Abortion

[Kilgore Trout]

Try an experiment. Put a "potential " human in a jar and put it in your living room. Now put a couple of acorns in a jar next to it. See how you feel about the "potential" baby. Are they the same and how do they make you feel?

I waste millions upon millions of potential human beings on a regular basis. I never give it a second thought.

 

[McBell]

Opinions vastly differentiate in at which point life begins.

Which quite frankly makes no sense.
Life began a long long time ago is an ongoing continuous process.

BOTH the egg and the sperm have to be alive or there is no conception.
BOTH the egg and the sperm are human.
Unless it is your claim that sometime during the process it goes from being human to something else...?

I am merely asking that people realize that they are killing a potential human and accept it.

So you are basically hoping that your sad attempt at appeal to emotion tactic will cause people to just suddenly go "OMG!"?

People disagreeing tend to respond with 'its not a human, so it does not matter.' That's an opinion easily disregarded by another. I'll leave that debate up to the people who shout out until no one is listening.

Yet you are listening...
In fact, you seem poised to strike out at those whom you think fit into your strawman box.

But there are prices. A) the horrible experience and B)the what ifs.

and?
Just because you have issues with the "prices" does not mean everyone does.

My point is many people simply ignore these by disregarding the life cycle by desensitizing themselves.

Who the hell do you think you are, going around targeting people who have had, by your own words, a horrible experience and rubbing it in their face?
Do you honestly think it helps anything?

This thread sure shows it doesn't....

I've met many who have had abortions.

Um...
Congratulations?
Join the club?

The ones I have met don't really view there not being a price.

you arethe only one making claims about prices...

 

[DallasApple]

And the whole "haunting thing"..

What keeps me up at night is not all the "could have been born" embryos..what kind of "life would they have had" ..would they have been a "good friend" ?This is what haunts me and much much more...the "price" for this little girl being born was that later she was a meal for a vulture.Oh but 'at least " she wasn't "murdered" as an embryo.

THE LIFE AND DEATH OF KEVIN CARTER

 

[DallasApple]

We a "collective" WE can not seem to even FEED the children of the world..this "heartbreaking haunting" preoccupation and energy spent to try and make sure MORE are born ????And because what ? Its some sort of moral penance to a woman having the nerve to spread her legs? And the claim is you value life?

 

[Falvlun]

Try an experiment. Put a "potential " human in a jar and put it in your living room. Now put a couple of acorns in a jar next to it. See how you feel about the "potential" baby. Are they the same and how do they make you feel?

I'd probably be a lot more grossed out about the fetus than the acorns.

How bout we try something a little more applicable:
Set a fetus in a jar next to a toddler. Then imagine the house catching on fire. Who do you think the firefighters are going to save? Would they even give the fetus a second glance? Now imagine that you are in a position to save only one. Which do you choose?

 

[Alceste]

I must say I find the poll results gratifying.

 

[DallasApple]

I'd probably be a lot more grossed out about the fetus than the acorns.

How bout we try something a little more applicable:
Set a fetus in a jar next to a toddler. Then imagine the house catching on fire. Who do you think the firefighters are going to save? Would they even give the fetus a second glance? Now imagine that you are in a position to save only one. Which do you choose?

I don't know that's a really tough one.It would be even tougher to choose between an embryo and a toddler.After all they are both children.

This is at at 5 weeks.

File:Tubal Pregnancy with embryo.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

26% of abortions are obtained before the 6th week.




I get so sick and tired of the anti abortionist showing pictures of the latest term abortions they can possibly find and screaming SEEE this is PROOF they are LYING...4.1 % of abortions are performed at 16 -20 weeks.and 1.4 % after 21 weeks..So the anti abortionist like to show the most emotionally heart tugging photos as representation as the 'norm"...in order to try and outlaw ALL abortions..which they wont be able to stop.All that will happen is more wives , mothers,sisters and friends will die trying to obtain an illegal abortion.Because induced abortion has been around as long as conception.Ironically my understanding the rate of abortion is down now..due to sex education and availability of contraception..which of course the same "camp that would outright out law abortion would also like to preach against contraception..

And the claim is ??????Oh yeah all life is equally valuable.

 

[DallasApple]

It all depends on whether or not a woman wishes to be a mother. If she wishes to terminate the pregnancy but wants to gain custody of the newborn, then of course she ought to carry the burden of the cost out of pocket if she can or through insurance. If, by any chance, that induced labor is made part of legislation, and the woman does not wish to be a mother of the newborn (if the newborn survives), I don't believe the women should carry the financial burden of the procedure and the NICU staffing and maintenance costs.

Who should be responsible for the cost burden is a good question, and one I don't have an answer for yet. My reasoning for the woman not carrying the burden herself is I'm under the assumption that induced labor for a fetus post-viability is a part of legislation, and is imposed for the purpose of allowing a fetus a realistic chance of survival outside of the uterus while respecting a woman's right to decide whether or not she is pregnant.

I will however totally disagree with this.Respectfully.After viability with the exception of needing to induce labor because of risks to mothers life you have made your "choice" after 24 weeks have passed.But most NON quack doctors will medically advise induced labor if the mother is at high risk continuing the pregnancy..but I don't call that "abortion".Some women develop dangerous condition due to the pregnancy and I am all for what I call 'early delivery"/...If that's what you mean ?Of course..But just "deciding" you don't want to be pregnant anymore after 24 weeks?Inducing labor and having at that point a human being that is struggling to survive and at risk of not just death but surviving with severe handicaps AND someone else picks up the tab for the extensive care for 3 months?No...at some point we as women have to bare a "burden" that is beyond our rights to our own body.We have committed to (at some point) continuing in a pregnancy and cant just "change our minds" and everyone else pays for it.

 

[Koldo]

I will however totally disagree with this.Respectfully.After viability with the exception of needing to induce labor because of risks to mothers life you have made your "choice" after 24 weeks have passed.But most NON quack doctors will medically advise induced labor if the mother is at high risk continuing the pregnancy..but I don't call that "abortion".Some women develop dangerous condition due to the pregnancy and I am all for what I call 'early delivery"/...If that's what you mean ?Of course..But just "deciding" you don't want to be pregnant anymore after 24 weeks?Inducing labor and having at that point a human being that is struggling to survive and at risk of not just death but surviving with severe handicaps AND someone else picks up the tab for the extensive care for 3 months?No...at some point we as women have to bare a "burden" that is beyond our rights to our own body.We have committed to (at some point) continuing in a pregnancy and cant just "change our minds" and everyone else pays for it.

I think the same way as you. :yes:

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I will however totally disagree with this.Respectfully.After viability with the exception of needing to induce labor because of risks to mothers life you have made your "choice" after 24 weeks have passed.But most NON quack doctors will medically advise induced labor if the mother is at high risk continuing the pregnancy..but I don't call that "abortion".Some women develop dangerous condition due to the pregnancy and I am all for what I call 'early delivery"/...If that's what you mean ?Of course..But just "deciding" you don't want to be pregnant anymore after 24 weeks?Inducing labor and having at that point a human being that is struggling to survive and at risk of not just death but surviving with severe handicaps AND someone else picks up the tab for the extensive care for 3 months?No...at some point we as women have to bare a "burden" that is beyond our rights to our own body.We have committed to (at some point) continuing in a pregnancy and cant just "change our minds" and everyone else pays for it.

Then what is your solution? Do you support elective abortion post-viability?

It's a grey area, Dallas. I'm still trying to figure out my position on the matter too. But before viability, I support complete safe and legal access. Post-viability, this is where Roe Vs. Wade helped to define personhood. Hence my proposal to induce when a woman wishes not to be pregnant anymore. Because she should IMO never be forced to carry a pregnancy when she does not want to. It's her bodily security that is at stake along with when a fetus bears a chance at survival.

If you don't support induced labor post-viability, then what do you support?

 

[Koldo]

Then what is your solution? Do you support elective abortion post-viability?

It's a grey area, Dallas. I'm still trying to figure out my position on the matter too. But before viability, I support complete safe and legal access. Post-viability, this is where Roe Vs. Wade helped to define personhood. Hence my proposal to induce when a woman wishes not to be pregnant anymore. Because she should IMO never be forced to carry a pregnancy when she does not want to. It's her bodily security that is at stake along with when a fetus bears a chance at survival.

If you don't support induced labor post-viability, then what do you support?

Take a moment to read this:

Mortality and morbidity

The shorter the term of pregnancy, the greater the risks of mortality and morbidity for the baby primarily due to the related prematurity. Preterm-premature babies have an increased risk of death in the first year of life (infant mortality), with most of that occurring in the first month of life (neonatal mortality). Worldwide, prematurity accounts for 10% of neonatal mortality, or around 500,000 deaths per year.[63] In the U.S. where many infections and other causes of neonatal death have been markedly reduced, prematurity is the leading cause of neonatal mortality at 25%.[64] Prematurely born infants are also at greater risk for having subsequent serious chronic health problems as discussed below.
The earliest gestational age at which the infant has at least a 50% chance of survival is referred to as the limit of viability. As NICU care has improved over the last 40 years, viability has reduced to approximately 24 weeks,[65][66] although rare survivors have been documented as early as 21 weeks.[2] This date is controversial, as gestation in the case reported was measured from the known date of conception (by IVF) rather than, as usual, the date of the mother's last menstrual period, making gestation appear two weeks less than if calculated by the conventional method in this case.[67] As risk of brain damage and developmental delay is significant at that threshold even if the infant survives, there are ethical controversies over the aggressiveness of the care rendered to such infants. The limit of viability has also become a factor in the abortion debate[according to whom?].

Specific risks for the preterm neonate

Preterm infants usually show physical signs of prematurity in reverse proportion to the gestational age. As a result they are at risk for numerous medical problems affecting different organ systems.
Neurological problems include apnea of prematurity, hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy (HIE), retinopathy of prematurity (ROP), developmental disability, transient hyperammonemia of the newborn, cerebral palsy and intraventricular hemorrhage, the latter affecting 25 percent of babies born preterm, usually before 32 weeks of pregnancy.[68] Mild brain bleeds usually leave no or few lasting complications, but severe bleeds often result in brain damage or even death.[68] Neurodevelopmental problems have been linked to lack of maternal thyroid hormones, at a time when their own thyroid is unable to meet postnatal needs.[69]
Children born preterm are more likely to have white matter brain abnormalities early on causing higher risks of cognitive dysfunction.[70] White matter connectivity between the frontal and posterior brain regions are critical in learning to identify patterns in language.[70] Preterm children are at a greater risk for having poor connectivity between these areas leading to learning disabilities.[71]
Cardiovascular complications may arise from the failure of the ductus arteriosus to close after birth: patent ductus arteriosus (PDA).
Respiratory problems are common, specifically the respiratory distress syndrome (RDS or IRDS) (previously called hyaline membrane disease). Another problem can be chronic lung disease (previously called bronchopulmonary dysplasia or BPD).
Gastrointestinal and metabolic issues can arise from hypoglycemia, feeding difficulties, rickets of prematurity, hypocalcemia, inguinal hernia, and necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC).
Hematologic complications include anemia of prematurity, thrombocytopenia, and hyperbilirubinemia (jaundice) that can lead to kernicterus.
Infection, including sepsis, pneumonia, and urinary tract infection [3]
A study of 241 on children born between 22 and 25 weeks who were currently at school age found that 46 percent had severe or moderate disabilities such as cerebral palsy, vision or hearing loss and learning problems. 34 percent were mildly disabled and 20 percent had no disabilities, while 12 percent had disabling cerebral palsy.[72][73]

By inducing labor, the mother is effectively putting the baby at a high risk for multiple health complications including death. That is the reason i am not in favour of induced labor, unless the woman has any particular health condition that puts herself at a high risk if she stays pregnant.

To answer your question, although it wasn't directed towards me, i support: Stay pregnant after post-viability. Or abort before it.

 

[Brickjectivity]

A mother is in discomfort while the baby is a fetus, but the mother will usually defend it. Because of that there isn't a need to outlaw abortions. Similarly there's no need to criticize women who get pregnant. That is what women do. They get pregnant, and we should be glad that they do.

 

[DallasApple]

I support abortion up to the point of viability(even though late term abortions make me cringe .I would rather see the cut off earlier I can live with it only because how rare it is).After that induced labor only in cases that its medically necessary for the mothers safety.

I do not believe its ethical that I should be able to just decide at 25 weeks that I don't like being pregnant and have myself admitted to a hospital and be induced.Leaving a 14 oz baby in an incubator on life support ..hooked up to machines...tubes being crammed down its throat ...needles being jammed in it..for months..with very high liklihood if it survives it will be blind ..brain damaged and suffer serious medical issues for the rest of its life.Not to mention the medical bills that would likely run into the millions that sorry I can't pay.

I had a premature baby at 33 weeks.The stuff he had to go through was heart wrenching.For example his sucking reflex was not strong enough to eat on his own..and to conserve his energy ...they every hour or hour and 1/2 shoved a tube down his throat and syringed in formula..but then to monitor how well he was digesting they would 20 minutes later shove the tube in again and suck some back out..the bottom of his feet were black and purple from how many times they had to stick him to get blood samples.That's only the tip of the ice burg and he turned a corner in a couple of weeks and was sent home at 3 weeks.He was born at 4 lbs 14 ozs too.

To intentionally do that(and even worse if its delivered earlier including possible life long suffering /disabilities) just because you decide you don't want to be pregnant anymore is unethical.Or lets put it this way IMHO ..MORE unethical than a woman having to continue with the pregnancy even though she doesn't want to.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Take a moment to read this:



By inducing labor, the mother is effectively putting the baby at a high risk for multiple health complications including death. That is the reason i am not in favour of induced labor, unless the woman has any particular health condition that puts herself at a high risk if she stays pregnant.

I'm already highly aware of the health risks to the pre-term newborn. It is the reason for my position that the cutoff needs to be determined by the woman, her doctor, and a NICU staff that is consenting to revive and/or support the newborn once out of the uterus. It isn't a simple gestational age determination, but one that I believe ought to be determined by the people closest to the situation. Not all NICU staff will participate because of the grey area of ethics involved. Were a later gestational age occur, inducing labor would not be such an issue because of the greater chance of quality of life for the newborn.

Right now, we're debating over that 50/50 chance of life right around the 24-26 week mark where the greatest chances of health problems occur.

To answer your question, although it wasn't directed towards me, i support: Stay pregnant after post-viability. Or abort before it.

So a woman must remain pregnant post-viability? What ought to happen to her if she induces labor? What ought to happen to the doctor and the NICU staff who agree to reviving the newborn? If legislation were to be made for post-viability induced labor to be against the law, would that solve things?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I support abortion up to the point of viability(even though late term abortions make me cringe .I would rather see the cut off earlier I can live with it only because how rare it is).After that induced labor only in cases that its medically necessary for the mothers safety.

I do not believe its ethical that I should be able to just decide at 25 weeks that I don't like being pregnant and have myself admitted to a hospital and be induced.Leaving a 14 oz baby in an incubator on life support ..hooked up to machines...tubes being crammed down its throat ...needles being jammed in it..for months..with very high liklihood if it survives it will be blind ..brain damaged and suffer serious medical issues for the rest of its life.Not to mention the medical bills that would likely run into the millions that sorry I can't pay.

I had a premature baby at 33 weeks.The stuff he had to go through was heart wrenching.For example his sucking reflex was not strong enough to eat on his own..and to conserve his energy ...they every hour or hour and 1/2 shoved a tube down his throat and syringed in formula..but then to monitor how well he was digesting they would 20 minutes later shove the tube in again and suck some back out..the bottom of his feet were black and purple from how many times they had to stick him to get blood samples.That's only the tip of the ice burg and he turned a corner in a couple of weeks and was sent home at 3 weeks.He was born at 4 lbs 14 ozs too.

To intentionally do that(and even worse if its delivered earlier including possible life long suffering /disabilities) just because you decide you don't want to be pregnant anymore is unethical.Or lets put it this way IMHO ..MORE unethical than a woman having to continue with the pregnancy even though she doesn't want to.

I'll ask, then, the same question. Would you make post-viability induced labor illegal unless there are health risks to the mother? You would take the choice away from a woman because of your experience with preterm newborn?

I was born preterm, btw. I've had health problems my whole life, too. I don't think if my mother decided to induce me rather than I came by myself that I would find her to act unethically.

 

[DallasApple]

A mother is in discomfort while the baby is a fetus, but the mother will usually defend it. Because of that there isn't a need to outlaw abortions. Similarly there's no need to criticize women who get pregnant. That is what women do. They get pregnant, and we should be glad that they do.

I agree..we probably don't need to have the post viability argument for that reason.Including as it is only 1.4 % (to my understanding) of abortions are after 21 weeks and only 4.1 % are from week 16 to 20..And I have a sneaking suspicion (just my "intuition) most of those probably are for health related issues with the mother or they have detected some sort of abnormality in the fetus.In fact I think they test for things such as downs syndrome (if you are at higher risk) at around the 15th week.Also later in the pregnancy abnormalities can be better detected detected in sonograms .

 

[Koldo]

So a woman must remain pregnant post-viability?

Yes.

What ought to happen to her if she induces labor?

Once the baby is born it is effectively a person, therefore i would suggest holding the mother and the doctor, the one responsible for the procedure, accountable for whatever happens to this newborn.

What ought to happen to the doctor and the NICU staff who agree to reviving the newborn?

Reviving the newborn is a lifesaving act.

If legislation were to be made for post-viability induced labor to be against the law, would that solve things?

This is not a fair standard. We have laws for murder and theft, just to cite two examples. And they still happen this day.

 

[DallasApple]

your experience with preterm newborn?

Its not because of my experience with preterm newborn.But yes I would keep it as it is ..illegal.

My son thrived actually and was "caught up" like a full term baby after a few months.So its not "because " of my experience I just happen to have first hand knowledge of premies.Please to not imply any more meaning to my experience than that.

Its the idea of the risk involved and you are talking about as early as 25 weeks I suppose.The liklihood if they survive of suffering a life long of serious disabilities that makes its unethical.And by the way as far as that goes on the money end? Who is going to pay for that child for the rest of its life if it has extensive medical needs? Who is going to pay if the child needs constant care for the rest of its life because it can not care for itself?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Yes.



Once the baby is born it is effectively a person, therefore i would suggest holding the mother and the doctor, the one responsible for the procedure, accountable for whatever happens to this newborn.

How would you hold them accountable?

Reviving the newborn is a lifesaving act.

Yes. Which in my proposal thus far, it's IMO the most ethical thing to do for all parties involved. Including the biological mother and the staff who agreed to the procedure and to the oversight of the newborn.

This is not a fair standard. We have laws for murder and theft, just to cite two examples. And they still happen this day.

Of course. And abortion still happens regardless of the laws of the land. The importance of the pro-choice position is to provide safe and legal access to the procedure. Moralizing about it leads to debates like this.

I find the same feelings present against induced labor post-viability as I've heard from pro-life movements, tbh. There still is a desire to moralize about what a woman wishes to do with her body.

 

[DallasApple]

I don't think if my mother decided to induce me rather than I came by myself that I would find her to act unethically

Well I would .