Thread: "Abortion addiction"

The only way I could see something being done about her and people like her would be if abortion were illegal, or there was a limit on how many you could have.

I mean if I was an insurance company I'd make the copay grow exponentially after maybe procedure 10 per decade but from a moral standpoint if you're ok with one abortion why not be ok with more than one?

I.e., if the sanctity of life thing doesn't apply to one why does it apply to 15? Disregarding the circumstance of the abortion (last stop birth control for consensual sex or a rape case with an 80 lbs woman whose body would be shattered by a pregnancy).

Mandatory hysterectomy.

I mean what can you do that isn't either aggressively invasive on the woman's body or doesn't result in an unwanted child being born? It's not as if this is a common problem.

One abortion is fine, one hundred is fine. I think the woman should have her tubes tied, but if she wants to pay the money, and make a doctor rich, that's her prerogative

Originally Posted by gwahir

what do you think should be done in the case of a woman who is addicted to abortions?

Nothing

Originally Posted by gwahir

Is it a bad thing?

Smoking is pretty terrible and millions are addicted to it.

Originally Posted by gwahir

Does it warrant intervention from the law?

No.

Well, gwahir, people who are fat and smoke are more of a burden collectively on a healthcare system than this one woman.

I wouldn't be surprised if individually at least some of them were more of a burden on a healthcare system.

Yeah, this woman is an idiot, and even I have to question to ethics of getting chain abortions just for the fun of it. Still, shit happens, no system is perfect, and sometimes wierdos do weird things. Eh.

Because even though I support available and legal abortion, I still think there are both practical and ethical issues with it that at least should be given a bit of consideration.

No, I don't think there is an invisible being that infuses zygotes with souls. On the other hand, there is simply no clear cut time when a fetus becomes viable and thus has personhood ascribed to them. If anything, I think one could make a valid argument to the effect that babies are themselves not viable after birth up to a certain age Indeed, some people have made this argument in favor of legal infanticide, and infanticide used to be a regular practice when humans felt as though they didn't have the resources to support their children. (Yeah infanticide is practiced in modern times mostly on unwanted girls, but so is selective abortion of girls as well.)

Also, with the development of more and more advanced neonatal technologies, viability is likewise increased in earlier and earlier in the pregnancy. So are you telling me that when a fetus is a human is dependent on the state of our technology? Well, according to Roe vs. Wade, at least legally it is what determines if the fetus can be aborted or not.

At any rate, the argument in the above paragraph only address a very small fraction of abortions, as those that late in the pregnancy are rare, and neonatologists think that there is a hard limit of 22 weeks when a pre-term baby can survive at all (obviously, there has to be some hard limit). However, what if there is developed an artificial womb-like environment external to the mother's womb that pushes viability even earlier? For now it is a hypothetical argument and thus its applicability to the current abortion debate is dubious at best, but still I think it's at least an interesting scenario to consider.

Another concern is with regards to abortions used to be that they might have a psychological toll on some women, but a review of studies on women that have one abortion seems to conclude that they are methodologically unsound, as they do not adequately control for other sources of psychological trauma (such as poverty, abuse, etc.) There might be some evidence that multiple abortions might be psychologically more trying on women, but that's the strongest statement I've read on this.



These are just a couple of the issues surrounding abortion that I think do surround the abortion debate. In the end, you are arresting the development of something that will eventually become a thing we recognize as a human, and it really is a gradual development from zygote to baby with no real clear cut off between phases. I have to admit that mostly I'm playing the devil's advocate here, as again I am in support of safe, available, and legal abortion.

Originally Posted by Absolution

Let her do what she wants with her body and money.

That's the thing, though. It's not her money. She is an Australian spending the taxpayer's money for her abortions.

Originally Posted by gwahir

I'm curious as to why viability is such a big issue in the abortion debate. What's the ethical difference between a viable and unviable foetus? If there's no being that infuses unborn babies with souls, and it's okay to end the life of a foetus that technology cannot support, it should be okay to end the life of one it can support.

Viability is no better a cutoff point than conception, I think.

Well, in the US, there was legal significance attached to the idea of viability thanks to Roe vs. Wade.

So then where is the cut-off? If a baby is about to be born, is it still abortable as long as it's in the womb? If that's the case, then why shouldn't infanticide of newborns be legal?

Originally Posted by Atmosfear

And, more importantly, gwahir didn't mention anything about her using taxpayer money. If she's financing this irresponsible behavior with taxpayer dollars, then they ought to take her out back and shoot her. Public money shouldn't be funding any medical treatment, much less elective procedures.

Well, given that gwahir is from Australia, I assumed the woman was getting abortions with their socialized healthcare system. Apparently, she's actually American, that's not really applicable here.

Originally Posted by coqauvin

Just as a point of reference, when youth mortality rates were higher (up to mid-eighteenth century in england, for example), parents would rarely name their children until they were several years of age, because, well, a lot of them died.

You're making it sound like for seven years they just acknowledged the child as "boy".

Back on topic - Any addiction is unhealthy, especially this one because let's face it, it isn't normal; drug addiction is understandable but what reward could anyone possibly gain from getting intentional abortions? I'm not sure what punishment if any would be appropriate for this specific woman, but fifteen is a ridiculous number.

Originally Posted by gwahir

Well, basically. (I actually expected more argument itt than this.)

sponge is right, thread over.

Originally Posted by Atmosfear

And, more importantly, gwahir didn't mention anything about her using taxpayer money. If she's financing this irresponsible behavior with taxpayer dollars, then they ought to take her out back and shoot her. Public money shouldn't be funding any medical treatment, much less elective procedures.

On the flip side the 15 or whatever children would have been far larger burdens on the public coffers had they been born and supported by the state until age 18 (longer if you consider the need-based financial aid they'd almost certainly qualify for if they were to go for higher ed).

There is a happy median here, get x free abortions in y years and you get to pay your own way until you drop below your quota again with the option of a state-funded sterilization.

Either you have abortion rights or you don't. Having some kind of quota per person is pretty retarded.

Originally Posted by benzss

Either you have abortion rights or you don't. Having some kind of quota per person is pretty retarded.

yeah i agree.

but ethical considerations aside, when it comes down to it the more that individuals use health insurance in countries with private healthcare or use subsidized healthcare in countries with subsidized care, the more expensive healthcare is for everyone.

but it's not like abortion addiction is that common anyway so this one woman's practice makes little difference. it's the fatties and smokers that do.

Originally Posted by benzss

Either you have abortion rights or you don't. Having some kind of quota per person is pretty retarded.

My proposed quota is in regards to how many taxpayers will pay for, not how many you're legally allowed to get.

Well, abortion is an elective procedure most of the time anyway. So there's no reason whatsoever for a taxpayer to fund it.

Originally Posted by simonj

If the birth/raising/existence of that child would be a bigger burden on the taxpayer then there is every reason to fund it.

True. Then again if conceiving/aborting a child would be a bigger burden on the taxpayer, then there's every reason to sterilise those who don't meet certain sensibility requirements.

Originally Posted by simonj

You could argue that way but you're moving towards a fascist society with that logic. Simply offsetting unneccessary births by funding abortions is not quite as socially damaging as mild eugenics.

Good thing it's your logic and not mine then, heh.

But I digress. Abortion is an elective procedure because, more often than not, it's the consequence of a freely taken lifestyle choice. And I'm not sure anybody should fund anybody else's lifestyle choices - children (or lack thereof) included.

If you insist on universal/socialised healthcare (ugh) then it should at the very least be universal (in addition to being rubbish) but only for non-elective and emergency procedures. Having elective and other unnecessary procedures paid for surely devalues the entire point of affordable healthcare by kicking up its cost p/person, no?