• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Abortion

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
Thank you for your mostly respectful reply.

Just because you infer it does not mean I implied it. My argument is based on cause and effect. I do not ignore the man's role; he is the only one of the two who can walk away with no physical consequence, unless she has a vindictive father with a shotgun.

I understand wanting sex for pleasure. However, I am acutely aware that I can't be pregnant. Aside from STD or emotional backlash, I have no consequences to face.

How about the woman? She wonders whether the birth control worked. She discovers she's pregnant, then realizes her entire life will change whether she keeps the baby or not. If she aborts her baby, she has a lower probability of carrying a baby to delivery when she decides to have children.

I state for clarification: if a woman knows there is a risk of pregnancy, why would she have sex? The same reason a man will love her and leave her. It's all about selfish gratification.
Yes I am quite snarky. Call it a bad habit I emulate from a few of my heroes, if you want to.

Well I interpreted your comments based on what you wrote. I politely suggest being crystal clear if you do not want that. If you don't then ehh cool.

Abortion does not affect future fertility or reduce the chance of future miscarriages. Allowing some pregnancies might though. So what's your point? That there's risks? Life is a risk.

Also we typically have sex for a number of reasons. Stronger bonds, religious/spiritual duty etc. we don't live in 1984 with sex being so revolting that we have to hold our noses even when we're trying to have kids you know. Nor are we all living like Nuns!! If you want to do so, be my guest. Don't expect everyone to follow though.
 
Abortion does not affect future fertility or reduce the chance of future miscarriages.

My father was an OB/GYN, specializing in fertility and sex selection. He was also adamantly pro-abortion. He did assert that abortion has fertility consequences. I've not researched it myself, but given that his assertion undermines the moral clarity with which he aborted pregnancies, I'd have a hard time believing that it was a fabrication.
 

Marisa

Well-Known Member
My father was an OB/GYN, specializing in fertility and sex selection. He was also adamantly pro-abortion. He did assert that abortion has fertility consequences. I've not researched it myself, but given that his assertion undermines the moral clarity with which he aborted pregnancies, I'd have a hard time believing that it was a fabrication.
The link I posted is from the Mayo Clinic. Abortion carries a 0.5% risk of complication to a woman. Because no medical procedure is 100% safe, any complication can have future ramifications, but 0.5% rate of complication is well beyond "pretty low". Outpatient colonoscopy, which is performed under general anesthesia, carries a greater risk. Pregnancy itself carries a greater risk. Aside from never becoming pregnant, the safest thing a woman can do is obtain an early term abortion, which often amounts to "swallow a pill, have a period". In parts of the world that do not have our level of medical care, pregnancy and childbirth are still the top killers of women. Here in the US, with our medical care, it maintains a place on the top 10 list (#6, last I checked).

My mother was a 40 year BSNRN who spent 2 decades in L&D pre-Roe v. Wade, and my father was CEO/Comptroller of Texas' largest public hospital. Your father's "data" is not current. If you are interested in learning what the current data is, visit Guttmacher Institute.
 
The link I posted is from the Mayo Clinic. Abortion carries a 0.5% risk of complication to a woman. Because no medical procedure is 100% safe, any complication can have future ramifications, but 0.5% rate of complication is well beyond "pretty low". Outpatient colonoscopy, which is performed under general anesthesia, carries a greater risk. Pregnancy itself carries a greater risk. Aside from never becoming pregnant, the safest thing a woman can do is obtain an early term abortion, which often amounts to "swallow a pill, have a period". In parts of the world that do not have our level of medical care, pregnancy and childbirth are still the top killers of women. Here in the US, with our medical care, it maintains a place on the top 10 list (#6, last I checked).

My mother was a 40 year BSNRN who spent 2 decades in L&D pre-Roe v. Wade, and my father was CEO/Comptroller of Texas' largest public hospital. Your father's "data" is not current. If you are interested in learning what the current data is, visit Guttmacher Institute.
Sorry, this is a follow-the money-issue. Nobody wants to kill the cash cow. Doctors are junior politicians, loathe to upset the apple cart for fear of calling the attention of the AMA. They toe the line, or they suffer.

You can argue my point (I would, given my lack of citations), but before you get too comfortable, you might look beyond what a medical establishment says, and go to the independent research.
 
The link I posted is from the Mayo Clinic. Abortion carries a 0.5% risk of complication to a woman. Because no medical procedure is 100% safe, any complication can have future ramifications, but 0.5% rate of complication is well beyond "pretty low". Outpatient colonoscopy, which is performed under general anesthesia, carries a greater risk. Pregnancy itself carries a greater risk. Aside from never becoming pregnant, the safest thing a woman can do is obtain an early term abortion, which often amounts to "swallow a pill, have a period". In parts of the world that do not have our level of medical care, pregnancy and childbirth are still the top killers of women. Here in the US, with our medical care, it maintains a place on the top 10 list (#6, last I checked).

My mother was a 40 year BSNRN who spent 2 decades in L&D pre-Roe v. Wade, and my father was CEO/Comptroller of Texas' largest public hospital. Your father's "data" is not current. If you are interested in learning what the current data is, visit Guttmacher Institute.
Forgot to mention: my father was in practice from the early sixties until about 2000, making his claim more current than your mom's. Pre-R v W data are not nearly as relevant as post, due to sample size if nothing else.
 

Marisa

Well-Known Member
Sorry, this is a follow-the money-issue. Nobody wants to kill the cash cow. Doctors are junior politicians, loathe to upset the apple cart for fear of calling the attention of the AMA. They toe the line, or they suffer.

You can argue my point (I would, given my lack of citations), but before you get too comfortable, you might look beyond what a medical establishment says, and go to the independent research.
I'm not going to argue that, I can't. Because for those who don't value evidence, there is no evidence which can be presented such a person will value.

Guttmacher Institute: Advancing Sexual and Reproductive Health Worldwide through RESEARCH, Policy Analysis and Public Education.
http://www.guttmacher.org/
 

Marisa

Well-Known Member
Forgot to mention: my father was in practice from the early sixties until about 2000, making his claim more current than your mom's. Pre-R v W data are not nearly as relevant as post, due to sample size if nothing else.
I didn't say my mom made any claim. I thought we were just trading parental job information, as it has no other possible relevance in a discussion where facts are present. My "claim" came from the Mayo Clinic, which is a highly respected institute and also which happens to be non-profit, and the Guttmacher Institute.
 
I didn't say my mom made any claim. I thought we were just trading parental job information, as it has no other possible relevance in a discussion where facts are present. My "claim" came from the Mayo Clinic, which is a highly respected institute and also which happens to be non-profit, and the Guttmacher Institute.

http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/getting-pregnant/expert-answers/abortion/faq-20058551

Generally, abortion isn't thought to cause fertility issues or complications in subsequent pregnancies. However, some research suggests a possible link between abortion and an increased risk of:
Vaginal bleeding during early pregnancy
Preterm birth
Low birth weight
Placenta problems, such as retained placenta

Mayo's page acknowledges what are generally considered to be potentially severe issues, like low birth weight.

We are both finding what we want, in whatever we cite. As my position is based on the physical and psychological well-being of the mother, as well as the life of a baby, I have no reservations.
 

Marisa

Well-Known Member
http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/getting-pregnant/expert-answers/abortion/faq-20058551

Generally, abortion isn't thought to cause fertility issues or complications in subsequent pregnancies. However, some research suggests a possible link between abortion and an increased risk of:
Vaginal bleeding during early pregnancy
Preterm birth
Low birth weight
Placenta problems, such as retained placenta

Mayo's page acknowledges what are generally considered to be potentially severe issues, like low birth weight.

We are both finding what we want, in whatever we cite. As my position is based on the physical and psychological well-being of the mother, as well as the life of a baby, I have no reservations.
You should have kept reading (emphasis mine).
"Rarely, a surgical abortion can damage the cervix or uterus. In such cases, surgery might be needed to correct the damage before a woman can conceive again. Also, rarely the cervix can be weakened, leading to the potential for the cervix to open prematurely (incompetent cervix) in a subsequent pregnancy. This is more likely to affect women who have had multiple surgical abortions."

Here are some things of note:
I stated already that no procedure is without risk. This is fact. Then I stated that this risk level, according to Guttmacher, is 0.5%. Pregnancy actually carries a greater risk factor than early term, elective abortion.

Here's what you are doing: Honing in on what is not in question: that no medical procedure is ever 100% safe, and ignoring the risk factor. That's called confirmation bias, when you ignore certain points of data in order to preserve a closely held opinion. And your closely held opinion is that abortion is immoral, when you aren't even being honest enough to entertain all the facts.

Here's what I'm not saying: that your opinion on whether abortion is right for you is right or wrong. Read through this whole thread, you'll find I never say that. I correct fallacious information when it's presented, but I've never told one person their opinion was invalid. What is invalid is your presumption that your opinion ought to be broadly applicable to all women. We all possess bodily autonomy, and we all get to make the choice for ourselves.
 
You should have kept reading (emphasis mine).
"Rarely, a surgical abortion can damage the cervix or uterus. In such cases, surgery might be needed to correct the damage before a woman can conceive again. Also, rarely the cervix can be weakened, leading to the potential for the cervix to open prematurely (incompetent cervix) in a subsequent pregnancy. This is more likely to affect women who have had multiple surgical abortions."

Here are some things of note:
I stated already that no procedure is without risk. This is fact. Then I stated that this risk level, according to Guttmacher, is 0.5%. Pregnancy actually carries a greater risk factor than early term, elective abortion.

Here's what you are doing: Honing in on what is not in question: that no medical procedure is ever 100% safe, and ignoring the risk factor. That's called confirmation bias, when you ignore certain points of data in order to preserve a closely held opinion. And your closely held opinion is that abortion is immoral, when you aren't even being honest enough to entertain all the facts.

Here's what I'm not saying: that your opinion on whether abortion is right for you is right or wrong. Read through this whole thread, you'll find I never say that. I correct fallacious information when it's presented, but I've never told one person their opinion was invalid. What is invalid is your presumption that your opinion ought to be broadly applicable to all women. We all possess bodily autonomy, and we all get to make the choice for ourselves.
Here's what you are doing: assuming that their statistical method is valid. As a disproportionate number of abortions are performed in inner city neighborhoods, I would challenge your assumption that follow-up was effective. In other words, if the abortion recipient didn't report a problem, and there was ineffective follow-up, then the statistics will be uniformly low.

I stand by my initial claim: that abortion is selfish. I will add that sex is selfish. I have four children, and had a vasectomy, so I can engage in sex with my wife to my heart's content, and we don't have to consider ending a life just because we don't want more kids.

If my vasectomy manages to undo itself, and my wife ends up pregnant, we will keep the baby, because it is morally wrong to kill it.
 

Marisa

Well-Known Member
Here's what you are doing: assuming that their statistical method is valid. As a disproportionate number of abortions are performed in inner city neighborhoods, I would challenge your assumption that follow-up was effective. In other words, if the abortion recipient didn't report a problem, and there was ineffective follow-up, then the statistics will be uniformly low.

I stand by my initial claim: that abortion is selfish. I will add that sex is selfish. I have four children, and had a vasectomy, so I can engage in sex with my wife to my heart's content, and we don't have to consider ending a life just because we don't want more kids.

If my vasectomy manages to undo itself, and my wife ends up pregnant, we will keep the baby, because it is morally wrong to kill it.
I stand behind my assertion that there is no evidence which will convince someone who's impervious to evidence.

Your judgement is valid only to you. I don't begrudge you your opinion. Sex is normal, though. It's your moralization that makes it dirty.
 
I stand behind my assertion that there is no evidence which will convince someone who's impervious to evidence.

Your judgement is valid only to you. I don't begrudge you your opinion. Sex is normal, though. It's your moralization that makes it dirty.
I never suggested sex is dirty. I have probably implied, and now will state that abortion is dirty. I'm a bit divided on the outlier cases (family rape), but I claim that abortion based on life inconvenience is down right filthy.

You can say what you want about evidence. You're not reading the research, you're taking the word of a group of PR professionals with a profit motive.
 

Marisa

Well-Known Member
I never suggested sex is dirty. I have probably implied, and now will state that abortion is dirty. I'm a bit divided on the outlier cases (family rape), but I claim that abortion based on life inconvenience is down right filthy.

You can say what you want about evidence. You're not reading the research, you're taking the word of a group of PR professionals with a profit motive.
I'm not competent to read the research, and I'd hazard a guess that neither are you. That's why institutions like Guttmacher exist.

It's always possible to use common sense and logic. Considering the number of abortions that are performed annually, if they were having this huge detrimental impact on women's ability to have future children, we'd know that. Thing is, the bigger a conspiracy is, the harder it is to keep quite.

Your opinions are rooted in the rather common society trope that women exist to breed the next generation. Despite your protestations, you're not actually hiding that very well. You have very judgmental opinions about others which are undoubtedly rooted in your religion. That's all well and good, but it doesn't work for me. And it doesn't work for millions of people. So you keep your opinions, and I'll keep mine. I'll keep valuing evidence and you can keep relying on it while dismissing it. Been nice talking to you.
 
I'm not competent to read the research, and I'd hazard a guess that neither are you. That's why institutions like Guttmacher exist.

It's always possible to use common sense and logic. Considering the number of abortions that are performed annually, if they were having this huge detrimental impact on women's ability to have future children, we'd know that. Thing is, the bigger a conspiracy is, the harder it is to keep quite.

Your opinions are rooted in the rather common society trope that women exist to breed the next generation. Despite your protestations, you're not actually hiding that very well. You have very judgmental opinions about others which are undoubtedly rooted in your religion. That's all well and good, but it doesn't work for me. And it doesn't work for millions of people. So you keep your opinions, and I'll keep mine. I'll keep valuing evidence and you can keep relying on it while dismissing it. Been nice talking to you.
You'd guess wrong. I'm a biochemist in R&D at a diagnostic instrument company.
 

Marisa

Well-Known Member
You'd guess wrong. I'm a biochemist in R&D at a diagnostic instrument company.
Interesting. One assumes you'd value research and data more. I guess you do, if it's seems to be in your favor. Was interesting how you stopped reading the Mayo link when it seemed to validate your perspective.
 
Interesting. One assumes you'd value research and data more. I guess you do, if it's seems to be in your favor. Was interesting how you stopped reading the Mayo link when it seemed to validate your perspective.
It's a marketing page you read, with statistics they want you to see. I guarantee they're not telling you the whole story.
 

Marisa

Well-Known Member
The mayo clinic is a business. Their webpage is designed by marketing people. That's not conspiracy, that's a fact.
The Mayo Clinic is a business. Yes. It has a marketing page. Yes. That does not mean the facts it dissiminates are questionable. That's conspiracy theorism. The same facts can be found on multiple websites.

Here's where you ball up your credibility and toss it right out the window. You keep saying "don't have an abortion, there can be complications". But you aren't saying "don't have babies, there can be complications". Or "don't have an appendectomy, there can be complications". Or "don't have a colonoscopy, there can be complications". All medical procedures carry a risk of complication. But it doesn't seem to bother you as much in any other procedure but abortion. You seem to be relying on instillation of fear to boost your opinion of abortion. All I'm doing, is showing that the data don't support your tactic. I'm not attacking your opinion at all. Just your tactic. And all you can say about that, is "you should really fear what I am just positive is really going on, don't trust facts." That's extremely dishonest. But then I'm not sure that honesty is important to you, given the exceedingly negative, bordering on abhorrent, opinion you have of people who don't agree with you on this issue. So you rock on with that. I'm sure I'm not the first person who's told you something similar.
 
The Mayo Clinic is a business. Yes. It has a marketing page. Yes. That does not mean the facts it dissiminates are questionable. That's conspiracy theorism. The same facts can be found on multiple websites.

Here's where you ball up your credibility and toss it right out the window. You keep saying "don't have an abortion, there can be complications". But you aren't saying "don't have babies, there can be complications". Or "don't have an appendectomy, there can be complications". Or "don't have a colonoscopy, there can be complications". All medical procedures carry a risk of complication. But it doesn't seem to bother you as much in any other procedure but abortion. You seem to be relying on instillation of fear to boost your opinion of abortion. All I'm doing, is showing that the data don't support your tactic. I'm not attacking your opinion at all. Just your tactic. And all you can say about that, is "you should really fear what I am just positive is really going on, don't trust facts." That's extremely dishonest. But then I'm not sure that honesty is important to you, given the exceedingly negative, bordering on abhorrent, opinion you have of people who don't agree with you on this issue. So you rock on with that. I'm sure I'm not the first person who's told you something similar.

Marisa, you've presented no facts. You've relied on what somebody else says are the facts, and I've suggested there's reason to question their motives.

I spent a number of years in pharma research, and the one thing I will never forget is the big disconnect between the research, and the executive leadership. The bench scientists either want to help people, or they just want a job. Executive management proved it was willing to subordinate the "help people" motive, to their legal responsibility to make money.

As to your claim that I find people "abhorrent" because they disagree with me: I've made it clear that I consider mankind to be broken. We are self - serving to a fault, and tend to be disdainful of others when they don't agree with us. These behaviors are exacerbated when polarized issues are discussed. I find certain actions are abhorrent, and I have a hard time understanding how people justify doing something that I would think might at least give them pause. On the contrary, they talk about rights, women's health, "my body" and other euphemisms that only serve to obscure the fact that they are killing a baby.

In reality, I don't keep saying there can be complications (if I recall, I cited complications in rebuttal to somebody else's post). I keep saying that it's a selfish decision. I had an appendectomy, and there was no moral or ethical consideration. It astounds me that no proponent of abortion seems willing to address the obvious moral and ethical issues surrounding abortion. The viability argument is absurd. By the same logic, we could kill any quadroplegic, paralytic, or otherwise incapacitated person as soon as the food was depleted from their fridge. Steven Hawking would have been an easy target, as he couldn't "survive unassisted."

Finally, my honesty and my view of people are not related. That is, my view that abortion, for most circumstances under which it is performed, is a terrible recourse does not reflect on my honesty. I accept that it does reflect on my character. I have attempted to be as compassionate, understanding, and respectful as possible, while stating that the action is ugly. So far, every reason given for abortion has been selfish, which supports my original post.

Here's my summary: people have despised me for my posts, I have disdained them for their selfishness, we have insulted each other, and generally acted in pride and arrogance on both sides of a contentious issue. I again assert that mankind is broken, in these and many other ways.

Man is so broken, that God in His mercy provided a solution. Not that we could be magically perfect on earth, but that the sacrifice of Christ would reconcile us to our creator, so long as we accept Christ's sacrifice for what it was.

I cringe every time I retort in pride or spite. I sometimes fool myself into thinking that, so long as I am doing it "for the children," that it's all good. But we are judged by what's in our hearts, not by our intentions. And because I regularly fail that criterion, I am grateful that Jesus paid for my failure with his life.

In the end, I would rather be on God's side of any issue. Sometimes the science supports God's side, and sometimes science simply doesn't know. Science spends a significant amount of time discovering it's been wrong, yet somehow usually manages to convey the idea that "NOW we're sure!"
 
Top