Abortion

[Odin]

Originally posted by Deity Dude

It seems to me it is a mere question of when does life begin. Note I didn't say self-sustaining life, I said life.

IMO life begins at conception. I think it is pretty much a scientific fact. (If someone has proof otherwise, I would be interested in listening to it.) Given that fact, it should be illegal to take another human life without IT'S permission.

So Sperm and Egg arn't alive? Gametes, technically, are unique individuals because of the chromosomal mixing during meiosis. If you think I am crazy, there are many algae (like the sea lettuce seaweed on rocky seashores) and protozoans where the diploid and haploid stages look identical. The "life begins at conception" meme only makes sense if you believe in a soul, and so has no place in the SECULAR disscussion on the legality of abortion because of the seperation of church and state. If you think Abortion is wrong for religious reasons, then DON'T GET ONE.

[Ben Kenobi]

So, how do we solve that issue? By removing that choice? Curious logic there.

I'm going in a bit of a roundabout way. I am looking for someone to realise that it never is just the woman's choice because there are always two people involved.

The fact that two people are involved, the woman and her child is why it should not be one person's decision to kill another person.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Actually no. Those numbers come from two groups, the CDC which is the Centre for Disease Control, and the AGI, which is the Alan Guttmacher Institute. Hardly 'anti abortion' groups, if anything they are quite the opposite.

I've seen them on anti-abortion-rights sites, too. So let's just say everyone agrees on the numbers.

Is that necessarily so? Do you believe that no one uses abortion as a method of birth control?

Yes, I believe that. In fact, there's no evidence to support the notion that women use abortion as an alternative to contraception. None. It's a conservative myth on par with the Welfare Mom with a Cadillac. And your God-given common sense should tell you that anyone who was actually thinking it through -- that is, making a rational choice, as your question implies -- would choose anything -- condoms, the pill, an IUD -- over and expensive, painful surgical procedure.

I ask the other question. Can the US afford to abort 1 million kids who would otherwise support their parents and the state throughout their working lives? I don't see how any society can afford to kill 1 million people every year, and still expect to thrive.

What is the plan? Have folks take care of the kids they have, since we all know that most folks aren't having 2 kids and don't have kids to support. It's a hard argument to say that the minimal number of kids being born today is too great a burden for society to support.

But now we get to it -- what's the plan? "Have folks take care of their kids" is not the plan; these are folks who don't want kids, and so by definition don't want to take care of them. Now, they might be okay anyway in a society that had an intact social safety net, but the US today is not that society. In fact, as others here have already pointed out, the very forces that are pushing to outlaw abortion are the same forces who are pushing to cut taxes, gut social programs, and generally get the government out of people's lives. (They're also the same forces fighting gay adoption, which would be another partial solution here).

So once again: up to a million kids a year. Parents who don't want them. Parents who may not be able to afford them. Parents who have already exhibited an obvious failure to act responsibly, and should not plausibly be imagined will suddenly become responsible. No ability or willingness for the State to intervene effectively. No desire for most people with fewer kids than they can support (who tend to be white) to adopt most of these kids (who will tend not to be). And, despite your optimism, no realistic chance under those circumstances that these kids will contribute more to society than they will cost it, as children or adults (especially in an America that has begun to think of prison as the solution to pretty much any social problem).

What the heck is the plan?

[MrFun]

Rufus wants to know what TeH PLaN is!!!!!

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by MrFun
Rufus wants to know what TeH PLaN is!!!!!

Picked up on that, did you?

[Ben Kenobi]

well, sex education has helped enormously... another thing religious fundamentalists are against. According to the Centers for Disease Control, the birth rate for 15-17 years olds between 1991-2003 declined 42%. And between 1983 and 2000, the induced abortion rate for that same age group decreased by more than half.

Yes, I've seen those stats sava. However, you have to acknowledge that the overall abortion rates have not declined even as the use of contraceptives increase. Looking at a tiny subsection is not an accurate representation of the overall picture of abortion, you need to also look at the folks who are older then 17 to assess whether contraceptives really decrease the rate of abortion.

The counterargument realises that contraception is not always effective and that even as they reduce risks, this risk reduction can be counterbalanced by an increase in risky behaviour. Condoms, by lulling people into a false sense of security produce more 'accidents' resulting in abortions.

The issue about the woman's health is regarding the so called "partial birth" abortion bans. There is no such thing as a "partial birth" abortion. It is not a medical term. I've explain this to you many times. Do I need to explain it again? The procedure the fundamentalists want to ban is called "intact dilation and extraction".

Yes sava, what the partial birth abortions do is they deliver the child up to the skull, they stick a pair of scissors into the back of the skull, and then they suction out the brains so they can pull the head of the child all the way out of the mother. Now, can you tell me why they couldn't deliver the baby alive and also save the mother, as in a c-section?

Partial birth abortion, and this is why they call it partial birth abortion, is never needed to save the life of the mother when the child is viable and can survive outside the womb. All it does is increase the risks to the woman of potential complications related to the extremely late term abortion.

Wow. Just wow. So after a woman has been raped, you want to force her to have a rapist's child? Do you know how sick and twisted that is?

And forcing her to have an abortion is less twisted? Sticking an instrument into her isn't going to take away the feelings of violation, but will only make things worse. Rape is a horrible situation for the mother, but many women have reported that their child is the only good thing to come from the rape. The child is not responsible for the sins of her father, so why should she pay for them with her life?

And to answer your question, I think abortion should be 100% legal all throughout the pregnancy... no restrictions. Period. I am even against parental notifications. It is nobody's business. It is not your business. It is not my business. It is not the GOVERNMENT's business. It is between a woman and her doctor. PERIOD!

Thank you. So why focus on the hard cases of rape and the life of the mother, when you really believe that all abortions, for any reason whatsoever, at any time should be permitted? Why bother to talk about those at all?

According to what I've read and conversations I've had with my neurologist, the human brain begins to develop full consciousness around 2-3. That's around the time we start to become self-aware. Now that's not to say it's okay to kill infants and toddlers. The line is firmly drawn. Your DNA may be created at conception, but the process is not finished until birth. There's a lot of literature out there about the brain development of children. I don't have anything bookmarked though. You can do your own research.

Thank you for clarifying your position. Peter Singer comes to the same conclusion as you, however he believes that there should be no distinctions made between the immature newborns and the immature unborn children. He feels we should be allowed to kill them both. Why is birth the special moment where the line on brain development must be drawn? Nothing changes inside the brain at that moment.

The fact is BK, you will not accomplish anything by banning abortion. You will deny women vital health care and you will only drive women who want abortions into back alleys with coathangers and outlaw clinics. Or, if Roe V Wade is overturned, it will just be up to the States and you will just have women traveling to other states to get abortions.

Vital health care? Why is abortion more vital, then say, having a heart transplant? Or say cosmetic surgery. Abortion is only medically necessary in cases like an ectopic pregnancy where you can only save the life of the mother, and not her child. Why else should we compare abortion to something like a heart transplant?

Secondly, you are right. Banning abortion will not stop people from having them. However, neither will any law stop people from breaking them. The purpose of the law is not to force everyone to obey the law, but to defend what is right, to defend the weak and helpless in society. That includes women, and their children.

If you want to make a difference and prevent unwanted pregnancies, promote condom use. Go out and educate young people about contraception. Become a proponent for birth control. Encourage abstinence, but not at the exclusion of everything else!

What about the folks who are told to use a condom, who are shocked and appalled when it fails on them, and all the trust that they put in them? Wouldn't they feel betrayed by the message that contraception is always the answer?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


Picked up on that, did you?

And apparently since you have yet to get an answer from someone, I'm the first one to pick up on it.

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


I'm going in a bit of a roundabout way. I am looking for someone to realise that it never is just the woman's choice because there are always two people involved.

The fact that two people are involved, the woman and her child is why it should not be one person's decision to kill another person.

What if the child wishes to be dead? I can't tell you how many times I've overheard the argument, "I wish I'd never been born! I wish you weren't my mother!" ...and the like.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by MrFun


And apparently since you have yet to get an answer from someone, I'm the first one to pick up on it.

Touché

[Sava]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Yes, I've seen those stats sava. However, you have to acknowledge that the overall abortion rates have not declined even as the use of contraceptives increase. Looking at a tiny subsection is not an accurate representation of the overall picture of abortion, you need to also look at the folks who are older then 17 to assess whether contraceptives really decrease the rate of abortion.

The counterargument realises that contraception is not always effective and that even as they reduce risks, this risk reduction can be counterbalanced by an increase in risky behaviour. Condoms, by lulling people into a false sense of security produce more 'accidents' resulting in abortions.

I'm sorry. Did you present any such statistics to support your argument? I don't see any.

Yes sava, what the partial birth abortions do is they deliver the child up to the skull, they stick a pair of scissors into the back of the skull, and then they suction out the brains so they can pull the head of the child all the way out of the mother. Now, can you tell me why they couldn't deliver the baby alive and also save the mother, as in a c-section?

Partial birth abortion, and this is why they call it partial birth abortion, is never needed to save the life of the mother when the child is viable and can survive outside the womb. All it does is increase the risks to the woman of potential complications related to the extremely late term abortion.

blah blah blah

Have you witnessed a DILATION AND EXTRACTION procedure? Again, "partial birth abortion" is not a medical term. Stop using it. There is no such thing is a "partial birth abortion".

BTW, are you an OBGYN? Where did you get your medical degree? How many OBGYN doctors have you spoken with or interviewed?

Do you have any credibility on this topic whatsoever?

I can answer that last one. No.

I've never witnessed this procedure and I sure as HELL know you have not. Having said that, I don't doubt it is not a pretty procedure. But then again, what medical procedure is? Have you ever seen those programs on The Learning Channel about plastic surgery? Or seen the real life ER shows? Medical procedures, even routine surgeries, are not for people with weak stomachs. So of course a procedure like this is not going to be pretty. But I have not witnessed such a procedure, nor am I familiar with the details.

But I know religious fundamentalists use these scare tactics and often use gross pictures to demonize this often LIFE SAVING MEDICAL PROCEDURE in order to push their sick and twisted agenda.

And forcing her to have an abortion is less twisted? Sticking an instrument into her isn't going to take away the feelings of violation, but will only make things worse. Rape is a horrible situation for the mother, but many women have reported that their child is the only good thing to come from the rape. The child is not responsible for the sins of her father, so why should she pay for them with her life?

Forcing her?

AFAIK, 99.999999% of women don't want to have a rapist's baby

Here's a project for you. Do a poll. It doesn't have to be a scientific one. Go to a mall. Poll young women. Ask them if they were to get raped, if they would want to have the rapist's baby.

Thank you for clarifying your position. Peter Singer comes to the same conclusion as you, however he believes that there should be no distinctions made between the immature newborns and the immature unborn children. He feels we should be allowed to kill them both. Why is birth the special moment where the line on brain development must be drawn? Nothing changes inside the brain at that moment.

okay... who is that guy and why should I care?

Vital health care? Why is abortion more vital, then say, having a heart transplant? Or say cosmetic surgery. Abortion is only medically necessary in cases like an ectopic pregnancy where you can only save the life of the mother, and not her child. Why else should we compare abortion to something like a heart transplant?

What are you babbling on about here? Sorry, this is a red herring. I don't know what you are talking about here. I'm not going to respond to this. I'm going to stick to the topic.

Secondly, you are right. Banning abortion will not stop people from having them. However, neither will any law stop people from breaking them. The purpose of the law is not to force everyone to obey the law, but to defend what is right, to defend the weak and helpless in society. That includes women, and their children.

Oh. For a minute there I thought you actually cared about stopping unwanted pregnancies. Silly me. But it's become apparant you don't actually care about a solution to the problem.

What about the folks who are told to use a condom, who are shocked and appalled when it fails on them, and all the trust that they put in them? Wouldn't they feel betrayed by the message that contraception is always the answer?

Again.... WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

"Contraception is always the answer?"

WHO SAID THIS?

I DID NOT SAY THIS.

It is a tool... it is not 100% but it is one of many tools people can use to protect themselves. Education works. Ignorance doesn't. That's why abstinence only education FAILS.

I am getting close to putting you on my ignore list.

It is becoming harder and harder to discuss things with you. I say one thing and you respond with a combination of right-wing religious fundamentalist nonsense, pure lies, and stuff that I DID NOT EVEN SAY.



I don't mind discussing things with people who hold different points of view with me. But this is just too much.


I think I'm done here.

Sorry BK, I don't mean any offense to you...

I STILL LOVE YOU!!!

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by beingofone


There are six billion acres of land in the state of Texas.
Why don`t we move the entire human population to this state and give everyone one acre.

We can then utilize the rest of the world for food.

Quick question; was anyone here an unwanted child and would it have been OK to have been aborted because you had a 'rough' childhood?

I was a non-planned-for child, but not an unwanted one by any means.

[ajbera]

Sava, BK raised a good point that you chose to mock instead of answering. What is the developmental difference between a fetus/infant right before and right after birth? You support abortion through the entire pregnancy, does that extend to newborns? What's so special about being on one side of the womb that makes it acceptable to kill it, but no so on the other side? Or do you acknowledge that the choice between when to kill or not kill (in this case) is arbitrary?

PS, I'm pro-choice, if that makes any difference (not that it should).

[Sava]

Originally posted by ajbera
Sava, BK raised a good point that you chose to mock instead of answering. What is the developmental difference between a fetus/infant right before and right after birth? You support abortion through the entire pregnancy, does that extend to newborns? What's so special about being on one side of the womb that makes it acceptable to kill it, but no so on the other side? Or do you acknowledge that the choice between when to kill or not kill (in this case) is arbitrary?

PS, I'm pro-choice, if that makes any difference (not that it should).

There is relatively no developmental difference.


Extending the right of personhood to the newborn is arbitrary... basically...


However, this is irrelevant. How many abortions on demand occur at or near the moment of birth?

How many women choose to abort their babies days before giving birth?

The thought of some vicious murderous abortion doctor killing an innocent fetus near-birth is just HORRIBLE RIGHT?!?!?!!? OH MY GOD THEY TAKE SURGICAL TOOLS AND CUT ITS BRAIN OPEN AND SUCK ITS BRAINS OUT ZOMFG

You see... scare tactics...

Has it actually happened.... once... ever?

Can anyone find a single case of an abortion on demand past 8 months?

It just doesn't happen.

Which is why such restrictions ARE NOT NECESSARY.

[ajbera]

At what point is a fetus enough of a "human being" that it should be legally protected?

[Sava]

birth or if the mother intends to give birth (in the case of a crime in which the mother is killed or the fetus dies)

I'm not sure about the legal issues involving the death of a fetus where a pregnant woman is attacked