Abortion

[enthused antagonist]

Is abortion illegal or unavailable to women in the first half or pregnancy in any industrialized country? As science and medicine advance so do a host of questions regarding how we sholud and should not use them....Moral medicine is frequently a conundrum to me...When they unplugged Teri Schivao from life support she lingered on for nearly two weeks. She was given no food or water and for whatever twisted and insane notion, medicine was practiced more humanely by giving her no food or water and watching her body shut down nearly two weeks later. We treated criminals condemned to death with more compassion and dignity.I personally think that is pretty awful. Those terminally ill and almost at the end and in tremendous pain asked a doctor for assisted eternal sleep...He was branded a criminal and villianized for giving people, by choice and request a quick and less painful death.
Life becomes more difficult to define as science advances. Our language is being redefined frequently.Is a female defined by physical genetalia? Genetically identified? Is a person hooked to life support alive? Is it ok to pull a fetus halfway out and sick a knife in its brain? Is it ok to tinker with genetic selection? How long does moral medicine allow a patient to stay in a coma before they decide it's more moral to let him or her starve to death and wither away? It will be interesting to see what happens once the govment controls medicine. I bet they shoot that vegetable up with a lethal dose of something to free the bed...
I bet all abortions will be totally covered...even if ya have it 5 minutes post delivery. They'll probably have a baby basketball hoop over a trash can you can toss it in..
Hey Canada and any other industrialized country with socialized healthcare, does govt healthcare cover viagra??? Does socialized healthcare cover Suboxone? Pharmaceutical companies, do they get 5-10 years before a cheaper genetic substitute can be produced? I can only hum Bad Medicine by Bon Jovi...

 

[enthused antagonist]

Is abortion illegal or unavailable to women in the first half or pregnancy in any industrialized country? As science and medicine advance so do a host of questions regarding how we sholud and should not use them....Moral medicine is frequently a conundrum to me...When they unplugged Teri Schivao from life support she lingered on for nearly two weeks. She was given no food or water and for whatever twisted and insane notion, medicine was practiced more humanely by giving her no food or water and watching her body shut down nearly two weeks later. We treated criminals condemned to death with more compassion and dignity.I personally think that is pretty awful. Those terminally ill and almost at the end and in tremendous pain asked a doctor for assisted eternal sleep...He was branded a criminal and villianized for giving people, by choice and request a quick and less painful death.
Life becomes more difficult to define as science advances. Our language is being redefined frequently.Is a female defined by physical genetalia? Genetically identified? Is a person hooked to life support alive? Is it ok to pull a fetus halfway out and sick a knife in its brain? Is it ok to tinker with genetic selection? How long does moral medicine allow a patient to stay in a coma before they decide it's more moral to let him or her starve to death and wither away? It will be interesting to see what happens once the govment controls medicine. I bet they shoot that vegetable up with a lethal dose of something to free the bed...
I bet all abortions will be totally covered...even if ya have it 5 minutes post delivery. They'll probably have a baby basketball hoop over a trash can you can toss it in..
Hey Canada and any other industrialized country with socialized healthcare, does govt healthcare cover viagra??? Does socialized healthcare cover Suboxone? Pharmaceutical companies, do they get 5-10 years before a cheaper genetic substitute can be produced? I can only hum Bad Medicine by Bon Jovi...

Yes, but there are Islamic scholars who take the position that abortion is a sin even at the beginning of conception because it takes away the life of a supposed person. This is what I meant by "soul"; they view zygotes as a person in the making that has a right to life, so to speak. Not all Islamic scholars or Muslims hold this belief, but many of them do.

Lol...well the Catholics admonish birth control because it was interference in gods plan.... Lol..
But birth control almost never comes up....Birth control is considered smart now rather than sinful.
A woman who doesn't have sex when she is fertile sends an egg to there eternal end... Cruel, cruel woman. That unfertilized egg will remember as much of its demise as thay tiny egg.

 

[enthused antagonist]

Exactly... I guess life begins at conception but Life is something that comes gradually and changes over time.

Wait, is a sperm cell alive?

Seems like humankind doesn't have enough biological or moral understanding to deal with questions like this.

Humankind has plenty of biologic information...and society determines what is moral and what is unjust.

 

[BilliardsBall]

The question of abortion is one of choice. You are either pro choice, in which case you believe every woman has the right to make the choice (even if it's a choice with which you disagree) or you are anti choice, in which case you believe women should not possess the right to make the choice at all.

ETA: This isn't rocket science.

I fit neither definition, however. I said a relative chose a life-saving abortion. How about "restricted choice"?

 

[BilliardsBall]

That is a bold faced lie. Statistics exist, and if this is what you were telling people in your "center" then you have confirmed my suspicion that yours was, unsurprisingly, among the nefarious.

Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives
By Lawrence B. Finer, Lori F. Frohwirth, Lindsay A. Dauphinee, Susheela Singh and Ann M. Moore
CONTEXT: Understanding women's reasons for having abortions can inform public debate and policy regarding abortion and unwanted pregnancy. Demographic changes over the last two decades highlight the need for a reassessment of why women decide to have abortions.

METHODS: In 2004, a structured survey was completed by 1,209 abortion patients at 11 large providers, and in-depth interviews were conducted with 38 women at four sites. Bivariate analyses examined differences in the reasons for abortion across subgroups, and multivariate logistic regression models assessed associations between respondent characteristics and reported reasons.

RESULTS: The reasons most frequently cited were that having a child would interfere with a woman's education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%); that she could not afford a baby now (73%); and that she did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems (48%). Nearly four in 10 women said they had completed their childbearing, and almost one-third were not ready to have a child. Fewer than 1% said their parents' or partners' desire for them to have an abortion was the most important reason. Younger women often reported that they were unprepared for the transition to motherhood, while older women regularly cited their responsibility to dependents.

CONCLUSIONS: The decision to have an abortion is typically motivated by multiple, diverse and interrelated reasons. The themes of responsibility to others and resource limitations, such as financial constraints and lack of partner support, recurred throughout the study.

Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2005, 37(3):110–118
Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives

I'm sure that this study offered privacy and etc. for respondents, and I believe the answers as reported are genuine and a good cross-section as samples. However, I note that nearly 40% weren't the younger persons I mentioned. But nearly 50% said "relationship problems" which could of course mean problems with a partner--or a parent (perceived as I mentioned). Imagine also the conversation:


"I can't afford this child and I want to finish school before childbearing..."

"What if that weren't a problem? Can someone provide resources so you can both afford it and finish school?"

"My parents might help me, but I think they'll be very upset and angry with me instead. I don't know if I can tell them..."


In other words, I'm simply reporting what I've learned firsthand. I'm unaware of a study touching "Would your reasons/choices change if more immediate family/resource helpers were opened to you"? Perhaps there should be one... I apologize if I've missed same.

Another example was the loving adoptions I witnessed. Most cases: the adoptive parents paid for wellness care and healthcare and also allowed the birth mother to be part of the child's life.

Put another way--I think confidentiality is super-important and that parents/guardians should only be invited with the child's permission to the process. But if this was part of PP's playbook, there would be far fewer abortions. (I'm not saying PP is inimical, but I'm saying more communication could end many abortions.)

Thanks for sharing this study with us.

 

[Marisa]

I'm sure that this study offered privacy and etc. for respondents, and I believe the answers as reported are genuine and a good cross-section as samples. However, I note that nearly 40% weren't the younger persons I mentioned. But nearly 50% said "relationship problems" which could of course mean problems with a partner--or a parent (perceived as I mentioned). Imagine also the conversation:


"I can't afford this child and I want to finish school before childbearing..."

"What if that weren't a problem? Can someone provide resources so you can both afford it and finish school?"

"My parents might help me, but I think they'll be very upset and angry with me instead. I don't know if I can tell them..."


In other words, I'm simply reporting what I've learned firsthand. I'm unaware of a study touching "Would your reasons/choices change if more immediate family/resource helpers were opened to you"? Perhaps there should be one... I apologize if I've missed same.

Another example was the loving adoptions I witnessed. Most cases: the adoptive parents paid for wellness care and healthcare and also allowed the birth mother to be part of the child's life.

Put another way--I think confidentiality is super-important and that parents/guardians should only be invited with the child's permission to the process. But if this was part of PP's playbook, there would be far fewer abortions. (I'm not saying PP is inimical, but I'm saying more communication could end many abortions.)

Thanks for sharing this study with us.

I find it very odd that parents would take their child to a CPC without knowing first that said child was pregnant. The math there just doesn't add up. And of course in the US, only children who have reached the age of majority have an expectation of privacy. You have failed to convince me that your particular CPC strayed from the CPC norm of pressuring a captive audience utilizing any and all means including outright lies and distorted facts/statistics as necessary.

ETA: Planned Parenthood is more neutral than your CPC could ever hope to be. They answer questions which they are asked and do not interject their opinions in any way in a patient's choice. Their focus is not to talk anyone out of any procedure. Thus, they respect the right of their patients to receive services in an authoritarian free environment, and subject the patient to no judgement. CPC's should strive to reach the level of patient care one receives at Planned Parenthood. But then, that would require CPC's to change their business model to one that is truly focused on the patient and respecting the patient's choices, and away from presuming to know better than the patient what's in her best interests, most especially when one is so obviously devoid of any medical knowledge whatsoever. Only when one dismisses oneself of the responsibility of respecting others can one work in a CPC and fantasize about being in any way neutral.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

There are a lot of religious arguments (and general political ones) against abortion. But I think that the argument, generally speaking, demonstrates the scientific illiteracy of the everyman.

So you're against abortion for whatever reason, but consider this argument from Neil DeGrasse Tyson:

"Most abortions are spontaneous and happen naturally within the human body. Most women who have such an abortion never know it because it happens within the first month. It is very, very common. So in fact the biggest abortionist, if god is responsible for what goes on in your body, is god."

Now when he says 'very common' what he means is 50-70%. That's 50-70% of all pregnancies end in a spontaneous abortion that you 1) can't control and 2) are never aware of.

So how is the anti-abortionist stance tenable given this dataset?

100% of people die sooner or later, most naturally- or by 'spontaneous murder' to use Tyson's language - and similarly the vast majority you can't control or are ever aware of... so by his rationale, pre-meditated murder at any age is justifiable, not just pre-birth.

 

[McBell]

100% of people die sooner or later, most naturally- or by 'spontaneous murder' to use Tyson's language - and similarly the vast majority you can't control or are ever aware of... so by his rationale, pre-meditated murder at any age is justifiable, not just pre-birth.

now that is some serious mental gymnastics!

 

[leibowde84]

Again, I commend everyone on this thread for keeping their calm, but that doesn't mean we have to be PC. And I will try to use "pro choice" going forward if that helps. But what is the parallel? "For abortion"? "Not opposed to abortion?" Pro means...?

Again, the position of the "pro-choice" movement is not based on abortion, it is based on bodily autonomy. This is why "pro-abortion" is an extremely misleading classification, whereas "pro-choice", or protecting a woman's right to choose what happens inside her own body, is accurate.

 

[leibowde84]

The only way that can be so is if the pro choice, not pro abortion person feels that choice is good and that abortion is bad. Yes? No?

Nope. Being "pro-abortion" is not associated with being "pro-choice". You are unreasonably conjoining these positions into one. I agree that people can be "pro-choice" and "pro-abortion", but they are unrelated positions in this context. If we are discussing the morality of abortion, then the relevant position would be "pro-abortion" or "anti-abortion". However, since the "pro-choice" and "pro-life" positions are related to a woman's right to abortion, and not abortion itself as a moral act, it is extremely misleading to use the term "pro-abortion" when discussing this topic.

Again, if you are discussing the morality of abortion rather than a woman's right to have the option of ending a pregnancy, then those that are "pro-abortion" should be labeled as such. But, I am pretty sure you are trying to discuss the legalality of the issue. Thus, "pro-abortion" is not a valid classification. It would be like calling "pro-lifers" racists. Sure, there are many pro-lifers that are racist, but that is irrelevent to the discussion.

One who is both "pro-choice" and "pro-abortion" can still accurately be defined as both. They are not mutually exclusive in any way shape or form.

 

[leibowde84]

My intent is to point out why abortion is wrong. The fact all mothers who struggled with this but chose not to have the abortion are grateful for not having done so, proves my point.

Abortion being "wrong" is not an argument against bodily autonomy. Thus, it is irrelevent to the conversation. If you want to provide an argument as to why the "choice" in "pro-choice" should not be available, you must argue against a woman's right to bodily autonomy.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I'm sure that this study offered privacy and etc. for respondents, and I believe the answers as reported are genuine and a good cross-section as samples. However, I note that nearly 40% weren't the younger persons I mentioned. But nearly 50% said "relationship problems" which could of course mean problems with a partner--or a parent (perceived as I mentioned). Imagine also the conversation:


"I can't afford this child and I want to finish school before childbearing..."

"What if that weren't a problem? Can someone provide resources so you can both afford it and finish school?"

"My parents might help me, but I think they'll be very upset and angry with me instead. I don't know if I can tell them..."


In other words, I'm simply reporting what I've learned firsthand. I'm unaware of a study touching "Would your reasons/choices change if more immediate family/resource helpers were opened to you"? Perhaps there should be one... I apologize if I've missed same.

Another example was the loving adoptions I witnessed. Most cases: the adoptive parents paid for wellness care and healthcare and also allowed the birth mother to be part of the child's life.

Put another way--I think confidentiality is super-important and that parents/guardians should only be invited with the child's permission to the process. But if this was part of PP's playbook, there would be far fewer abortions. (I'm not saying PP is inimical, but I'm saying more communication could end many abortions.)

Thanks for sharing this study with us.

Can you at least offer how young your patients were? You keep mentioning younger persons, and parents, and fear of telling parents, but offer minimal context.

And lest you are unaware, a sizeable number of pregnant girls under 13 find themselves that way due to sexual abuse by someone they have trusted or felt they must defer to.

I commend you for acknowledging that your CPC was anything but neutral, but I have my doubts that it was safe for all patients. I am concerned that a young patient who wound up in your care was the result of incestual rape, and that the very person who might have raped the young patient might be in the room with her, hence re-traumatizing her while your CPC had been complicit in the process. If your center does not acknowledge the possibility of such events occuring, and does not regard patient privacy regarding consider statistical likelihood of very young pregnancy with incestual rape, I am concerned that the emphasis placed on the moralizing of keeping a pregnancy is considered infinitely more paramount than a patients safety and privacy.

Also, like Marisa stated earlier, the math doesn't add up. Why would parents bring a daughter to a CPC unless they already had suspicions that she was pregnant? I think she brought up a very good point.

My biggest concern at the moment is - like RU486 - that availability of abortifacients is restricted so much and dismissals of young girls who are raped as a non-factor that these patients not only have nowhere to go for their own safety or health, but that such scenarios further exacerbate severe trauma mentally and physically.

If primary concern is for the patient, then all considerations need to be taken. It, again, is part and parcel to patient-doctor confidentiality. It's why when I'd take my kids to the dentist, I was required to sign for permission for the dentist to share medical information for her patients (which were my kids) with people I listed in a confidentiality agreement, otherwise she was not to share any information.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Abortion being "wrong" is not an argument against bodily autonomy. Thus, it is irrelevent to the conversation. If you want to provide an argument as to why the "choice" in "pro-choice" should not be available, you must argue against a woman's right to bodily autonomy.

Yes.

I think when people argue against the very concept of bodily autonomy or bodily security, they forget that men have no restrictions as to their desires for what is inside or on their bodies. If they want a vasectomy, their choice. If they want a tree limb in their rectum, their choice. If they want to refrain completely from masturbating, their choice. If they want to donate to a sperm bank, their choice.

And if men want to have none of these choices or opportunities for their bodily functions, they can choose not to.

All of it, their choice with what happens inside their bodies.

As a woman, I stand for the right to have the same exact measures of bodily autonomy. My body. My uterus. My heart. My blood sugar levels. My neurological system. I should have access to treatment for conditions that are causing my health to be compromised.

I also think conflating men having to pay child support is a poor example of how male bodily autonomy is compromised. Women who are non-custodial parents are subject to the same laws. At the moment, military drafts are sexist against my sons by enforcement of their registration for selective service.

No...if men aren't expected to give up a choice for their reproductive organs and their reproductive health options, then I shouldn't be expected to give up my options either.

 

[leibowde84]

To the three of you so charmed by my naivete --

The point being –
This modern society who considers themselves to be so compassionate puts greater value on an unborn eagle than it does on child in the womb. Far more than 5,000 late term abortion babies a year are killed that could easily have lived outside the womb. Some alive on the abortion table after removed are then killed. And that is considered a harmless act by our nation, yet step on a bird egg and it’s a major crime. It’s just as horrifying as other 20th century atrocities, but I suppose our refined appearances masks it so well.

Still no one can justify a 9 month old “fetus” murdered and it’s all good, and a one day old newborn in a dumpster and that poor mother is hated by the TV public and gets a year in jail. I’m sure God agrees with all this.

This is completely inaccurate. The important factor that causes a woman's right to choose is in no way based on a devalue of the fetus, it is based on the importance of a woman's bodily autonomy. Beyond pregnancy, is there any other circumstance where a human being is forced to give up the use of their body against their will without some kind of legal agreement or contract in place? The importance or value of human life does not cancel out a woman's bodily autonomy. This is why parents are not legally forced to donate organs to their children, even in life or death situations.

 

[leibowde84]

Yes.

I think when people argue against the very concept of bodily autonomy or bodily security, they forget that men have no restrictions as to their desires for what is inside or on their bodies. If they want a vasectomy, their choice. If they want a tree limb in their rectum, their choice. If they want to refrain completely from masturbating, their choice. If they want to donate to a sperm bank, their choice.

And if men want to have none of these choices or opportunities for their bodily functions, they can choose not to.

All of it, their choice with what happens inside their bodies.

As a woman, I stand for the right to have the same exact measures of bodily autonomy. My body. My uterus. My heart. My blood sugar levels. My neurological system. I should have access to treatment for conditions that are causing my health to be compromised.

I also think conflating men having to pay child support is a poor example of how male bodily autonomy is compromised. Women who are non-custodial parents are subject to the same laws. At the moment, military drafts are sexist against my sons by enforcement of their registration for selective service.

No...if men aren't expected to give up a choice for their reproductive organs and their reproductive health options, then I shouldn't be expected to give up my options either.

Well-put.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I find it very odd that parents would take their child to a CPC without knowing first that said child was pregnant. The math there just doesn't add up. And of course in the US, only children who have reached the age of majority have an expectation of privacy. You have failed to convince me that your particular CPC strayed from the CPC norm of pressuring a captive audience utilizing any and all means including outright lies and distorted facts/statistics as necessary.

ETA: Planned Parenthood is more neutral than your CPC could ever hope to be. They answer questions which they are asked and do not interject their opinions in any way in a patient's choice. Their focus is not to talk anyone out of any procedure. Thus, they respect the right of their patients to receive services in an authoritarian free environment, and subject the patient to no judgement. CPC's should strive to reach the level of patient care one receives at Planned Parenthood. But then, that would require CPC's to change their business model to one that is truly focused on the patient and respecting the patient's choices, and away from presuming to know better than the patient what's in her best interests, most especially when one is so obviously devoid of any medical knowledge whatsoever. Only when one dismisses oneself of the responsibility of respecting others can one work in a CPC and fantasize about being in any way neutral.

I find it hard to imagine you really read my posts before replying.

We never told our patients the statistics, like by saying "you are 90% likely to change your mind if we get your parents involved".

We never had "parents take their children to a CPC" unless the parents already knew of the pregnancy/supposed pregnancy and parent and child wanted free aid.

We offered a place for parents and children to meet. Most parents love their children, but the children felt nurtured and safe in the CPC, inviting their parents by appointment.

I never said a CPC was neutral. I used the word neutral instead of safe for a MEETING SPACE, for which I apologize (again). What I'm trying to relate is that if you would like to see the number of abortions reduced 1) get parents and kids talking 2) show love and respect first, give aid and money second, and don't be judgmental. We had people come to my CPC after their third abortion for free medical and aid and counseling because we LOVED our patients. I'm sure PP cares about their patients and has staff who even love their clients and patients.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I find it very odd that parents would take their child to a CPC without knowing first that said child was pregnant. The math there just doesn't add up. And of course in the US, only children who have reached the age of majority have an expectation of privacy. You have failed to convince me that your particular CPC strayed from the CPC norm of pressuring a captive audience utilizing any and all means including outright lies and distorted facts/statistics as necessary.

ETA: Planned Parenthood is more neutral than your CPC could ever hope to be. They answer questions which they are asked and do not interject their opinions in any way in a patient's choice. Their focus is not to talk anyone out of any procedure. Thus, they respect the right of their patients to receive services in an authoritarian free environment, and subject the patient to no judgement. CPC's should strive to reach the level of patient care one receives at Planned Parenthood. But then, that would require CPC's to change their business model to one that is truly focused on the patient and respecting the patient's choices, and away from presuming to know better than the patient what's in her best interests, most especially when one is so obviously devoid of any medical knowledge whatsoever. Only when one dismisses oneself of the responsibility of respecting others can one work in a CPC and fantasize about being in any way neutral.

I don't see anyone on this thread offering personal neutrality. Are you saying it is commendable to be neutral on this issue? You are saying PP is more neutral than CPCs, which statement I can certainly accept, but are you saying PP is perfectly neutral and doesn't come down on the side of pro-choice?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Can you at least offer how young your patients were? You keep mentioning younger persons, and parents, and fear of telling parents, but offer minimal context.

And lest you are unaware, a sizeable number of pregnant girls under 13 find themselves that way due to sexual abuse by someone they have trusted or felt they must defer to.

I commend you for acknowledging that your CPC was anything but neutral, but I have my doubts that it was safe for all patients. I am concerned that a young patient who wound up in your care was the result of incestual rape, and that the very person who might have raped the young patient might be in the room with her, hence re-traumatizing her while your CPC had been complicit in the process. If your center does not acknowledge the possibility of such events occuring, and does not regard patient privacy regarding consider statistical likelihood of very young pregnancy with incestual rape, I am concerned that the emphasis placed on the moralizing of keeping a pregnancy is considered infinitely more paramount than a patients safety and privacy.

Also, like Marisa stated earlier, the math doesn't add up. Why would parents bring a daughter to a CPC unless they already had suspicions that she was pregnant? I think she brought up a very good point.

My biggest concern at the moment is - like RU486 - that availability of abortifacients is restricted so much and dismissals of young girls who are raped as a non-factor that these patients not only have nowhere to go for their own safety or health, but that such scenarios further exacerbate severe trauma mentally and physically.

If primary concern is for the patient, then all considerations need to be taken. It, again, is part and parcel to patient-doctor confidentiality. It's why when I'd take my kids to the dentist, I was required to sign for permission for the dentist to share medical information for her patients (which were my kids) with people I listed in a confidentiality agreement, otherwise she was not to share any information.

I DO appreciate your concern for the young and impressionable as well as the abused. My center was in a college town with many high schools also. You do understand, that by younger, however, I'm not talking of 35-year-olds who felt a late, last child wasn't the best idea. I'm talking about 23-year-old grad students, unwed, supported financially by parents, on down.

 

[Marisa]

I find it hard to imagine you really read my posts before replying.

We never told our patients the statistics, like by saying "you are 90% likely to change your mind if we get your parents involved".

We never had "parents take their children to a CPC" unless the parents already knew of the pregnancy/supposed pregnancy and parent and child wanted free aid.

We offered a place for parents and children to meet. Most parents love their children, but the children felt nurtured and safe in the CPC, inviting their parents by appointment.

I never said a CPC was neutral. I used the word neutral instead of safe for a MEETING SPACE, for which I apologize (again). What I'm trying to relate is that if you would like to see the number of abortions reduced 1) get parents and kids talking 2) show love and respect first, give aid and money second, and don't be judgmental. We had people come to my CPC after their third abortion for free medical and aid and counseling because we LOVED our patients. I'm sure PP cares about their patients and has staff who even love their clients and patients.

It's not a safe meeting place. Regardless of how you're defining it.

 

[Marisa]

I don't see anyone on this thread offering personal neutrality. Are you saying it is commendable to be neutral on this issue? You are saying PP is more neutral than CPCs, which statement I can certainly accept, but are you saying PP is perfectly neutral and doesn't come down on the side of pro-choice?

PP isn't in the business of talking people into or out of anything. Which is not something a CPC can say.