What's the Abortion Debate Really About?

[The Neo Nerd]

It's about sex.

Anything to do with sex and the church is all over it.

 

[oldbadger]

Personal values aren't subject to majority vote
Those nurses should follow their personal values

How's that for Orwellian thought process! Those nurses' personal values are shown in their actions, not words.

Agenda? I have no agenda. It would take a miracle for my wife to get pregnant.

The agenda is not about getting your wife pregnant. The true agenda is about the community deciding on a law, setting the law, keeping to the law. One of our laws here is that protection of conscientous objectors within our health service, and keepers of the Hippocratic oath shall be protected.

 

[oldbadger]

My opinion that a fetus becomes a living creature with first breathe.

Does that mean that you would support a termination at 8.5 months? Your suggestion is monstrous. Thank goodness that the UK (at least) has laws to stop actions such as this.

And what an oblique way to put it.........

 

[adi2d]

How's that for Orwellian thought process! Those nurses' personal values are shown in their actions, not words.


The agenda is not about getting your wife pregnant. The true agenda is about the community deciding on a law, setting the law, keeping to the law. One of our laws here is that protection of conscientous objectors within our health service, and keepers of the Hippocratic oath shall be protected.

You must have me mixed with someone else. I have no desire to force a doctor or nurse to perform abortions. If they don't feel able to perform these tasks they shouldn't work where that would be an assigned task.

My agenda if I have one is that a woman has and keeps the right to a legal abortion if she wants one

 

[adi2d]

Does that mean that you would support a termination at 8.5 months? Your suggestion is monstrous. Thank goodness that the UK (at least) has laws to stop actions such as this.

And what an oblique way to put it.........

You are missing what I am saying. I am not supporting anyone getting an abortion. I am supporting that a woman has the choice to terminate. I never suggested anything monstrous.

Oblique? How so? You asked a question and I answered it. I'm not the only person to believe that way.

 

[oldbadger]

Anyone who wishes to understand how the anti-choice movement is about much more than the rights of the fetus should read this.

You just don't get it, do you?

My one point about abortion which you never thought to list, and don't seem to understand, is that many of the medics involved in abortions can suffer psychological distress and trauma over time. Others won't even practice in the first place.

It amazes me that your research has fallen so short.

Further to that, many women who decide to have terminations can later, much later, suffer distress and even psychological breakdown as a result of their original decision.

The UK legislation protects foetuses circa 25-26 weeks, unless there are special circumstances. It's the best compromise which can be legislated at this this time. More attention needs to be paid to cases of trauma related to terminations; this would include male as well as female parents.

My position takes neither right nor left, up nor down, nor falls in line with some agenda. Neither is it a mania.

If enough of your citizens believed in your position, the one you voted for, then legislation would have to change. I don't think it will change........ do you?

 

[oldbadger]

You must have me mixed with someone else. I have no desire to force a doctor or nurse to perform abortions. If they don't feel able to perform these tasks they shouldn't work where that would be an assigned task.

My agenda if I have one is that a woman has and keeps the right to a legal abortion if she wants one

Well, in that case you will have little choice but to join with me (you don't have to hold hands ) because I support the present UK legislation of 25-26 weeks unless there are special circumstances.

Equally, you obviously can't have terminations beyond those time-frames, and the foetus has rights thereafter...... no?

 

[Me Myself]

I dont know about US s political background positions on the subject, but my agnostic/atheist aunt little ago passed on her facebook some prolife propaganda.

Pretending prolife is equal to *point whatever garbage that is not related at all to that specifical position* is just a point blank fallacy.

 

[oldbadger]

You are missing what I am saying. I am not supporting anyone getting an abortion. I am supporting that a woman has the choice to terminate. I never suggested anything monstrous.

Oblique? How so? You asked a question and I answered it. I'm not the only person to believe that way.

Are you talking about, what's the word...... early forced birth? Induction?
If a mother-to-be insists on early induction, which leads to weeks in special care, etc.... do you support the idea of hospitals charging her for the high costs of such work?

 

[adi2d]

Well, in that case you will have little choice but to join with me (you don't have to hold hands ) because I support the present UK legislation of 25-26 weeks unless there are special circumstances.

Equally, you obviously can't have terminations beyond those time-frames, and the foetus has rights thereafter...... no?

As long as the woman is the only person to decide what the special circumstances are
No a fetus does not have rights. People do

 

[oldbadger]

As long as the woman is the only person to decide what the special circumstances are
No a fetus does not have rights. People do

No..... the specialists and consultants have the decisions on special cases.
Yes.... the Foetus has rights at 25-26 weeks. Well, it has protection. The protection of the law.
Thank goodness for that.

As much as folks might stamp their feet, demand their freedoms and scream for their rights, sadly we all have to agree on and obey rules and laws.

Want to change the law in a democracy? Get votes. You ain't got the votes. So you (or rather, pregnant women) can't have the right to demand that 26 week foetuses (foeti?) be got rid of, or inducted at huge cost.

There are hundreds of analogies, but we don't need a single one...... you know it makes sense.


EDIT..... I must go...... bedtime!

 

[Sunstone]

You just don't get it, do you?

My one point about abortion which you never thought to list, and don't seem to understand, is that many of the medics involved in abortions can suffer psychological distress and trauma over time. Others won't even practice in the first place.

It amazes me that your research has fallen so short.

Further to that, many women who decide to have terminations can later, much later, suffer distress and even psychological breakdown as a result of their original decision.

The UK legislation protects foetuses circa 25-26 weeks, unless there are special circumstances. It's the best compromise which can be legislated at this this time. More attention needs to be paid to cases of trauma related to terminations; this would include male as well as female parents.

My position takes neither right nor left, up nor down, nor falls in line with some agenda. Neither is it a mania.

If enough of your citizens believed in your position, the one you voted for, then legislation would have to change. I don't think it will change........ do you?

Either you didn't read the article that I linked to, or your reading comprehension is suffering tonight. Which is it?

Oh, and as for my "just not getting it", I once worked as a first responder at accident scenes. I leave it up to those few readers who have experience of that line of work to fully understand what I've seen in the way of maimed, mangled, dying, and dead humans. As for you -- you certainly do not impress me as exceptionally qualified to tell me that I "just don't get it". If an abortion provider cannot handle abortion without experiencing crippling psychological distress and trauma, I would say that's a pretty good indication they should find another line of work and let someone who can better deal with it handle the job.

 

[adi2d]

Are you talking about, what's the word...... early forced birth? Induction?
If a mother-to-be insists on early induction, which leads to weeks in special care, etc.... do you support the idea of hospitals charging her for the high costs of such work?

I have no idea how hospitals should charge for anything. Why would you expect me to?
A woman has a right to terminate. What the hospital charges or handles their workforce is up to the hospital and their workers

 

[Me Myself]

No one has the right to kill an inocent human being unless in self defense.

 

[adi2d]

No one has the right to kill an inocent human being unless in self defense.

I think we all agree on that. When the fetus becomes a human being is in dispute

 

[Me Myself]

I think we all agree on that. When the fetus becomes a human being is in dispute

Not all of us apprently.


Some say that even if it was it can be killed because it is using the woman's body.

This doesnt work for me either, because one thing is refusing to donate, but here it is a direct killing of an inocent.

 

[Sunstone]

If the Republicans had wanted to prevent abortions, they would have...

• Funded a thorough and mandatory sex education initiative from the earliest grades in all schools and combined it with the distribution of free contraceptives in all high schools, public and private (religious schools included)
• Legislated generous family leave for both mothers and fathers
• Provided federally funded day care as a national priority
• Expanded adoption services, including encouraging gay parents to adopt children, and they would have encouraged gay couples to marry and adopt
• Provided a generous tax incentive to have children and direct financial assistance and educational opportunities for all families, including single parents
• Raised taxes to pay for these programs
• Never have equated stem cell research with abortion, much less with murder, thereby making the anti-abortion position patently ridiculous
• Above all, they would have addressed the injustice of the growing gap between the superrich and everyone else and fought to raise the living standards of poor people. (Forty percent of all women seeking abortion live on $10,000 a year or less.)

What the Republicans did instead was misuse abortion -- again and again and again -- as a polarizing issue to energize their base.

Source.


I think what Schaeffer says about Republicans could be said about most people who are anti-choice -- if they really were concerned with the life of the fetus, they'd be doing much more than they are doing to ameliorate the incidence of abortion. Instead, they seem to me more motivated by a desire to control a woman's reproductive choices, than by any genuine desire to prevent abortions.

 

[Me Myself]

Source.


I think what Schaeffer says about Republicans could be said about most people who are anti-choice -- if they really were concerned with the life of the fetus, they'd be doing much more than they are doing to ameliorate the incidence of abortion. Instead, they seem to me more motivated by a desire to control a woman's reproductive choices, than by any genuine desire to prevent abortions.

Thats a very superficial and narrow sighted assumption on many points.

Its a bery short sighted fallacy.

 

[Sunstone]

Thats a very superficial and narrow sighted assumption on many points.

Its a bery short sighted fallacy.

By chance, are you attempting to offer up an intelligent criticism? If so, I'm all ears to hear your trenchant reasoning.

 

[oldbadger]

Oh, and as for my "just not getting it", I once worked as a first responder at accident scenes. I leave it up to those few readers who have experience of that line of work to fully understand what I've seen in the way of maimed, mangled, dying, and dead humans.

You once worked..... 1st responder....? Stressful, was it?
You clearly did not read any of the pages of articles about 'doctors against..' or 'nurses against...' You didn't acknowledge the need to include their POV into the debate poll choices, nor have you acknowledged how stresses and traumas can 'creep up' and suddenly 'hit' employees.
And so I can't really see that your 1st responder role, which at some time in the past you quit, has given you a dime's worth of empathy for the folks who have to do the job at the sharp end.

As for you -- you certainly do not impress me as exceptionally qualified to tell me that I "just don't get it".

It's a simple enough debate for me to grasp such basic feelings as written by the professionals, the legislators and various RF members for me to cope with your weak argument. :yes: . Why, even a 'part-time carpet-cleaner' could tackle you over this one.

If an abortion provider cannot handle abortion without experiencing crippling psychological distress and trauma, I would say that's a pretty good indication they should find another line of work and let someone who can better deal with it handle the job.

Is that what you did? Just asking.
You underestimate the nurses......... they don't quit. They stand by their values, with too much experience to throw away. Those that can undertake the work will no doubt do so with a deep sense of duty, and make use of any counselling services that are available.

Those doctors who are unable to carry out this work no doubt think deeply about the various types of promises and oaths which they have taken, and feel that these, as well as other pressures such as laws and rules do have impact upon their work.

And so you have the laws of your country to refer to, another poll 'point' which you overlooked, and which will (mostly) tie you down to a (foetal) time frame. Countriies which have repealed all legislation leave the rulings and powers to their hospitals, it seems, and in the case of Canada these same hospitals use a 20 week 'yardstick' to work from, rather than 24-26 week rules.

I support our legislation about abortions, and you need to understand that even lowly carpet-cleaners.... even part-time ones, have a right to voice an opinion, and to vote.