Abortion

[JB3]

^Don't even start. Your post has been reported for baiting.

 

[NedNickerson]

Depends on when it is performed.

On a full grown viable baby, yes I would consider it murder.

On a mass of cells that doesn't even resemble a person, no.

But the majority of abortions don't occur when the baby is just a mass of cells. Most women don't realize they're pregnant until they've missed their period which could be four to six weeks later.

This link show the development of the human fetus from four weeks to 38 weeks, explaining how the body is growing and development and has photos of each stage... I thought it was very interesting and enlightening.

Characteristics of the Unborn Child
http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/wrtk/develop/week4.shtm

The photo at 22 weeks really made me pause... The text says there is little chance that the fetus would survive outside the womb. So technically, it isn't viable...

But look at the photo...

How could anyone abort it...?

Here's the story of Gianna Jessen, a saline abortion survivor

 

[Kurn]

^Don't even start. Your post has been reported for baiting.

Why is it OK to debate what to do with every woman's body and not OK to debate what to do with any other body?
Just because hordes of people are doing it doesn't make it right. It's wrong and it's as wrong or more wrong than any and all abortions.
In fact it is exactly the same depersonalization that causes over-aborting in the first place.

 

[jackoroe]

I think Kurn is trying to make a point here, not bait Droid. He's trying to put you in a situation similar to what a woman experiences when we discuss what she does with her reproductive organs. So. on that basis, it's fine.

Kurn does completely neglect the fact that there is a human life in the balance, in her uterus. A human being with it's own brain and heart. He over looks the right of that person to live, be born and grow up. The worth of that person is ignored, for what is frequently the inconvenience to a woman.

 

[boogalee]

And they are illegal unless the mother's imminent health is in danger.

Actually the words 'health' were removed by the conservatives in the Senate and replaced with 'life'...if her 'life' rather than 'health' is in danger. There is a difference.

A 5 to 4 decision by the Supreme Court...Roberts, Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas and Alito are all Catholic...

Did you know that there isn't an anti-abortion group that supports birth control? Not one.

 

[wundersteve]

Thanks for that bit of info on "life", I didn't realize that.

Also, have you noticed those same people who are staunch, raving, anti-abortionists are always opposed to childrens' healthcare spending, against funding orphanages, expanding social services to help case workers place kids with foster homes and or better adoption programs, and the like.

They want to force a woman to have a child, yet don't fund safe sex education, nor programs for infants, and young children. It's a stance on rhetoric, and rhetoric only.

Also, how many staunch anti-abortionist women come to mind off the top of your head? Why are they usually always men? Things that make you go.... hmmmm......

Maybe that is how some of the politicians carry on, but many pro-lifers on the ground want exactly the sort of programs you have enumerated.

Men and women have roughly similar views on abortion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States
A January 2003 ABC News/Washington Post poll also examined attitudes towards abortion by gender. In answer to the question, "On the subject of abortion, do you think abortion should be legal in all cases, legal in most cases, illegal in most cases or illegal in all cases?", 25% of women responded that it should be legal in "all cases", 33% that it should be legal in "most cases", 23% that it should be illegal in "most cases", and 17% that it should be illegal in "all cases". 20% of men thought it should be legal in "all cases", 34% legal in "most cases", 27% illegal in "most cases", and 17% illegal in "all cases". [34]


Rarely if ever have US polls shown a majority of Americans agreeing with the status quo that abortion should be available on request for every frivolous reason under the sun:

By circumstance or reasons
An October 2007 CBS News poll explored under what circumstances Americans believe abortion should be allowed, asking the question, "What is your personal feeling about abortion?" The results were as follows:[30]
Permitted in all casesPermitted, but subject to greater restrictions than it is nowOnly in cases such as rape, incest, or to save the woman's lifeOnly permitted to save the woman's lifeNeverUnsure36%16%24%16%4%4%

 

[JB3]

Why do Republicans and the so-called "Christian" right-wing extremists keep bringing this up. As if this is the only issue in the world.

Look.... Republicans have been in control several times since Roe VS Wade and abortion is still legal. And it will always be legal.

Get over it.

You have a misinformed view of the situation. Republicans could not change the law, because if it was challenged, Roe v. Wade would be used to overturn it. The only way, at this point, for Roe v. Wade to be undone is for it to be challenged in a case directly before the supreme court.

Roe v. Wade SHOULD be overturned; not because the outcome was a bad one, but because the rationale and legal reasoning behind the law was extraordinarily faulty. If it came before the supreme court today, I think it would have a hard time being upheld because the reasoning behind the decision was so piss poor.

 

[01solara]

Let's debate how Droid800's body can be forced to be more moral.

Then let's debate the endless fine points of our conflicting opinions while the house burns down around us...

See...we have to leave this stuff up to the woman. No one else may trespass here. The life of the human race has to grow up and admit that the woman's uterus is her own and no one else's to even discuss.

I thought you left wingers hated the right wingers for pushing their morals on everyone else. Pot meet kettle.

 

[Kurn]

I think Kurn is trying to make a point here, not bait Droid. He's trying to put you in a situation similar to what a woman experiences when we discuss what she does with her reproductive organs. So. on that basis, it's fine.

Kurn does completely neglect the fact that there is a human life in the balance, in her uterus. A human being with it's own brain and heart. He over looks the right of that person to live, be born and grow up. The worth of that person is ignored, for what is frequently the inconvenience to a woman.

I am not overlooking the fact that, conservatively, 3% of all abortions are for urgent medical reasons. Then there are numerous reasons, less urgent but all quite trialsome.
At the other moral end of the situational spectrum, I am not overlooking the fact that 9 months is a mighty inconvenience that exposes the woman to a multitude of challenges that will take most of the people on this forum at least a coupla hours to study and become slightly knowledgeable about. The "inconvenience" is itself no light matter.

I am not pro-abortion. I am pro-choice as a legal basis. Anti-choice opens the door to tyranny as much as anti-guns does. In fact, moreso, because, obviously, the complications are too subtle for too many people's brains and they just let things pass. They're just women, after all. We have to get past the scratch in the LP and accord women full dignity and full sovereignty. Encourage wise choice; but do not invade the dignity of women to make that choice.

Just as anti-choice opens the door to tyrannies we don't need, it also closes the door to a greater happiness for all, the happiness of doing what's right because it's right and not because the Big Man says so.
We've had enough of that and it's disrespectful to previous generations to want to go through still more of it.

Don't be morally lazy. Too much blood has been shed for us to continue to be that way.

 

[Kurn]

I thought you left wingers hated the right wingers for pushing their morals on everyone else. Pot meet kettle.

I hate right-wingerism and am glad I emerged from it.
Right wing philosophy is misery-dependent and misery-conserving. It has segregated itself from America's greater maturity won from battles and battlefields of all kinds.
The liberal-industrial complex is too-often a horror but at least it keeps money circulating and can often do things it is paid to do very well.

Why should women object to your discussing the use of her uterus?? Is that your question? Not exactly your question but it's what your implication leads to. Is it really the case that there's something that doesn't feel wrong about that?
19th-Century humanity was haunted by the tragic absurdities of their time. It is high time to leave it all behind. Jesus died for that shit, too.

 

[Kulindahr]

No, the only reason anyone here is "against" abortion, and therefore seeking to curtail other's current rights under law is because of religion.

False.

So you favor some abortions, but not others? Um. Ok. Can you explain? Why are you opposed to something you will never have to deal with?

I'm not likely to ever have to deal with someone defoliating my home with Agent Orange, either, but that doesn't prevent me from being against its use. I'll never have to deal with the effects of meth on my body, but that doesn't prevent me from being against its use.

If this is true why then is so little attention, medical research, and funding in place when more than 50% of conceptions are naturally aborted within a month? If something becomes a living being at conception, a woman will naturally abort a number of "babies" in their life.

I wonder -- if those are really human beings, what will they look like in heaven?
Or is that why "Limbo" got invented -- to avoid having to deal with the question?

See...we have to leave this stuff up to the woman. No one else may trespass here. The life of the human race has to grow up and admit that the woman's uterus is her own and no one else's to even discuss.

No, her uterus is not her own: if there's a person within, it belongs partly to that person.

Did you know that there isn't an anti-abortion group that supports birth control? Not one.

I don't believe that -- Lutherans for Life was in favor of birth control when I was a member.

 

[TX-Beau]

Are we supposed to shed a tear now?

Go out and preach your heart out, convince as many people you can not to have one, but the moment you try to step into the law, you deserve to be smacked down.

The law has no place in this decision. None. Your belief is just your opinion, nothing more. You have no right to try and force that on everyone else.

 

[TX-Beau]

So what? The government still has no place in this decision. None at all. You have no right to force your opinion on someone else.

 

[TX-Beau]

If you try to take away someone's choice with the law, you're forcing yourself on people who do not believe as you do.

If abortion is legal, you can choose not to have one, you can go out and preach to your hearts content to convince people not to have one. You can spend the rest of you days trying to convince people it's wrong.

Pushing and advocating to take away the choice of people who don't believe as you do with the law is a rank attempt at coercion.

 

[bankside]

I think Kulindahr has a remarkably sane approach to this issue which is free of dogmatic partisanship and applies established human rights for all parties involved on a foundation of evidence-based findings. It provides a framework which allows for a good deal of ethical nuance, which is far more coherent than having "yes" or "no" camps trying to shout each other down.

Brain waves come and brain waves go. That should mean something at the beginning and the end of life.

It is still up for discussion what the rules should be at each of those events, but it is an unmistakable threshold that should be addressed by the law, because "before" is not the same as "after."

By the way, even though I am generally in favour of legal access to abortion, I would like to point out that no one assumes having an abortion should make for a happy memory. Of course it is a difficult thing and quite likely a painful memory. That does not mean it was the wrong thing. Sometimes even the best outcome of a situation is painful, even though it is still the best outcome that could have been hoped for.

 

[Kulindahr]

Are we supposed to shed a tear now?

Go out and preach your heart out, convince as many people you can not to have one, but the moment you try to step into the law, you deserve to be smacked down.

The law has no place in this decision. None. Your belief is just your opinion, nothing more. You have no right to try and force that on everyone else.

That's what they used to say about infant exposure, and hitting your own children so hard they died.

If there's a human being present, there's murder, regardless of its location -- and the law had darned well better step in, because that's what law is for -- to protect persons.

 

[Kulindahr]

So what? The government still has no place in this decision. None at all. You have no right to force your opinion on someone else.

Does the government have a place in the actions of parents who deprive their children of medical assistance because of their religious belief?

This is a question of reason, just as is any other where harm to persons is involved. The result of reason can also be considered an opinion -- and at that point, the only thing government ever, ever does is force opinions on people.

If you take your point consistently, the government has no place in deciding how parents raise their children, in any way, no place in deciding speed limits, no place in deciding who can and cannot provide medical care, no place in deciding what should be in our drinking water, no place in deciding what substances we can put in our bodies -- because all those are opinions. But in actuality, the government spends my money every day to do things which morally offend me, and the money of many others to do things which morally offend them.
In truth, democracy is a matter of forcing the opinions of the majority on the minority.

 

[Kulindahr]

If you try to take away someone's choice with the law, you're forcing yourself on people who do not believe as you do.

Pushing and advocating to take away the choice of people who don't believe as you do with the law is a rank attempt at coercion.

That's hilarious!

The law takes away my choice to drive the way I want, live where I want, have a house the way I want, work the way I want... the whole business of the law is the taking away of choices.

 

[bankside]

That's hilarious!

The law takes away my choice to drive the way I want, live where I want, have a house the way I want, work the way I want... the whole business of the law is the taking away of choices.

and you finally admit that is useful.. yaaay!

 

[Kulindahr]

By the way, even though I am generally in favour of legal access to abortion, I would like to point out that no one assumes having an abortion should make for a happy memory. Of course it is a difficult thing and quite likely a painful memory. That does not mean it was the wrong thing. Sometimes even the best outcome of a situation is painful, even though it is still the best outcome that could have been hoped for.

I know some people who have shot and killed in the defense of self and/or others. It was the right thing to do; had they not, innocent people would have been killed, or raped.

But don't think for a moment that they don't relive that decision over and over, trying to make it come out "right".

That's one of the points of the doctrine of the Fall in Christianity: this world is screwed up, and there are times when there is no good, happy, 'right' choice.

As a wise gal in a Lutherans for Life outfit I was in said, "The only women who have no regrets about an abortion are the ones who gave their lives so their child could live -- and I'm not sure about them."