Design your own political party

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Women are 6 times more likely to commit suicide after an abortion, than after pregnancy.

Urban myth or proven fact? Do you have any studies about this claim?


EDIT: After some thought, your statistic is probably true, although meaningless.

If we compare suicides among women who recently had an abortion vs mothers with a new born child, we would reasonably expect a lower suicide rate for the mothers. The motherly instinct overrides post-natal depression.

But, the statistic is meaningless without context.

What actually caused the suicides? Maybe a woman has an abortion and then passes a pro-life poster that says people who have abortions are murderers just like the Nazis and the Khmer Rouge. It's possible that this creates so much guilty that she commits suicide.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Clearly, abortion has profound psychological effects, much more than those of a pregnancy. How is it heartless to avoid pain?

So you think that there is no pain for a woman who is forced to give birth to stillborn?

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Secondly, you have to consider the point of Jon's, that a human life is worth more than discomfort. Why should this be any different for the mother during her pregnancy, as it is for her afterwards?

I know you probably think that you have the right to deliberately inflict pain just because you think a fetus is alive?

You seem to ignore the rape victim's pain. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like you couldn't care less about them - The Pro-life Cause is all that matters; Abortions must be stopped regardless of who gets hurt.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Why do you think women need a laminaria inserted during an abortion? Re-read your comment, and ask me if the same comments could not be made with respect to abortion, as they are for pregnancy.

My comments were not about giving birth, but about being raped.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Kull
So why do women get a pass here? Why is murder OK for them?
And I already know the answer from the least rabid of the pro choicers ...
"It's not murder because it's just a collection of cells, or else it's not viable outside the womb"...

Yes, that's what I would say.

More importantly, people have the right to control their own life. If a person wants to drink themself to death, then they can, even if this causes pain and suffering to their family.

Yes, many abortions are because of unplanned pregnancies, but so what? If I injure myself doing something I should have known was likely to cause an injury, does that mean I can't get medical treatment? Should we deny smokers medical treatment on the grounds that they should have known they would get cancer?


Anyways, we could argue this for decades, just as people have, and not reach agreement.

Until we reach an agreement, the rights of the living take precedent.

Originally posted by Kull
But what happens as medical science improves and viability gets pushed from 6 months to 5 to 4 to....well, ultimately, the point when we can actually grow an entire human in an artificial womb? Then it's NEVER non-viable! So what do you say then?

And if doctors can grow an entire human from sperm, would you then outlaw masterbation?

[Kull]

Originally posted by Tingkai


And don't tell me about how the fetus is a potential life. So is sperm.

Telling a woman she can't have an abortion is like telling a man he can't masterbate because he is destroying a potential life.

C'mon! You're a smart guy, and that's a specious argument. Sperm by themselves can no more spontaneously turn into human life than can toenail clippings. And an unfertilized egg is also a blob of protoplasm. But once fertilized it IS human life, albeit surrounded by a marvelous organic system designed to sustain and grow it until such time as it can survive on it's own. At no point in this process is it a dog or a chair or a toenail clipping - it is simply and obviously a developing human being.

[Kull]

Originally posted by Tingkai

More importantly, people have the right to control their own life. If a person wants to drink themself to death, then they can, even if this causes pain and suffering to their family.

I couldn't agree more. But when my freedom of choice involves the taking of YOUR life, that's no longer a "control over my life" issue.

Like I said, you seem like a really nice, smart, responsible person. As do most pro-choicers, I might add. All of you do agree that killing children after being born is wrong - heinous in fact. So I'm curious - when does the magic moment occur when it changes from "thing you can flush down a toilet" into "person who's rights I will die to defend"?

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Kull
C'mon! You're a smart guy, and that's a specious argument. Sperm by themselves can no more spontaneously turn into human life than can toenail clippings. And an unfertilized egg is also a blob of protoplasm. But once fertilized it IS human life, albeit surrounded by a marvelous organic system designed to sustain and grow it until such time as it can survive on it's own. At no point in this process is it a dog or a chair or a toenail clipping - it is simply and obviously a developing human being.

Look at your statement about advances in medical science and the viability of life: "what happens as medical science improves and viability gets... well, ultimately, the point when we can actually grow an entire human in an artificial womb? Then it's NEVER non-viable!"

It is extremely likely that scientist will be able to grow an human from a single cell. Does that make every cell a viable lifeform that must be protected with the same rights as the living. Obviously not. That's why your argument is a red herring.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Kull

Like I said, you seem like a really nice, smart, responsible person. As do most pro-choicers, I might add. All of you do agree that killing children after being born is wrong - heinous in fact. So I'm curious - when does the magic moment occur when it changes from "thing you can flush down a toilet" into "person who's rights I will die to defend"?

There is no easy answer. Everyone has different opinions. Until we have a common agreement, I say leave let each pregnant woman decide.

Imagine that your wife gets raped and becomes pregnant. Wouldn't you want to have the choice of abortion? You and your wife may decide against an abortion, but at least the two of you, or maybe just her, has the choice.

[JellyBean]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Leave trade free and fair.

Leave trade FREE by raising our tarriffs!

Under the circumstances I described, I believe everyone would find it in their best interests to remove their tariffs, since tariffs to their trade would be removed in response. Until they did so, trade would be fair - once they did, it would be both free and fair.

[Ben Kenobi]

Urban myth or proven fact? Do you have any studies about this claim?

Sure. Go here:

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/313/7070/1431

Interesting, that if you can't dispute the facts, dispute the meaning.

The motherly instinct overrides post-natal depression.

So that just further verifies my claim that abortion does not spare psychological pain for the mother.

What actually caused the suicides? Maybe a woman has an abortion and then passes a pro-life poster that says people who have abortions are murderers just like the Nazis and the Khmer Rouge. It's possible that this creates so much guilty that she commits suicide.

So if prolifers just shut up, these problems would go away? That's a dubious claim.

Secondly, why should these women feel guilt, if there is no truth in what the prolifers say? If it's just a clump of cells, why care?

So you think that there is no pain for a woman who is forced to give birth to stillborn?

No. I say that there is more psychological pain in the abortion, then there will be from the sacrificial love in carrying such a child to term.

I know you probably think that you have the right to deliberately inflict pain just because you think a fetus is alive?

I never raped the woman. The rapist raped the woman. How am I inflicting pain on the woman?

You seem to ignore the rape victim's pain. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like you couldn't care less about them - The Pro-life Cause is all that matters; Abortions must be stopped regardless of who gets hurt.

Must...agree...with...dazzling...rhetoric...

My comments were not about giving birth, but about being raped.

Then your comment is irrelevent. Abortion will not unrape the woman, nor will it prevent the pain from rape.

[Bosh]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Objecting to partial-birth abortions is silly. Why should the method make any difference if the result is the same? Either be against any method or none.

The method makes a BIG difference, especially if birth is partly induced.

Why? A dead fetus is a dead fetus.

Ever hear of the doctrine of double effect? It's a rather crucial point in medical ethics.

Nope.

[Ben Kenobi]

Boshko:

Thanks for bringing up a point that Tingkai missed.

Doctrine of double effect plays a big role in the euthanasia debate, where dosages of painkillers may hasten death. Doctors then need to make a distinction based on intent. The intent in the case of these painkillers is to relieve the pain of the patient, and as an unintended side-effect, they may hasten the death of the patient.

In the case of ectopic pregnancy, the doctrine of double effect would prevent a doctor from applying chemical abortifacients in order to kill the unborn child after removing the fallopian tubes from the mother. Rather, they should simply leave the child, since we currently lack a way to save her life, while also saving the life of the mother.

This is the only hard case I would permit abortion, and I have been fortunate to run across this analysis just over the past few weeks. I really like this position, because it reinforces the harmony between the prolife positions on abortion, and for euthanasia.

[Drogue]

I can understand the ideas of double effect. However I think the line is blurred.

Harold Shipman, the UK doctor who is now the UK's biggest serial killer (IIRC) gave people painkillers when they were in pain. Some of them he let them administer their own amounts, to ease their pain, some he administered themselves. That is a double effect, yet he was charged and convicted with murder. Now you could say it's improper use, and you can say that he knew he was killing them and that was his intention, which is why he was put away. But therefore, if he was ignorant of that, if someone in that situation did it to ease their suffering, then they would be innocent.

Personally, I am strongly pro-euthanasia and pro-choice. IMHO it makes little difference whether it's active or passive, whether the intent is to kill or to ease pain (or both). IMHO, if the patient wishes to die, they should be allowed to. Not by inhumane means, such as stopping their feeding tube, but by a quick and painless death. When it comes to abortion, I take the same position and many pro-life people, in that a foetus is not a human life yet. Now, an idea I had was talking about rights. If you believe that the foetus has a right to life, surely that does not mean it has a right to support, just a right not to be killed. Therefore, the mother's right to remove support comes in. If she wishes to withdraw her support, as the foetus is literally feeding off her, she should be allowed, IMHO. Therefore, a C-section, or inducing premature birth, would suffice. If the foetus can survive without her, it lives, if it cannot, it dies. But then my belief in lessening pain comes in. If the foetus would die passively but in pain, I would rather lessen it, by actively killing it in a humane way. IMHO, it does not matter who kills the foetus, or how it dies, but if it is going to die, that it dies as quickly and painlessly as possible.

Therefore, if the foetus cannot survive outside the womb, and the mother wishes to remove her support, killing the foetus actively and as painlessly as possible seems the best option, in that it has the same effect, but it reduces suffering. If the foetus can survive outside the womb and the women wants an abortion, then induce birth and let the foetus live. Either way, the women gets to execise her right to not support something she doesn't want.

I would also ask pro-lifers, whether, and if so why, this applies to just humans? Those of religious beliefs would presumably see all animals as God's creatures, with a right to life. Why is it worse to eat meat than to have an abortion? If it is about sustainance, if you were to eat the foetus, would it then be ok, because that is abotu sustainance? What about hunting, or game shooting, for pleasure? Is it possible for a Christian pro-lifer to be consistant and believe in hunting, or meat-eating, but be against abortion as an abomination?

[Elok]

Animals are just animals, not people. According to Christianity in general, non-humans do not carry the image and likeness of god; they are to be respected and not wantonly destroyed, as they are gifts to humanity, but if we are appointed wardens of the earth eating their meat is no real problem so far as I can tell. Non-christian pro-lifers presumptively have their own opinions.

Tingkai: I think Kull made a valid point there, actually. It's much like what I've been saying all along. Note also that our ability to clone or otherwise artificially create human life, such as "switching on" a normal body cell to make it an embryo, raises its own set of ethical questions, and until such time as those questions are answered themselves it seems silly to me to use them as grounds for argument.

For example, if in the future we can erase/alter a child's memory, cure STDs, and repair damage done to the alimentary canal, what's so bad about grown men molesting little kids? They're having some fun, no damage done, right?

[Ben Kenobi]

Drogue:

Improper use is a big issue, because a physician should not resort to the double effect, unless other means have been tried, lower dosage, different medication, etc.

If the foetus can survive without her, it lives, if it cannot, it dies.

But that is not what happens in an abortion. They shred the child. Also, this can only apply in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, because that is when the life of the mother is threatened by the pregnancy. Most pregnancies do not pose a risk to the life of the mother, and thus it makes no sense to trade the life of the child for the convenience of the mother. That is why you cannot apply double effect to other cases of abortion.

Either way, the women gets to execise her right to not support something she doesn't want.

Well, then why doesn't she have the right after the child is born to just refuse to feed the child?

Why is it worse to eat meat than to have an abortion?

Look at it this way. If you are vegetarian, why should it not be okay to eat animals, yet okay to kill the unborn child in an abortion? Why does the child rank less merit than any other animal?

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Look at it this way. If you are vegetarian, why should it not be okay to eat animals, yet okay to kill the unborn child in an abortion? Why does the child rank less merit than any other animal?

Because it's human. Filthy disgusting things.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Sure. Go here:

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/313/7070/1431

Interesting, that if you can't dispute the facts, dispute the meaning.

Interesting study, and yes, I would question your interpretation of the facts.
Your statement that "Women are 6 times more likely to commit suicide after an abortion, than after pregnancy" is simplistic and misleading.

People do not commit suicide because of a single event in their life, but rather because of "a complex interaction of many factors, such as mental and physical illness, substance abuse, family disturbances..." (from WHO guidelines for reporting suicides).

So a woman who is mentally and physically health is extremely unlikely to commit suicide after a pregnancy, regardless of whether she has an abortion or gives birth.

But, what this study shows is that a women with suicidal tendencies (due to other factors) are six times more likely to commit suicide after an abortion than if she gave birth.

How much risk is subjective. Out of about 90,000 abortions, 30 women committed suicide.

What the study does tell us is that if a woman has suicidal tendencies, she needs counselling and needs to be aware that an abortion creates higher risks. My gut reaction would be to tell these women not to have an abortion, but I'm not a counsellor.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

What actually caused the suicides? Maybe a woman has an abortion and then passes a pro-life poster that says people who have abortions are murderers just like the Nazis and the Khmer Rouge. It's possible that this creates so much guilty that she commits suicide.

So if prolifers just shut up, these problems would go away? That's a dubious claim.

Secondly, why should these women feel guilt, if there is no truth in what the prolifers say? If it's just a clump of cells, why care?

It is a question of being responsible for your actions. As a journalist, I know that reporting a suicide creates the risk of copy-cat deaths. A newspaper story can be the straw that breaks the camel's back. In the past, Canadian newspapers simply refused to report suicides, but then we ended up ignoring the problem. So there is a trend to more careful reporting, using guidelines created by the WHO.

Anti-abortion groups also need to act responsibily. You can fight your battle without contributing to a suicide, if you care about people.

As for why would they feel guilt. A woman may decide that an abortion is the right choice, and then later regret that choice. People change their minds. The fact that they change their opinion doesn't validate one side or the other.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

So you think that there is no pain for a woman who is forced to give birth to stillborn?

No. I say that there is more psychological pain in the abortion, then there will be from the sacrificial love in carrying such a child to term.

But this is your opinion, and AFAIK, the uninformed opinion of someone who has never been in that situation. And even if you have, just because one thing is right for you doesn't mean that it is right for everyone. The individual should have, and does have, the right to decide on a stillborn birth or an abortion because only they know which will cause them less anguish.

What is clear is that if we ban all abortions then we cause additional tramua to those who would have chosen an abortion.

So if you succeed in getting all abortions outlawed then you will have inflicted greater, and unnecessary pain and suffering on women who would have chosen an abortion. And in the case of still borns, you would not have saved any lives. The consequence of your actions is pain without any benefits.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I never raped the woman. The rapist raped the woman. How am I inflicting pain on the woman?

Because you would deny the victim the ability of choosing an option that, in her opinion, is less painful. You would force women to live by your standards, even though you have never been in their situation.

In your egotism, you claim you know what's best for the rape victim. A more humane approach would be to let the women decide for herself and then support her decision, whatever it might be.