What's the Abortion Debate Really About?

[MysticSang'ha]

at what point in foetus development would you agree with foetus protection?

Here in the States, Roe vs. Wade introduced fetal viability as the marker, which can occur between 24-26 weeks gestational age. Post-viability is where medical ethics become grayer in regards to the proper choice of action with the pregnancy, the laws/restrictions of the state, and the medical team/hospital where any procedure is chosen.

This is a position that I personally support. I know you asked Penguin, so just to clarify, I am not speaking for him. Only jumping in and offering my two cents.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

at what point in foetus development would you agree with foetus protection?

Never.

I wouldn't compel a woman to provide her organs or tissue against her will to her child after the child is born, even if the child would surely die otherwise. Why would I grant rights to a fetus that I wouldn't grant to a person?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I can understand their reasoning but that doesn't mean I won't think that it's erroneous or even warped.

Then I doubt the understanding is really there.

You seemed to have been implying that early term abortions are generally medically induced, when that's not the case.

I mentioned the various methods. Are you suggesting that a chemically induced miscarriage are not typically applied? RU486 and Mifeprex are given up to 7-9 weeks gestation. After that, the procedure is done by aspiration.

What are you talking about? They suction out the fetus and it's torn apart in the process, then they scrape what's left over out of the uterus. Fetuses are very fragile.

I'm not talking about a procedure that mimics a live birth. Fetuses are very fragile because they are so underdeveloped since they have not reached viability.

They (along with zygotes and embryos) are not medically the same as living human beings already born.

Let's not pretend that abortions are generally performed for health reasons. They are not: http://womensissues.about.com/od/reproductiverights/a/AbortionReasons_2.htm

This supports my contention that controlling reproductive choices are the mitigating factor when it comes to a woman's bodily autonomy. She has the right to determine if she wishes to be an organ donor after her death, to have a limb amputated, to be on a "Do-Not-Resuscitate" list, or to deny various drugs or surgeries on any part of her body.

What happens with her hormones, her skin, her reproductive organs, her blood sugar levels, her kidneys, is her business. Regardless of what motivates her to accept or deny any invasive procedure. Abortion is one of those considerations.

Well, I'm sorry that you changed your mind about that. What caused you to do that is a mystery to me.

Oh, don't apologize. I feel much better about my pro-choice position and much less conflicted than I ever did as a pro-lifer. I had a difficulty morally regarding cases of incest and rape when it came to abortion back then. Now I feel much more grounded and consistent given that I place a priority on a woman and her bodily security, and her choice to continue with a pregnancy or not.

Nevermind everything else, right?

I've given birth twice. That was my choice. I don't regret my decisions either in spite of what i had a feeling I knew what I was getting into. It was easy for me back then to be pro-life since I was only considering what *I* have done and would do, and feeling righteous about wishing to determine the fates of other women and girls who find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy.

Let me be clear, I would like to see abortion safe, legal, and rare. The reason why I say rare is because they are the result of pregnancies that are unwanted, and to reduce THOSE rates, safe and easy legal access to family planning services and contraception....in addition to comprehensive sex education....helps to reduce those rates.

An unwanted pregnancy is not an inconvenience, by a long shot. It's a health risk and a financial burden. Telling women that such aspects are "inconveniences" are utilizing shame techniques to control their reproductive choices.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

Listen to them. They have a lot to say in spite of how they don't shape up to your preconceived notions a "killing a baby".



That doesn't contradict what I have stated. Dilation and curettage does not automatically translate to "gory bloodbath". And there are various means of terminating a pregnancy depending on the gestational age of the fetus as a way of protecting the life and health of the woman.

The facts are that the vast majority of elective abortions occur before 9 weeks gestation. The phrase "gory bloodbath" is an appeal to emotion. Like Horrorble, I was once politically pro-life for close to 20 years. I once saw a fetus as a baby, which spawns all the revulsion against women and doctors who are looking to terminate a pregnancy as murderers.

The most important aspect is that I left out the importance of the health and autonomy of the woman and what is happening to her own body.

Even it is "gory" so what? I just said to sunstone, if I can kill a cockroach I damn well can kill a life that is growing in my own body.

 

[oldbadger]

Never.

I wouldn't compel a woman to provide her organs or tissue against her will to her child after the child is born, even if the child would surely die otherwise. Why would I grant rights to a fetus that I wouldn't grant to a person?

Well, you give your position, clear as day.

I believe that the US and UK have made as reasonable legislation as possible, and give the foetus some right to life at 25-26(?) weeks.

Question:- If you ran Canadian Health Services (or whatever you have) would you allow doctors and nurses to choose whether they wanted to be involved in abortion operations?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Then I doubt the understanding is really there.

Since when does understanding a person's viewpoint automatically mean agreement? I understand a lot of things, but that doesn't mean I agree with them. I understand why a psychopath murders people, but that doesn't mean I agree with it.

I mentioned the various methods. Are you suggesting that a chemically induced miscarriage are not typically applied? RU486 and Mifeprex are given up to 7-9 weeks gestation. After that, the procedure is done by aspiration.

I posted the statistics straight from the CDC. Look at them again. Medical abortions aren't that common, even in early term abortions.

I'm not talking about a procedure that mimics a live birth.

Obviously.

Fetuses are very fragile because they are so underdeveloped since they have not reached viability.

They (along with zygotes and embryos) are not medically the same as living human beings already born.

Mmhmm. Your point is?

This supports my contention that controlling reproductive choices are the mitigating factor when it comes to a woman's bodily autonomy. She has the right to determine if she wishes to be an organ donor after her death, to have a limb amputated, to be on a "Do-Not-Resuscitate" list, or to deny various drugs or surgeries on any part of her body.

What happens with her hormones, her skin, her reproductive organs, her blood sugar levels, her kidneys, is her business. Regardless of what motivates her to accept or deny any invasive procedure. Abortion is one of those considerations.

That's a nice pro-abortion spiel that we've all heard before. But it always ignores the fact that when a woman is pregnant, we're dealing with another life here. Pro-choicers always want to ignore that fact and focus entirely on the woman as if the fetus doesn't exist!

Oh, don't apologize. I feel much better about my pro-choice position and much less conflicted than I ever did as a pro-lifer. I had a difficulty morally regarding cases of incest and rape when it came to abortion back then. Now I feel much more grounded and consistent given that I place a priority on a woman and her bodily security, and her choice to continue with a pregnancy or not.

Well, I'm sorry to hear that you had issues integrating those difficult issues into your pro-life stance. I don't.

I've given birth twice. That was my choice. I don't regret my decisions either in spite of what i had a feeling I knew what I was getting into. It was easy for me back then to be pro-life since I was only considering what *I* have done and would do, and feeling righteous about wishing to determine the fates of other women and girls who find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy.

I don't feel self-righteous about it.

Let me be clear, I would like to see abortion safe, legal, and rare. The reason why I say rare is because they are the result of pregnancies that are unwanted, and to reduce THOSE rates, safe and easy legal access to family planning services and contraception....in addition to comprehensive sex education....helps to reduce those rates.

Okay.

An unwanted pregnancy is not an inconvenience, by a long shot. It's a health risk and a financial burden. Telling women that such aspects are "inconveniences" are utilizing shame techniques to control their reproductive choices.

I'm a socialist. I support free health care and financial assistance for expecting mothers.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Even it is "gory" so what? I just said to sunstone, if I can kill a cockroach I damn well can kill a life that is growing in my own body.

That you would compare a cockroach to a developing child is terrifying.

 

[oldbadger]

Here in the States, Roe vs. Wade introduced fetal viability as the marker, which can occur between 24-26 weeks gestational age. Post-viability is where medical ethics become grayer in regards to the proper choice of action with the pregnancy, the laws/restrictions of the state, and the medical team/hospital where any procedure is chosen.

This is a position that I personally support. I know you asked Penguin, so just to clarify, I am not speaking for him. Only jumping in and offering my two cents.

I also think that this is a reasonable compromise. There has to be some legislative compromise........ and there will be individual cases that need individual decisions...... those are the difficult ones.....

 

[oldbadger]

Even it is "gory" so what? I just said to sunstone, if I can kill a cockroach I damn well can kill a life that is growing in my own body.

Not in England you can't.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

Not in England you can't.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

That you would compare a cockroach to a developing child is terrifying.

A cockroach is an independent life, only because a zygote, embryo or fetus has human DNA doesn't mean it is superior, it's not a child and it's my body, don't tell me whether or not I should reproduce, dude!

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

A cockroach is an independent life, only because a zygote, embryo or fetus has human DNA doesn't mean it is superior, it's not a child and it's my body, don't tell me whether or not I should reproduce, dude!

I find what you're saying to be quite sickening. Of course you'll do what you want anyway. I just hope and pray that you gain a more mature outlook on such matters, because you're being scary right now.

 

[Jeremy Mason]

Genesis 2:7 (NIV)

Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

Formation of body comes first, then life.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

I find what you're saying to be quite sickening. Of course you'll do what you want anyway. I just hope and pray that you gain a more mature outlook on such matters, because you're being scary right now.

erm is that suppose to be an argument or do you just prefer to insult? I'm mature enough to bring a child into this world when I know I can provide both emotional and financial stability for it.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

erm is that suppose to be an argument or do you just prefer to insult? I'm mature enough to bring a child into this world when I know I can provide both emotional and financial stability for it.

If you say something that's disgusting, I'll voice my revulsion over it. What's sad is that you can't recognize why what you said is offensive.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Since when does understanding a person's viewpoint automatically mean agreement? I understand a lot of things, but that doesn't mean I agree with them. I understand why a psychopath murders people, but that doesn't mean I agree with it.

I didn't imply understanding had to mean agreeing with them. But understanding does help to tone down the judgmental attitude.

I posted the statistics straight from the CDC. Look at them again. Medical abortions aren't that common, even in early term abortions.

I did look. Are you implying that using surgical tools is the precursor for the gory bloodbath from past appeals to emotion? That somehow RU486 is more sanitary and less repulsive?

Help me out here with what you're trying to say as your stance. The facts are there too from the Guttmacher Institute, the CDC, American Pregnancy.org, and Planned Parenthood.

Obviously.

It isn't a live birth. It isn't even a birth, and it isn't supposed to be.

Mmhmm. Your point is?

My point is that your appeals to emotion are losing steam. Talking about ripping apart a little tiny baby isn't medically correct. It's philosophical and terrifyingly poetic.

That's a nice pro-abortion spiel that we've all heard before. But it always ignores the fact that when a woman is pregnant, we're dealing with another life here. Pro-choicers always want to ignore that fact and focus entirely on the woman as if the fetus doesn't exist!

No, the compromise is with fetal viability. I've stated this numerous times before. A fetus, when roughly 24-26 weeks, has the possible capability to survive outside the uterus, and around that time a woman and her doctor have to regard what is the best appropriate action based on the woman's health, gestational age, and the personal ethics of the doctor. A doctor can refuse to provide services and shouldn't be forced to perform them, but a doctor should also not bar a woman from seeking medical services from someone else who is open to performing them.

Calling my stance "pro-abortion" is untrue. I'll repeat: abortion should legal, safe, and rare. I suggest you look back and read again why I feel they should be rare instead of misrepresenting my position again.

Well, I'm sorry to hear that you had issues integrating those difficult issues into your pro-life stance. I don't.

I'm glad you feel good about your stance. People should. And again, please don't apologize. There is nothing wrong about my decision to support legal abortion for women.

I don't feel self-righteous about it.

Again, I'm happy for you.

I'm a socialist. I support free health care and financial assistance for expecting mothers.

Not to derail the thread - so if you wish not to answer, that's fine - but I'm just curious. What kind of financial assistance?

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

If you say something that's disgusting, I'll voice my revulsion over it. What's sad is that you can't recognize why what you said is offensive.

"sad"
"don't reproduce"
"sickening"
?????
you can't explain why?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I also think that this is a reasonable compromise. There has to be some legislative compromise........ and there will be individual cases that need individual decisions...... those are the difficult ones.....

Agreed.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

"sad"
"don't reproduce"
"sickening"
?????
you can't explain why?

Because you compared killing a developing human being to being as simple to you as killing a cockroach. It means that you have a very low opinion of human life. It's morally offensive. Since you have such a low opinion of life, I was thinking that it would best for you if you didn't reproduce because you don't seem fit for it with that attitude. Would you feel comfortable showing that post to your kid(s)? If so, that would be even more alarming.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, you give your position, clear as day.

I believe that the US and UK have made as reasonable legislation as possible, and give the foetus some right to life at 25-26(?) weeks.

Question:- If you ran Canadian Health Services (or whatever you have) would you allow doctors and nurses to choose whether they wanted to be involved in abortion operations?

I think that people should perform the duties of their jobs. If that includes abortions, then they should do them. Nobody's forced to take a particular job.

I've been in situations where I had ethical issues with either the employer or the job. When that happened, I found another job.