Abortion

[Bells]

Dear God make it stop..

What does what they post have to do with the purpose of demonstrating I had not lied- when you asked me to have Mods check IP etc...

Wha..?

Implied it further later in another post here:

I was agreeing with you.

This one only implies and seems to be written with intent to insult. Perhaps it doesn't imply what I think.

Insult? No. Surprise that a grown man would have to resort to such a thing. And then amusement.

Now I'm just thinking you're some kind of whackjob on the net.

 

[Tiassa]

Mod Hat - Inquiry

Mod Hat — Inquiry

Okay, look. I've been in some pretty stellar, titanic, and, in the end, often fun fights over the years. So I'm not about to begrudge anyone the opportunity to have out certain differences of perspective. But isn't there a thread here?

I mean, I'm not about to put my foot down, yet. But at some point, I'll have to tell folks to take the more personal back and forth over to Mordea's silly thread, where it seems to be going on, anyway. Of course, that's as long as that one stays open, so ... yeah.

Anyway, we're up over four hundred posts, and the topic seems to be wandering a bit. Can we correct course, or is this fantastic voyage coming to a close with no port of refuge in sight?

 

[visceral_instinct]

So you see it as a cause and effect but the effect is manageable?
Like that man getting his hand treated at the hospital.
To some, that hand is already gone as an effect that must be accepted and dealt with.
I see it as they should not be forced. But they should consider the entire choice with the weight it actually has because the effect has an item develop that is MORE than a glob of goo. I see it as a Hard choice, not a casual one. And that choice should bear the full responsibility.
To force a person is to not only strip away the right, but the responsibility as well. That is more dangerous for all involved in some cases.

To use your parkour example: If you practice, you are aware you might injure yourself at some point. You go into it fully aware of this and should that happen, you must deal with the pain.
Pregnancy is not injury, it's also something that brings something GOOD. Unlike a sports injury, which is all bad and can even have lasting effects, parenting brings good effects too.
So unlike taking a pain reliever, a person must weigh in the factors that still exist. Denial of them makes no sense.
Let's say you're deciding on buying a car. YOu won't JUST consider gas mileage and cost and insurance, you'll consider the benefits, too. It's that way in all choices. Thus; my repeated pointing out the factors involved and comparing them to all other things in life which have less emotional response.
Unlike that man at the hospital treating his hand, where he has only vast negatives to the consequences, birth has benefits, too.
This is not forcing. It's clarifying, applying consideration.



Ok. I find that reasonable.

Can you see where I have issue with a person doing it when it IS developed?
You Previously said "If my Birth control Fails". This implies that Abortion would be a logical last resort. Is that the case?

Yes - I just meant that no one should be forced to keep a pregnancy. Not that abortion should be a casual decision to be made without thinking about it. Deciding whether or not you want to be a parent, and within a narrow time frame to make that decision, is obviously a big deal.

I do understand why you would have an issue with having a late abortion.

Yes I see abortion as a last resort. I'd very much rather not end up in a position where I wanted one..

 

[visceral_instinct]

What about it? You keep repeaing (sic) 'umbilical cord' as if they are two magic words. Yet not even they change the fact that the child exists prior to being born.



Cute. You can't rebutt my argument, so you simply dismiss it out of hand.

I re-iterate: If it is criminally negligent to deny a born baby the essentials of life, it should also be considered criminally negligent to deny an unborn baby sustainence.

Baby this, baby that. Don't you get it? A zygote or an embryo/early fetus is not a baby.

And a baby doesn't live INSIDE ANYONE'S BODY. Or attached to it.

If someone has renal failure, are they entitled to the use my kidneys? No. Same goes for a fetus and the mother's bloodstream.

 

[Randwolf]

“Originally Posted by Lucysnow
@YellowJacket

It would help if you ascribed the quotes to Tiassa so he will know you are responding to him directly otherwise it all reads as one post or rather with you having a conversation with yourself, in any case it will come across as confusing if someone doesn't know which quotes and ideas belong to whom.”

I sent her a PM using the noparse tags to give a quick tutorial

OK, Neverfly, I must admit that I'm having a hard time sorting out the players here - who, exactly is the her you are referring to above? (The one I bolded / accented)

 

[Neverfly]

OK, Neverfly, I must admit that I'm having a hard time sorting out the players here - who, exactly is the her you are referring to above? (The one I bolded / accented)

Yellow Jacket.

Yes - I just meant that no one should be forced to keep a pregnancy. Not that abortion should be a casual decision to be made without thinking about it. Deciding whether or not you want to be a parent, and within a narrow time frame to make that decision, is obviously a big deal.

I do understand why you would have an issue with having a late abortion.

Yes I see abortion as a last resort. I'd very much rather not end up in a position where I wanted one..

This clarifies quite a bit, thanks.
I got to thinking about something I had said and that others agreed with: "Easy Way Out."
It begs the question-- Is it really that easy?
I don't see how it could be.

Yet, when I see it discussed in almost an offhand manner, it seems as though it is something casual- if it's so safe and can be overcome in a day...

I think a Superperiod, even for a day, though I'm sure it must last longer, must be remarkably unpleasant.
Even if it is safe, that doesn't mean it's casual or easy, either.

Just a thought-- and it's not a complete thought.

 

[visceral_instinct]

Yeah a Superperiod doesn't sound good. My own normal periods when I have them are bad enough.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Yellow Jacket.



I got to thinking about something I had said and that others agreed with: "Easy Way Out."
It begs the question-- Is it really that easy?
I don't see how it could be.

Yet, when I see it discussed in almost an offhand manner, it seems as though it is something casual- if it's so safe and can be overcome in a day...

Even if it is safe, that doesn't mean it's casual or easy, either.

But aren't the arguments which glibly say 'If she opens her legs and gets pregnant she should suck it up and have the child' equally offhanded? I mean an abortion is a duck walk compared to the risks of pregnancy emotionally and physically and lasts a lot longer than 15 minutes. Personally I think someone who decides to raise a child is taking responsibility as well as the woman who decides to abort.

One thing I find interesting is that for some reason there is a leaning towards hinging the abortion debate on the 1% of late abortions which occur when in actuality most women abort early in their first trimester. The discussion on many levels has reached a climax in the sense there isn't really any new arguments for or against, its just a trip another around the roundabout (publicly and in the two threads. At the end of the day one is either for it or against it and will have to allow their own conscience to dictate how they behave in the world in terms of this issue (if it ever comes up for them at all).

 

[Bells]

One thing I find interesting is that for some reason there is a leaning towards hinging the abortion debate on the 1% of late abortions which occur when in actuality most women abort early in their first trimester.

Because it makes the argument more in your face. To pro-lifer's, it points to the supposed selfishness of the mother in not only having sex and getting pregnant, but also waiting to the last minute to "change her mind".

But the reality is far different to the image portrayed by the pro-life lobby:

Opponents of abortion claimed that the intact D&E procedure is used during third trimester pregnancy for "the convenience of the mother," that 80% of third-trimester abortions are "elective," and that late-term abortions are done much more often than the 600 times per year reported by abortion defenders.

Statistics compiled by the Alan Guttmacher Institute's research confirm the 600-per-year figure and indicate that abortions in the third trimester (the 7th, 8th and 9th months) of pregnancy are indeed very rare, accounting for fewer than 0.04% of abortions. Third trimester abortions are done when necessary to protect a woman's life or health, in many cases when there are severe fetal abnormalities that make it risky to continue the pregnancy. A large percentage of second trimester abortions, particularly those in the late second trimester, are performed for the same reasons.

Doctors can choose among several late-term abortion procedures. Intact D&E is one of the least-used procedures, but is selected when other procedures would present greater risk to the women's life, health, or future childbearing, usually when the fetus is severely deformed and other procedures would cause greater blood loss or greater risk of tearing the woman's cervix and uterus. In both the second and third trimester, the intact D&E procedure is often the method which can best protect a woman's health and future fertility. In this procedure, the woman's cervix is dilated over a period of time, and then the fetus is removed. In some cases, in order to remove the fetus without injuring the woman's cervix or uterus, a spinal needle is used to remove cerebrospinal fluid, decreasing the size of the head enough to bring it out safely.

Abortion opponents received wide publicity for their allegations that third-trimester intact D&E procedures are more common than reported, with some 1500 procedures per year in New Jersey alone. TFC asked Barbara Kavadias, executive director of the New Jersey chapter of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC), about these numbers. She said that state statistics confirm that there are no third-trimester abortions in New Jersey, but that 1500 second-trimester abortions are performed each year by the intact D&E procedure. Kavadias said the procedure is chosen in the second trimester to reduce health impacts and so that grieving parents will have an intact fetus to touch and hold as they mourn the loss of a wanted child that was doomed by severe abnormalities.

http://www.discoveret.org/choicetn/late.term.html

But if you want to see a more recent example of how far some will go:

The best estimate appears to be by the nonprofit Guttmacher Institute in New York, which researches reproductive health issues. In 2000, the last time it studied the question, the institute estimated there were 1.31 million abortions performed in the United States each year. Of that total, about 2,200, or 0.17 percent, were by "intact dilation and extraction," which is the medical term for the same procedure.

The 2000 report said that about 30 of the nation's 1,800 abortion providers used the controversial technique.

When the issue -- and terminology -- entered public discussion in the mid-1990s, an official at the National Coalition of Abortion Providers estimated that 3,000 to 5,000 of the procedures were done annually. One of the chief proponents of the law banning the procedure does not disagree with that guess.

"There are at least several thousand a year," said Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee. "But nobody really knows how much of the iceberg is visible."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/18/AR2007041802428.html

It's easy to scare people into thinking that so many women are having sex (*gasp*), then waiting until the last minute to change their minds. So that is what they will stick with.

 

[visceral_instinct]

Because it makes the argument more in your face. To pro-lifer's, it points to the supposed selfishness of the mother in not only having sex and getting pregnant, but also waiting to the last minute to "change her mind".

It also makes abortion seem more like a crime.

The idea of merely flushing out a cluster of cells doesn't piss people off nearly as much as the idea of mangling a baby that is near to being born.

 

[Bells]

It also makes abortion seem more like a crime.

The idea of merely flushing out a cluster of cells doesn't piss people off nearly as much as the idea of mangling a baby that is near to being born.

Bingo..

And the result?

Look at Neverfly for a perfect example. He thinks women who wait to the end is an utter piece of shit. Now, we all know his views on abortion by now, unfortunately, but I would have been interested in knowing prior to our posting the statistics, how many he thought did wait and change her mind "because she doesn't want to give up her nightlife party lifestyle". But alas, it is too late now, as the statistics have been posted.

 

[Neverfly]

But aren't the arguments which glibly say 'If she opens her legs and gets pregnant she should suck it up and have the child' equally offhanded?

So it's ok to be offhanded if your opponent is?

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

So it's ok to be offhanded if your opponent is?

No I am saying that both sides of the argument can be said to be glib or offhanded on this particular issue, so its unfair to present one side as being casual about the options involved. There is nothing casual about having a child and yet there are those who judge a woman as being casual about abortion when in reality it is not viewed that way for most women. Though at this point I find more women on these boards to have a more practical view of abortion even though they have been accused of being 'hysterical' on the topic when i find more emotionalism being depicted by some men (and no I am not taking a poke at you there are others that more readily come to mind)

A few questions? Do you know any women who have had an abortion and have you ever talked to them about their experience?

How old is your son?

You may find this amusing. Kira made this small movie about VI's view on abortion and its quite funny:

http://www.grapheine.com/bombaytv/illustration-uk-93935b9cd6b6de1a4cba3d9559a34d99.html

She didn't do it as a slight but just out of fun. VI was invited to also make one but I'm not sure if she did.

 

[Neverfly]

No I am saying that both sides of the argument can be said to be glib or offhanded on this particular issue, so its unfair to present one side as being casual about the options involved.

True.

Good point. I'm not above changing my mind about things. I accused that possibility earlier, myself. But it DOES, admittedly, seem more likely that it couldn't be casual.

That is why I commented focusing on one side as I had. Because it's that casualness in discussion that really exacerbates the notion.

A few questions? Do you know any women who have had an abortion and have you ever talked to them about their experience?

If I know any that have- I am not aware of it. It never was my business...

How old is your son?

He's six and will be seven quite soon.

You may find this amusing. Kira made this small movie about VI's view on abortion and its quite funny:

http://www.grapheine.com/bombaytv/illustration-uk-93935b9cd6b6de1a4cba3d9559a34d99.html

She didn't do it as a slight but just out of fun. VI was invited to also make one but I'm not sure if she did.

I'll have to check that out, later. Right now, I'm multi-tasking...

 

[visceral_instinct]

I think I made one, I can't remember. I couldn't think of a good one, sorry

 

[mordea]

So doctors who abide by a person's DNR order are doing what exactly?

Nothing. Literally.

I honestly don't see the relevance of your question to my initial observation. And that was that abortion has implications for the healthcare workers, as they are the ones terminating a life.

Is a fetus as human as a born baby or an "elder"?

Yes. It is a Homo sapien in Trimester 1, and a Homo sapien at 80 years of age.

A born baby and an "elder" can survive outside of the womb. Can a "fetus" do the same before 27 weeks?

An elder can (usually) survive outside of another adult's care. Can a born baby do the same?

Aka. Such distinctions are rather arbitrary. An unborn baby relies on another human for nourishment. A born baby relies on another human for nourishment. The means by which they obtain that nourishment change.

You equate being pro-choice as being also pro-fucking your 3 year old daughter?

Why wouldn't I? If you tout your position as being 'pro-choice', then you should be for *all* choice. No ifs or buts.

Ergo. Just as you demand consistency from pro-lifers, I demand consistency from pro-choicers.

"Fetus. Born baby. Toddler. Child. Teenager. Adult. Elder. All human."​

But you are saying they aren't the same. Just all human..

Well done. Gold star.

But I asked you if you thought they were the same. As in I asked you a question seeking clarification from you. So in asking you a question, I am misrepresenting you?

*sigh* You didn't ask me a question.

You stated: "Now you may feel that a 12 week old foetus is the same as a born child, but the fact of the matter is it is not. The law does not even recognise its existence at that point in time. "

What you implied was that I held the view that a 12 week old foetus is the same as a born child. That is a misrepresentation.

Oh wait, I shouldn't ask you that either as you'd consider that to be another misrepresentation..

As I demonstrated above, you actually never asked me a question in an attempt to clarify my position. Instead, you presumptiously assigned a position to me which I do not hold.

Ah, but you fail to recognise that the law does give recognition to a fetus after a certain point (viability).

Actually, I pointed that out to you in one of my previous posts, when you attempted to use the law to justify immorality.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2515760&postcount=338

Bells: It is not illegal for a woman to have a say over what she does with her body.

mordea: That's not true. Abortion is prohibited in certain circumstances. Furthermore, the legality is irrelevant. We are arguing about what *ought* to be, not what is. It's pretty lame for you to cower behind the law to shield your opinion from criticism.

In conclusion, you really need to actually read what other people post *before* responding.

 

[visceral_instinct]

Why wouldn't I? If you tout your position as being 'pro-choice', then you should be for *all* choice. No ifs or buts.

Ergo. Just as you demand consistency from pro-lifers, I demand consistency from pro-choicers.

Um....what?

Pro choice is about the right to control your own body. Not to do what you like to anyone.

 

[lightgigantic]

Um....what?

Pro choice is about the right to control your own body. Not to do what you like to anyone.

throw a slippery definition on "anyone" and .... voila .....

I mean the KKK could say its all about asserting the rights of everyone (its just that there is staunch evidence why blacks blacks don't make the grade of "everyone")
:shrug:

 

[cluelusshusbund]

Origionaly posted by Mordea
Ergo. Just as you demand consistency from pro-lifers, I demand consistency from pro-choicers.

Well how bout you Mordea.... are you oK wit a woman gettin an aborton if her pregnancy was caused by rape... or if carryin the baby to term woud put her life at unusually hi risk... an a queston for you an lightgigantic... are you oK wit the use of the mornin after pill an birf control pills.???

 

[visceral_instinct]

throw a slippery definition on "anyone" and .... voila .....

I mean the KKK could say its all about asserting the rights of everyone (its just that there is staunch evidence why blacks blacks don't make the grade of "everyone")
:shrug:

No, goddammit, it's like the difference between getting a nose ring yourself and forcing someone else to get one. Your nose is your own.