A very Touchy Subject...

[Totenkopf]

If you'd like to discuss eugenics, I will be more than happy to do so in a different topic. I cannot adequetely do my views justice here and I don't want to derail this topic...any more.

 

When science shows that they can feel pain and suffering, I'll relent, until that time, as I said before, the pain and suffering is entirely the choice of the mother, since the fetus is little more than an extension of her physical self.

 

Because if you are just going to give everyone to right to abort, or the right to die just whenever they feel like it, abortion will become the next birth control and responsibility will go down the tubes even more.

 

Feel free to start a eugenics thread on your own. I've no doubt there'd be many people that would probably post their views as well. I should have been a little more clear on the suffering, as I was under the impression the suffering in question was what "those people" would have endured AFTER being born, not merely as they are snuffed out in the womb. But, fact is that most abortions are currently retroactive bc people aren't being very responsible in the first place.

 

While I'm sure you found the comparison unflattering, I thought it kinda funny b/c you were attempting to morally equivocate your two's positions. JFTR, I don't believe you to be genocidal, just wrong ("free" country and all that. )

 

Originally Posted by Achilles

The fact that women have right to choose is inalienable. So whether or not women should have that right really becomes a moot point.

 

Technically, I've the inalienable right to choose (b/c I can, it appears) to take any action I want. Upon what is this thinking based?

[Corinthian]

Corinthian, thanks for answering. I gather from your responses that you feel life is always valuable except when a person has somehow forfeited it, however that's defined. Would that be a good summary?

 

Let me ask two final questions.

 

A person is incapacitated, be it coma, mind is a vegetable, what-have you, and have been so for some time. Medicine says there is nothing they can do for them, except keep them on life support. You are the sole relative. Would you pull the plug?

 

I gather from other threads that you consider yourself a devout Christian. To what extent would you say your faith and your religious views influence your opinions on abortion and, to a lesser extent, issues in general? Some? A little? A lot? How much are your views influenced by facts/ figures/ studies, and how much by your faith/ religion?

1: Nope. It's not my place to decide whether he lives or dies. God is the true judge, and will take them when he chooses, not when I choose. Besides which, sometimes medical opinions are wrong, and miracles do happen, whether you believe or not.

 

2: 100% Faith. Frankly, there are very few facts or figures that can back up my beliefs that life begins at conception, that God exists, or that life is precious.

 

Web Rider, everyone has the right to Live, and Let Live. When you refuse to let others live, you waive your own right to live. At least, that's what I feel. I see killing evil men and women as okay. You see carving babies heads open with scissors and flushing them down the toilet to be okay.

[Achilles]

Indeed there is much grey. There just also happens to be some that are black and white. Obviously you would agree that after the child is born, there is no more choice as to whether to abort.

Obviously. So obvious in fact that I think it's clear that we're no longer talking about abortion, therefore trying to relate it to the topic of abortion becomes difficult to comprehend.

 

The real question is where the grey stops. My feeling is that the second trimester should be where it stops, with the exception of the threat of death of the mother.

Any exception would mean that there is still a grey area. So either 2nd trimester is a clear-cut, black and white boundary or it is not. Which is it?

 

Also, why use the 2nd trimester? Was the choice abitrary or is there something more objective guiding your opinion?

 

But I tend to see very little use for the D&E procedure(Partial birth abortion).

Both D&X and D&E are useful when a fetus has to be aborted in the 3rd trimester. These procedures are already illegal as a from of "retroactive birth control", therefore all that the pro-lifers accomplished by banning the D&X procedure was ensuring that doctors would have to find other, more risky, ways to terminate late-term pregnancies when a mother's health is at risk (such as cesarean, natural child birth, or D&E...I assume that you intended to reference D&X above considering that you parenthetically referred to it as PBA).

 

At 32 weeks a child can be safely removed from the womb with a cesarean(my completely healthy daughter was removed at 32 weeks). If it comes down to she just doesn't want a scar, I have a problem with that.

Since you have second hand experience with cesarean, you know that the process is invasive. The gut is exposed which means that the woman's ability to consume and digest food is compromised for several days. Furthermore, since the process is invasive, there is chance, however small that serious complications can arise. And of course, it also requires that the woman be held in observation until released (generally 2-3 days, IIRC). P&E on the other hand is minimally invasive and therefore much safer.

 

So I think trying to characterize it "not wanting a scar" is either naive or dishonest.

 

Well, in asking for clarifications, sometimes the easiest way is to put forth an example and ask if that's how far you would take it.

I agree, hence why I have openly invited you to start doing so. You're welcome to begin at any time.

 

I mean I can only read so much from your arguments, and feel that we should be clear where we stand. You appear to stand on the side of anytime the woman wants to have an abortion it should be available to her. I disagree with that.

Yes, within the existing legal confines (specifically with regards to 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions).

 

On what basis do you disagree? What system would you put into place to ensure that your ideal abortion rules and regulations were upheld?

 

In essence I kinda agree with web rider in that it is about personal responsibility. If you don't want kids, don't do the deed.

So don't have sex unless you are trying to have children? Didn't you express the opposite sentiment just a few posts ago? Which of these opinions should accept as being what you really think?

 

Thanks in advance for the clarification.

[JediRevan]

Unanswered questions...bummer.

 

Hmmm...sure seems like at least one side of this debate has been over-simplified. Granted, I'm not as "up" on the actions of the "pro-choice" crowd as I could be, but it would seem to me that I would have at least heard some sort of fight against the existing laws for 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions if your portrayal were true. But again, that I haven't might simply be ignorance on my part.

 

I caught the qualifier and appreciate your having used it.

 

Still sounds mostly speculative though

 

I'm still baffled that this issues is widely percieved as having to be black or white when so many people seem perfectly willing to agree that it's shades of gray.

 

If a woman in the first trimester decides to have an abortion because her method of birth control failed (no method is 100% effective), then that is her right. If a woman is told in the third trimester that her child will be born with massive birth defects and little to no chance for survival and she decided to have an abortion, then that is her right too.

 

Congratulations all around.

 

I appreciate you clearly stating that this is a matter of opinion. Considering that others have very different opinions from yours, would you agree that a less subjective definition would be beneficial? What criteria would you suggest be used to find said objective definition?

 

Indeed. If a heartbeat were to be used as one of the potential objective standards for "personhood" then perhaps would could agree that abortions that take place during the first trimester do not constitute murder.

 

Indeed, it would seem that children have little say regarding much of the conditions of their birth. They ask neither to be born healthy nor ill. To rich parents or poor parents. In first world cities or in third world slums. Therefore, one might be inclined to think that an adult might be the best person qualified to decide the whether or not a child should be born.

 

And if that woman is a devout catholic that has been raised to believe that she will literally forsake her salvation for doing so? Doesn't seem like such an easy decision for her to make. Thanks for reading.

 

I was raised Southern Baptist and I simply do not believe in abortions. I have instilled this same thing in my children. Nothing in the bible teaches against using birth control. They now have a morning after pill that is given to rape victims in emergency rooms. It is also available over the counter.

 

In response to c-section births, the length of a time a woman stays in the hospital after a c-section depends on her general health at the time. My last child was born through c-section on a Sunday. I was released on Tuesday with no complications.

 

As to means of birth control, abstinence is the best form of birth control for anyone.

[Aeroldoth]

it was a joke. Laugh, or dont, and get over it. Funny? To me heck yeah.

 

That was a joke? I didn't catch it.

 

Because if you are just going to give everyone to right to abort, or the right to die just whenever they feel like it, abortion will become the next birth control and responsibility will go down the tubes even more, and because people will kill themselves over things that they could have worked through.

 

I disagree. Women aren't going to have abortion clinics on speed dial, and people aren't going to off themselves because they got a speeding ticket. And if your concern is personal responsibility, don't you feel it's better to try to teach that, rather than mandate it?

 

As we go through life we learn from our mistakes. If we're not allowed to fail, how will we succeed?

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Timeout? Can I ask something?

 

What on Earth does suicide have to do with abortion?

 

'k, carry on.

[Aeroldoth]

Yes, within the existing legal confines (specifically with regards to 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions).

Clarify. You support 1T abortions but not 2T or 3T? (I am not familiar with the specifics of current legal regulations.)

 

What on Earth does suicide have to do with abortion?

 

I was curious about the extent to which Corinthian valued life, to explore what his boundaries were on the when and why of dying. Since the term pro-life inherently states a support of life, I wanted to see what, if any, exceptions he had. Others then chimed in.

[Achilles]

Clarify. You support 1T abortions but not 2T or 3T? (I am not familiar with the specifics of current legal regulations.)

I acknowledge the inalienable right to abortion and support the existence of legal protection for safe abortion procedures. I agree with the existing, reasonable restrictions that many states have regarding the practice of abortion in the 2nd and 3rd trimester. I do not agree with the recent Supreme Court ban on D&X.

 

Does that help?

[Web Rider]

Web Rider, everyone has the right to Live, and Let Live. When you refuse to let others live, you waive your own right to live. At least, that's what I feel. I see killing evil men and women as okay. You see carving babies heads open with scissors and flushing them down the toilet to be okay.

 

Since I don't like late-term abortion, no, I don't see carving baby heads open. That doesn't happen in first-trimester abortions.

 

I disagree. Women aren't going to have abortion clinics on speed dial, and people aren't going to off themselves because they got a speeding ticket. And if your concern is personal responsibility, don't you feel it's better to try to teach that, rather than mandate it?

 

As we go through life we learn from our mistakes. If we're not allowed to fail, how will we succeed?

 

I don't think all will, but the current generation of people(I think it's '80 to 2000?) don't seem to have very much responsibility to start with, and yes, it is better to teach it, but I visualize the law getting put into play before people start being more responsible.

 

Because, like with kids, you limit how much they can fail, and as they become more responsible, you back off.

Timeout? Can I ask something?

 

What on Earth does suicide have to do with abortion?

 

'k, carry on.

In a way, it's an abortion of an existing life. If it can be argued you can't abort a pregnancy because it's a different life, then you should be able to "abort" yourself, because it's your life.

[Serpentine Cougar]

Who are you or I to judge when a group of cells become a person?

 

When can a video game be considered a video game? When the designer first gets the idea? As soon as the first beta build is completed? Why not slightly before that, when it's mostly playable but just a few things missing? Or is it only when it is released to the public? Note that many companies (this is just my assumption, so pardon me if I'm wrong) trademark names a while before any kind of playable build is ready.

[Aeroldoth]

I agree with the existing, reasonable restrictions that many states have regarding the practice of abortion in the 2nd and 3rd trimester.

As I said, I'm not familiar with the finer legal points. What restrictions exist that you agree with?

 

I don't think all will, but the current generation of people(I think it's '80 to 2000?) don't seem to have very much responsibility to start with, and yes, it is better to teach it, but I visualize the law getting put into play before people start being more responsible.

 

Because, like with kids, you limit how much they can fail, and as they become more responsible, you back off.

 

And you feel adults should be treated as children? I strongly disagree with you, but I'll let the issue drop.

[Corinthian]

Why is it wrong to kill a human, but not to kill a developing human? That's pretty much what the abortion debate boils down to.

[Web Rider]

And you feel adults should be treated as children? I strongly disagree with you, but I'll let the issue drop.

 

According to abortionfacts.com, in 1995, most abortions occurred in the 15-29 age group. While the Feds may regard people as an "adult" at 21, that hardly makes it true, there's plenty of people who are 21-29 who don't act like "adults".

 

For for the areas in which most abortions occur, "adults" isn't necessarily the most accurate descriptive time. I mean, I can't even rent a car till I'm 25.

[Achilles]

As I said, I'm not familiar with the finer legal points. What restrictions exist that you agree with?

That late-term abortions only be conducted by a physician when there is a threat to the woman's life, physical health, or mental health.

 

As I have stated previously, I also agree with the argument that late-term abortions should be permitted if the child will be born with severe birth defects (some of which can't be detected until late-term via amniocentesis).

[Web Rider]

That late-term abortions only be conducted by a physician when there is a threat to the woman's life, physical health, or mental health.

 

and just before somebody says "well, how could it affect her mental health"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/medicalscience/story/0,,619563,00.html

 

yup, there's a listed phobia of giving birth, so much so as it can cause women to miscarry.

[mimartin]

As I have stated previously, I also agree with the argument that late-term abortions should be permitted if the child will be born with severe birth defects (some of which can't be detected until late-term via amniocentesis).

Just a clarification question: Who would decide if the condition was severe enough to warrant a late-term abortion?

 

My opinion on this question.

 

My answer to my own question is the parents and the medical professional, with the final decision with the mother. Of course, the doctor should be able to refuse to do the abortion, if he/she believes it is not in the best interest of the patient and the unborn child.

 

[Achilles]

I think your assessment could probably speak for us both. At some point, I think the old practice of asking for second professional opinion should probably be reintroduced.

[Web Rider]

I think your assessment could probably speak for us both. At some point, I think the old practice of asking for second professional opinion should probably be reintroduced.

 

People still do, except sadly it's usually asking a less scrupulous doctor if there's a cheaper way to do something.

[MdKnightR]

Actually, I did "catch" it, but I didn't choose to assign the same significance to it that you did.....

 

....PS: Are these stats good or not? You seem comfortable using them when it appears to support your argument but want to play some sort of "gotcha" game when you think you've tricked me into something.

 

For the record, I wasn't playing a game of "gotcha" (as I remember, you're the one who said that, not me). After I posted those stats, it dawned on me that you might not consider the source before making your next comment is all.

 

Right, but you said "infant" which is the first year (0-1). After that, they're "toddlers" (1-5).

 

Perhaps I was being a little too specific when I said "infant." I should have said "young children," to which those statistics confirm my statement. Even Jae Onasi agrees with me about that first year of life aspect of the welfare system. And when you factor in that adoption agencies primarily deal with newborns, one can logically deduce that young children are more adoptable than older ones from the evidence at hand. If you don't believe me, perhaps you should visit an orphanage and direct your questions at the staff and residents.

[Achilles]

For the record, I wasn't playing a game of "gotcha" (as I remember, you're the one who said that, not me). After I posted those stats, it dawned on me that you might not consider the source before making your next comment is all.

If you wish to posit that you somehow made a mistake by posting that source and would prefer to use another instead, then please just feel free to say so. No need to make this more complicated than it is.

 

Perhaps I was being a little too specific when I said "infant." I should have said "young children," to which those statistics confirm my statement.

Indeed that would make a significant difference. Just as asking for chocolate ice cream typically rules out my receiving vanilla when I visit the local Cold Stone.

 

But I am happy to see that you want to use those stats again. Feel free to move that goal post wherever you'd like.

 

Even Jae Onasi agrees with me about that first year of life aspect of the welfare system.

*Wonders why Jae is the gold standard*

 

Aww, thanks, guys. --Jae

 

Indeed. And?

 

And when you factor in that adoption agencies primarily deal with newborns, one can logically deduce that young children are more adoptable than older ones from the evidence at hand. If you don't believe me, perhaps you should visit an orphanage and direct your questions at the staff and residents.

I've actually given a child up for adoption before, so I don't think that will be necessary, but perhaps you should back up your comments with a source (or admit that you're speculating) nonetheless.

 

PS: arguing that a particular agency mostly receives newborns and then pointing out that it mostly places newborns isn't probably going to strike very many people as "groundbreaking". Lot of shoes at the shoe store and all that.

 

Take care.

[Tommycat]

Just as a clarification: I choose the second trimester as that is the earliest that a child has been known to have survived when removed from a womb. My standard for deciding when it is ok to abort and not is the point at which the fetus can survive outside the womb.

 

My wife must be really tough according to some of you. She had two emergency cesarians, and on each of them she was out the same day.

[Achilles]

Just as a clarification: I choose the second trimester as that is the earliest that a child has been known to have survived when removed from a womb. My standard for deciding when it is ok to abort and not is the point at which the fetus can survive outside the womb.

Considering that the 2nd trimester is a time period which spans approximately 3 months or 12 weeks, this seems a little vague to me. So no abortions after 12 weeks and 1 day of pregnancy? Abortions only up to 23 weeks and 6 days?

 

If we peel away the arbitrary date-base labels, it would seem that your true concern is viability of the fetus (which would nicely coincide with the opinions of some of the other participants in this thread). In order to be viable, wouldn't the fetus need to have all of its major organs at least formed, including a heart (complete with heartbeat) and a brain (including brain activity)?

 

It would seem to me that performing an abortion prior to this point (specifically with regards to heartbeat and brain activity) would not be the killing of a living thing, whereas doing so after this point would be. It would also seem to stand to reason that if one were to kill a living thing, then one should have a very good reason for doing so. I don't think this is anything more than the pro-abortion crowd has advocated, but I could be wrong.

 

My wife must be really tough according to some of you. She had two emergency cesarians, and on each of them she was out the same day.

Wow, that's really amazing. I wonder what set of circumstance led to a same-day release for a full-blown emergency surgery...twice!

[Tommycat]

Well I don't look at it as the time specifically, but the viability of the fetus. To me it would make more sense to attempt to recover the fetus and give it a chance at life than to say that at 23 weeks you can snuff it out even if it has developed appropriately. I really don't like the time base so much. I mean some develop much faster. I mean wasn't there just recently a baby born at 24 weeks? I know that my perfectly healthy daughter was delivered at 32 weeks. My son with CP was born at 28 weeks(the CP was not caused by the early removal BTW).

 

And quite frankly, if the "Pro-Abortion" crowd did limit it to fetal viability, I would never argue against them. The problem is the up to the minute it's born that some abortion advocates submit that disturbs me. To me, that is not any better than killing a newborn. It is also as silly as the "Life begins at conception" arguments. I feel that a medical professional should be able to tell the viability of a fetus, and after it reaches that point, abortion should not be an option.

 

as far as the circumstances of my wife: She was stitched back up, they said that she was ok to leave, but recommended she stay for observation.

 

also: I don't think I've been hypocritical in my statements regarding personal responsibility. I do agree that if you are willing to do the deed, you should be willing to face up to it. There are a number of options for doing the deed that would prevent getting pregnant. Oh and vasectomy's are reversible. My sister in law works for the leading vasectomy reversal specialist in the US.

[Aeroldoth]

Thanks for explaining Achilles.

[MdKnightR]

But I am happy to see that you want to use those stats again. Feel free to move that goal post wherever you'd like.

 

I apologize for any confusion in my statements. The goal post is where it's always been. But you are not alone....my wife says I have a talent for converting simple things into some baffling crap.

 

*Wonders why Jae is the gold standard*

 

Indeed. And?

 

I was simply noting that I had someone in agreement is all. Jae is no more a "gold standard" on this subject than I consider you an authority on chicken biscuits.

I have some excellent biscuit recipes, btw. --Jae

 

 

I've actually given a child up for adoption before, so I don't think that will be necessary,....

 

I commend you on making such a tough decision on behalf of a child. As I mentioned earlier, I just adopted my daughter. It took over a year (no comment solicited, btw).

 

....but perhaps you should back up your comments with a source (or admit that you're speculating) nonetheless.

 

I imagine that most people consider an opinion without accompanying statistics to be speculation, but if it'll make you happy.

 

PS: arguing that a particular agency mostly receives newborns and then pointing out that it mostly places newborns isn't probably going to strike very many people as "groundbreaking". Lot of shoes at the shoe store and all that.

 

Just used that to clarify the position of my goal post.