Abortion

[Revoltingest]

Heh... since I just advocated for year-long, job-protected paid parental leave for pregnant women and new parents. I don't think they'll be coming for my passport any time soon.

Yeah....that wasn't so reasonable.
Government paid leave.....pbbbbbbt!
OK, you're a legitimate Canuckistanian.

 

[Marisa]

Heh... since I just advocated for year-long, job-protected paid parental leave for pregnant women and new parents, I don't think they'll be coming for my passport any time soon.

Please send your politics south. Thank you!

 

[JoStories]

I was answering the question. Perhaps next we might consider how much everyone loves little babies, even the ones in the hospital born months premature. Now we can consider whether we would enter the NICU and dissect, vacuum or acid-burn the infant in the NICU.

Then we would ask, "Why then, do we legally allow people in many places to do this to five-month and older babies in the womb?"

If the fetus is ancephaly, why would you not do this? Or perhaps they have Tay Sachs. Or another horrid problem. Would you have condemned me to have the child or my rapist? A 9 month sentence to carry an abomination to term? Do you honestly think that is right?

 

[columbus]

Well now we can see the psychopathic position of the pro choice position come to the front.

There is a reason why I stopped posting in this thread several pages ago.
Tom

 

[JoStories]

It is, and that's the point the pro choice crowd completely misses.

No, actually, it's not. Life begins at the first breath of the infant, before that, it is legally defined as the fetus. Legal abortion is in the first trimester. Late term abortion is by and large, illegal. If the woman is in the first trimester, it is her choice, period. Not yours, not mine.

 

[JoStories]

Well maybe the pro lifers don't want to continue to see you people continue to murder millions of lives.

If adoption is an option, then all fetuses which have met viability should be extracted and allowed to live as well.

It isn't murder is the first trimester, It's choice. You can spin this any way you wish and as Marisa said, obsfucate the point with emotional points but that will not change the fact the it is and will continue to be, the right of the female whether she wishes to carry the fetus or not. You don't get a vote in this.

 

[JoStories]

Your arguments are flawed as usual, this is why social science isn't respected. You can't run societies based on opinions, there has to be FACT.

Your posts are mostly from an opinionated POV. The fact is that the fetus has no sentience before the 2nd trimester, or 24 weeks. The fetus is a parasite feeding off the mother. And the most important fact is this; it is up to the woman to carry the fetus, which is law, and the fetus is not a breathing human until it does breathe. Those are the facts.

 

[McBell]

Well maybe the pro lifers don't want to continue to see you people continue to murder millions of lives.

Rather difficult to take you seriously when you confuse your words as such.

If adoption is an option, then all fetuses which have met viability should be extracted and allowed to live as well.

Adoption isn't an option for many reasons.

The first and foremost is that it is still the mothers choose.

then you have the whole issue of the mess the adoption business is in.

 

[JoStories]

I noticed you missed my earlier point on measuring sentience in a fetus. Funny how that works.

Sentience does not occur until the brain has formed. That means that within th first trimester, there is no sentence involved.

 

[McBell]

I noticed you missed my earlier point on measuring sentience in a fetus. Funny how that works.

your hypocrisy is not only comical, it shows just how desperate you have become.

 

[Eliab ben Benjamin]

Sentience does not occur until the brain has formed. That means that within th first trimester, there is no sentence involved.

I tend to agree with you Jo, as i work in a NICU as a Biomed Engineer, i am well aware that
until 22 weeks the lungs are not developed sufficiently to exchange oxygen and therefore
the life is not viable on its own. ... I am often amazed how much energy and funds are invested
in ensuring life at 21 weeks, though having witnessed the emotional involvement of the parents
and family it becomes understandable ...

Perhaps it is time we produced a viable artificial womb, we already have all the components,
a tank, heart lung machines, dialysis machines, feeding pumps, etc .. to provide oxidising and
nutrient ... if we add movement of the tank, and sound, ....
yes i know, very Sci Fi ... but none the less a possible solution ...

Edited to increase size for JO

 

[MD]

I tend to agree with you Jo, as i work in a NICU as a Biomed Engineer, i am well aware that
until 22 weeks the lungs are not developed sufficiently to exchange oxygen and therefore
the life is not viable on its own. ... I am often amazed how much energy and funds are invested
in ensuring life at 21 weeks, though having witnessed the emotional involvement of the parents
and family it becomes understandable ...

Perhaps it is time we produced a viable artificial womb, we already have all the components,
a tank, heart lung machines, dialysis machines, feeding pumps, etc .. to provide oxidising and
nutrient ... if we add movement of the tank, and sound, ....
yes i know, very Sci Fi ... but none the less a possible solution ...

Edited to increase size for JO

Nociceptive reactions have been noted in the fetus as early as 19 weeks and responses to sound have been seen in fetuses as early as 16 weeks

Pediatric Research - The Emergence of Human Consciousness: From Fetal to Neonatal Life

 

[JoStories]

I tend to agree with you Jo, as i work in a NICU as a Biomed Engineer, i am well aware that
until 22 weeks the lungs are not developed sufficiently to exchange oxygen and therefore
the life is not viable on its own. ... I am often amazed how much energy and funds are invested
in ensuring life at 21 weeks, though having witnessed the emotional involvement of the parents
and family it becomes understandable ...

Perhaps it is time we produced a viable artificial womb, we already have all the components,
a tank, heart lung machines, dialysis machines, feeding pumps, etc .. to provide oxidising and
nutrient ... if we add movement of the tank, and sound, ....
yes i know, very Sci Fi ... but none the less a possible solution ...

Edited to increase size for JO

First of all, thank you for the increased font. Other posts I have to use a magnifying glass so this was so very kind of you.

I don't work with little ones. It's simply too sad for me. But I concur with what you say. The problem with what you say is that today's society will not allow this as it's unethical and presents too many unanswered questions. It is a solution but not one that the majority of this country (US) will allow d/t the fact that we are mostly Christian. I see nicu nurses trying to understand allowing these children to live when they simply should not and costing you and I millions. Literally. The case in VA was horrendous where the fetus was born ancephaly and will never be off the vent, never see, speak, etc. what is the point there? The infant has no brain, even a hindbrain. And of course, the woman had no money so that ticket is on the taxpayers. Is this the right choice?

 

[JoStories]

Nociceptive reactions have been noted in the fetus as early as 19 weeks and responses to sound have been seen in fetuses as early as 16 weeks

Pediatric Research - The Emergence of Human Consciousness: From Fetal to Neonatal Life

Your point? They cannot survive at the age. What does all that mean in this topic?

 

[BilliardsBall]

I've heard this before, and yet it rings true for me:

It's easy to champion the rights of the unborn when the person acting as the vessel is so disregarded in the process.

I see no heart in the pro-life movement for the woman unless she is victimized enough to meet somebody's standards of acceptable suffering.

If she claims ownership of her body, that is in itself a radical act.
If she claims it unapologetically and without remorse, or purely on her terms, she is considered an outcast, a liar, a *****, a prude, a ****, or a murderer.

I would call her none of those things. I'd estimate that over 90% of young women who have abortions are simply scared, afraid to tell their parents about the pregnancy. The last thing either of us would do a frightened person is traumatize them physically and emotionally.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

It isn't murder is the first trimester, It's choice. You can spin this any way you wish and as Marisa said, obsfucate the point with emotional points but that will not change the fact the it is and will continue to be, the right of the female whether she wishes to carry the fetus or not. You don't get a vote in this.

Try to subtract out the emotion all you wish - make excuses involving the relative level of development - rage against the atrocity of rape/defects, etc. - cite what is enacted in law until you have no more large-font left in you...

None of that changes the negative circumstances surrounding abortion. And I am not even talking from a religious viewpoint - never have, never will. Here's all I've got:

1. Most animals of Earth go to battle over their young, or face danger in order to even reproduce - even in the face of ridiculous odds - because they understand that their youth are more important than themselves.
2. From a non-religious standpoint especially, there is no higher purpose in life than procreation. I challenge anyone to counter this.
3. From the exact point of conception, there is the potential for the being forming from that point forward to become fully developed.
4. Who cares if it acts as a parasite to the mother during the beginning stages of development? Honestly? Who gives a crap at all? There's a disease - A DISEASE - by which the mother's body doesn't stop in its immune system attacks against the fetus and can, therefore, destroy it. If every woman's body reacted this way to pregnancy there would not be much of a human race to speak of. A developing baby IS NOT A PARASITE, end of story. No reason to harp on this, or even mention it. It is completely inconsequential information.
5. Should we really discount the emotional toll having an abortion takes on many women who go that route? Why do you think that happens? Because it is just another "choice" to be made? Oh wait though... too emotional... I guess that means it has no bearing on anything at all, by your account. I would say it is due to an innate, even if manifesting only as a subconscious understanding of points 1-3 above.

All of the above, and I STILL believe it should be the woman's choice. I just understand that it is a heavy price for which there is no true payment, and should never, ever be taken lightly. And the subject should never, in my opinion, be relegated to the realm of cold-facts and law alone. It is a travesty to even attempt to do so.

 

[Marisa]

Try to subtract out the emotion all you wish - make excuses involving the relative level of development - rage against the atrocity of rape/defects, etc. - cite what is enacted in law until you have no more large-font left in you...

None of that changes the negative circumstances surrounding abortion. And I am not even talking from a religious viewpoint - never have, never will. Here's all I've got:

1. Most animals of Earth go to battle over their young, or face danger in order to even reproduce - even in the face of ridiculous odds - because they understand that their youth are more important than themselves.
2. From a non-religious standpoint especially, there is no higher purpose in life than procreation. I challenge anyone to counter this.
3. From the exact point of conception, there is the potential for the being forming from that point forward to become fully developed.
4. Who cares if it acts as a parasite to the mother during the beginning stages of development? Honestly? Who gives a crap at all? There's a disease - A DISEASE - by which the mother's body doesn't stop in its immune system attacks against the fetus and can, therefore, destroy it. If every woman's body reacted this way to pregnancy there would not be much of a human race to speak of. A developing baby IS NOT A PARASITE, end of story. No reason to harp on this, or even mention it. It is completely inconsequential information.
5. Should we really discount the emotional toll having an abortion takes on many women who go that route? Why do you think that happens? Because it is just another "choice" to be made? Oh wait though... too emotional... I guess that means it has no bearing on anything at all, by your account. I would say it is due to an innate, even if manifesting only as a subconscious understanding of points 1-3 above.

All of the above, and I STILL believe it should be the woman's choice. I just understand that it is a heavy price for which there is no true payment, and should never, ever be taken lightly. And the subject should never, in my opinion, be relegated to the realm of cold-facts and law alone. It is a travesty to even attempt to do so.

Nothing in your rather verbose posting was really worth note (least of which the personal attack on Jo) save your assertion that humans possess some innate desire to bread. Are you familiar with a rather large movement called Child Free By Choice? Are you aware how the numbers of those choosing not to reproduce are growing? More married women in U.S. aren't having children - latimes There is no innate human need to reproduce. Additionally, there is simply no connection between emotional health and instance of abortion Still True: Abortion Does Not Increase Women’s Risk of Mental Health Problems or of cancer ACOG Committee Opinion No. 434: induced abortion and breast cancer risk. - PubMed - NCBI

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Nothing in your rather verbose posting was really worth note (least of which the personal attack on Jo) save your assertion that humans possess some innate desire to bread. Are you familiar with a rather large movement called Child Free By Choice? Are you aware how the numbers of those choosing not to reproduce are growing? More married women in U.S. aren't having children - latimes There is no innate human need to reproduce. Additionally, there is simply no connection between emotional health and instance of abortion Still True: Abortion Does Not Increase Women’s Risk of Mental Health Problems or of cancer ACOG Committee Opinion No. 434: induced abortion and breast cancer risk. - PubMed - NCBI

Hmmm... don't remember saying we humans had an innate desire to breed. "Bread [sic]" is good though... so not sure on that one. I was simply supposing that perhaps the reason there is such an emotional whirlwind surrounding this subject is because, above all else, the innate understanding that our children should be protected is something that should be undeniable.

Who cares if there are people who decide not to reproduce? That has no bearing on my ideas/comments.

In the end - I suppose your retort and saying my comments have nothing in them worth note is your assertion that no emotionality should be allowed into the debate at all? It's a downright idiotic notion, and I could never back down from my assertion of the opposite.

Another crazy idea to me is that people think something like this their "right", when it takes a medical professional to help them with it lest they hurt themselves, possibly direly. There is no "right", in those situations. Even the "right" to health-care that you can't enact yourself is not truly a "right". It is all privilege. A privilege that you live within a society advanced enough to provide the medicinal cares necessary to take care of these things. Take all the doctors and professionals and equipment out of the picture - you're pregnant in a post apocalyptic world, or you're a cave-person - go ahead, make your choice now. A "right" - laughable.

 

[Marisa]

Hmmm... don't remember saying we humans had an innate desire to breed. "Bread [sic]" is good though... so not sure on that one. I was simply supposing that perhaps the reason there is such an emotional whirlwind surrounding this subject is because, above all else, the innate understanding that our children should be protected is something that should be undeniable.

Who cares if there are people who decide not to reproduce? That has no bearing on my ideas/comments.

In the end - I suppose your retort and saying my comments have nothing in them worth note is your assertion that no emotionality should be allowed into the debate at all? It's a downright idiotic notion, and I could never back down from my assertion of the opposite.

Another crazy idea to me is that people think something like this their "right", when it takes a medical professional to help them with it lest they hurt themselves, possibly direly. There is no "right", in those situations. Even the "right" to health-care that you can't enact yourself is not truly a "right". It is all privilege. A privilege that you live within a society advanced enough to provide the medicinal cares necessary to take care of these things. Take all the doctors and professionals and equipment out of the picture - you're pregnant in a post apocalyptic world, or you're a cave-person - go ahead, make your choice now. A "right" - laughable.

I really don't care to have a tit for tat with you over misspellings and personal attacks. If that's how you assert your conversational superiority, we won't be getting along.

The subject of abortion is an emotive one. I'm sure you read through my comments and noted that I never suggested it wasn't. I don't personally agree with using words like "parasite" any more than I agree with blowing up poster sized pictures of aborted fetuses and displaying them prominently. Both are attempts to illicit emotional reactions from the "other side". I'm sure you'll agree that acting out of emotionality usually has negative consequences.

It's not my intention to change anyone's opinion on the morality of abortion. I don't possess that much power. I understand that fully. My goal is to get both sides of this conversation to point where we can exhibit mutual respect. No one needs any other person's permission to make their own choices, but it is to our mutual benefit to respect each others right to make choices.

This is what you did say:

there is no higher purpose in life than procreation

I'm not sure how vague you think that was, but I got the message crystal clearly, despite my misspelling.

 

[JoStories]

Try to subtract out the emotion all you wish - make excuses involving the relative level of development - rage against the atrocity of rape/defects, etc. - cite what is enacted in law until you have no more large-font left in you...

None of that changes the negative circumstances surrounding abortion. And I am not even talking from a religious viewpoint - never have, never will. Here's all I've got:

1. Most animals of Earth go to battle over their young, or face danger in order to even reproduce - even in the face of ridiculous odds - because they understand that their youth are more important than themselves.
2. From a non-religious standpoint especially, there is no higher purpose in life than procreation. I challenge anyone to counter this.
3. From the exact point of conception, there is the potential for the being forming from that point forward to become fully developed.
4. Who cares if it acts as a parasite to the mother during the beginning stages of development? Honestly? Who gives a crap at all? There's a disease - A DISEASE - by which the mother's body doesn't stop in its immune system attacks against the fetus and can, therefore, destroy it. If every woman's body reacted this way to pregnancy there would not be much of a human race to speak of. A developing baby IS NOT A PARASITE, end of story. No reason to harp on this, or even mention it. It is completely inconsequential information.
5. Should we really discount the emotional toll having an abortion takes on many women who go that route? Why do you think that happens? Because it is just another "choice" to be made? Oh wait though... too emotional... I guess that means it has no bearing on anything at all, by your account. I would say it is due to an innate, even if manifesting only as a subconscious understanding of points 1-3 above.

All of the above, and I STILL believe it should be the woman's choice. I just understand that it is a heavy price for which there is no true payment, and should never, ever be taken lightly. And the subject should never, in my opinion, be relegated to the realm of cold-facts and law alone. It is a travesty to even attempt to do so.

1. I'm legally blind and increasing the font makes it easier for me to make sure there are little to no spelling errors. I need a magnifying glass to read yours, and frankly, I am getting tired of having to explain this..
2. I have no idea why you pontificate on and on only to end by saying you are prochoice. All you have pointed out had been covered and no one disputes it. I didn't speak to the issues sour rounding having an abortion. But until you have to face that decision on your own body, your views are just that..your views. I respect that. I do hope you felt better getting this off your chest