perfectly disguise the "baby bump." Depending on how a woman's body deposits fat, she may have looked "a little bit pregnant" in the past, and neither she nor others notice the extra bulk of a fetus.

4. Inaccurate use of birth control.
Many women are certain they could not be pregnant because they use birth control. ....

3. Breakthrough bleeding.
Some women continue to have period-like bleeding throughout their pregnancy; it may be lighter or irregular, or even coincide with a woman's usual "time of the month." These pseudo-periods can be enough to convince a woman that she's not pregnant.

2. Negative home pregnancy test.
Home pregnancy tests aren't fool-proof. ....

1. History of irregular cycles and/or infertility.
Not being able to get pregnant in the past, a history of missing or irregular periods, and/or being close to menopause can all fool a woman into thinking she couldn't be pregnant. ....

Isn't it unfair that these women don't get the chance to choose abortion? Do we, as a society, owe it to them to give them a chance to back out? If you figure that the typical modern woman finds out she's pregnant about three weeks into the pregnancy, and most states allow on-demand abortion up to about 24 weeks, that means that the typical modern woman gets about 21 weeks to decide if she wants to allow the new human to be born, or to have it put to death via abortion. Ought not women who don't realize they're pregnant until they're very late in pregnancy, or actually giving birth, to have at least a few weeks to decide if they want to parent or not? Why should their sexual activity be "punished with a baby" just because they didn't realize they were pregnant until it was legally past the date to opt out? Ought they not be allowed to request that the newborn be strangled if they don't want to parent it?

(HT: Big Blue Wave


OperationCounterstrike said...

No, the woman should not be allowed to kill the baby after birth, BECAUSE...

1. After birth the baby is no longer inside the woman's body,

2. After birth, the baby is no longer living on stuff taken from the woman's bloodstream,

3. After birth, the baby is no longer injecting its metabolic end-products INTO the woman's bloodstream, AND,

4. After birth, the baby is no longer preparing to subject the woman to major medical/surgical trauma.

Thus, the four principles which justify abortion no longer apply after birth.

QED (Quite Easily Done!).

GrannyGrump said...

But she's being denied choice and having motherhood forced on her. Isn't mandatory motherhood cruel to both mother and child? Won't she abuse the child if she's forced to parent it against her wishes?

OperationCounterstrike said...

She's NOT forced to parent it. She can give it up for adoption.

And since it's already born, she can do so WITHOUT undergoing further major medical/surgical trauma. So adoption is not an unreasonable requirement, the way it is DURING pregnancy.

GrannyGrump said...

But then she'll have the trauma of knowing the baby is out there somewhere. The biggest prochoice argument against adoption is that it's cruel to leave the mother bereft and not knowing where her baby is. Isn't it just as cruel to expect her to make an adoption plan just because it took her to long to learn of the new human's existence?

SegaMon said...

1. Location of a person determines if one can be killed or not?

2.&3. This is the only pro-choice argument that has ever withstood some amount of scrutiny. However, this argument is still weak. A temporary arrangement of using some of another person's nutrients and placing some by-products into another person is a small trade off to allow another human being to live. We should expect human beings to provide at least temporary sustenance to keep another person alive within natural constraints (pregnancy is a natural and normal occurrence and process in stark contrast with "organ sharing/donation" examples). We are required to provide necessary sustenance at all times with born children (ie if a legal parent or guardian knowingly with-holds food, water, and basic protection this person would be given quite a harsh punishment by society and law).

Even someone who does not want be a parent should give the natural and normal sustenance to their child until a situation arises to responsibly give that duty to another person. With born people this is a natural expectation that is repeatedly enforced vigorously (ie it's considered murder to throw away a newborn baby into a dumpster). If a baby is born to a woman who cannot find adoptive parents, should that woman end the baby's life?

4. Abortion subjects women to "major medical/surgical trauma." Even if you consider abortion to be "minor," why would you want to use a subjective grading scale of "major" and "minor" to determine who lives or dies?

I know I shouldn't be talking to you, but I don't like seeing such failed logic displayed for others to falsely believe. I'm sorry this makes me a liar (since I said that I would never talk to you until you renounced your violent statements). I suppose I should not have been so harsh.

BTW, answer my request, OC: "The next step for you, OC, is to denounce and retract your very violent and hateful statements. I'm waiting." You refuse to answer. Are you going to remain a coward?

OperationCounterstrike said...


1. Yes location determines everything. If you don't believe location matters, try locating your finger inside the eye-socket of a policeman on duty. You'll learn!

2. RE: "We are required to provide necessary sustenance at all times with born children (ie if a legal parent or guardian knowingly with-holds food, water, and basic protection this person would be given quite a harsh punishment by society and law)."

No, we are not required to provide children with the contents of our bodies. Only with EXTERNAL property. Even when their lives are at stake no one forces us to donate internal stuff to them.

RE: "Natural and normal". Natural and normal do not mean "right" nor "good" nor "good for you". Cancer is natural. The surgery which cures cancer is unnatural.

RE: "I know I shouldn't be talking to you,..."

Yeah, I have an irresistable personality!

RE:"The next step for you, OC, is to denounce and retract your very violent and hateful statements. I'm waiting."

Sorry, can't do it. It would be dishonest. I DO hate terrorism, and I DO feel it should be answered violently. War is a bad thing, but the current situation in which one side terrorizes but never suffers terror, that's worse than war. You wouldn't want me to lie, would you?

OperationCounterstrike said...

Christina, I disagree with that particular pro-choice argument--the "knowing you have a kid out there is worse than knowing you have a dead kid" argument. Just as I disagree with the "It's not a person" argument. If the point of your post is to attack the "worse" argument, then I guess I'm with you on this one. For me the right to abort ends when the placenta stops transferring goodies from mom to fetus and baddies in the opposite direction. Once you can live without further violating your mama's body, you're home free in my book.

SegaMon said...

OC: "I DO hate terrorism..."

Then why would you encourage terrorism yourself? I just don't get it. Usually people do not knowingly commit the very things that they are against committing. For example, I am against acts of violence; thus, I do not commit acts of violence.

--Removing my finger from another persons eye will not result in my death (as per abortion).

--Your argument has boiled down to the difference between internal and external. Quite sad.

--Cancer is natural but it is not normal. I fail to see your point.

Your lack of logic still amuses me.

Glad that you could be honest. Sorry that I wasn't able to hold up my own statement to not talk to you. I was being too haste.

One last point. " one forces us to donate internal stuff to them." No one can force us to (except a rapist) because it was by choice (ie sexual intercourse) of the parents (one of them being female) to allow the donation of bodily nutrients to the body of another. :P

OperationCounterstrike said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
OperationCounterstrike said...

SegaMon, I can't answer you because whenever I answer honestly Christina deletes me. If you want answers, ask your questions as comments on my blog.