Abortion - your views.

[CassinoChips]

Ugh. I have avoided this particular debate like the plague, but for some reason I feel the need to throw my two cents in. :masochism:

Until men evolve the capability of carrying feti to term (naturally), I don't think we should have any say in abortion legislation. It has nothing to do with us in any way. We suffer none of the drawbacks, life-altering changes (the 9 months > full life or whatever is horsecrap. full normal life > full significantly altered life), etc. that women do. Thus, we should have no say.

Were it not for the inCREDibly dangerous precedent it would set, I would make the following suggestion: Put abortion laws to a vote, but exclude all non-female voters. If women legalize it (and I have the sneaking suspicion they would), it's legal, end of discussion. If they vote to make it illegal, then we have no more argument. Because, as was stated, there are just too many emotions and beliefs tied into abortion debates, it will never end unless we make a concerted effort to end it. Which won't ever happen.

/rant

 

[bitteroldman]

Youre little story said the mother was over 7 months pregnant, i never denied a child could live at that stage, i was merely saying the majority of women tend to find out around the 6 week mark, there is no WAY on this EARTH a 'baby' would survive outside the womb at that stage of pregnacy

This is a story that addresses your theory:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/feb/21/health.lifeandhealth

Against all odds

Amillia Taylor shouldn't be alive. She was born at less than 22 weeks - in the US, where babies aren't considered 'viable' until 23 weeks. But her desperate mother lied to doctors about how far gone she was, and Amillia is now the most premature baby to have ever survived. Aida Edemariam reports on her extraordinary story and asks: should we be saving such tiny babies?

• <LI class="third-party-tool no-comments ">Buzz up!
• Digg it

• Aida Edemariam
• The Guardian, Wednesday 21 February 2007
• Article history

The feet of Amillia Taylor, born in Miami after just 22 weeks in the womb. Photo: Baptist Health South/Getty

There is something otherworldly about the picture that appeared around the world yesterday: two tiny brown-pink feet, almost translucent, poking through an adult's fingers. You had to look twice to be sure that they were indeed feet.
They belong to Amillia Taylor, who was born in Miami last October, 21 weeks and six days after conception. She weighed less than 10oz at birth - not even as much as two ordinary bars of soap - and she was just 9½ inches long. Amillia, who is expected to be discharged from hospital in the next couple of days, is officially the most premature baby ever to have survived.
Amillia's parents, understandably, are immensely pleased, not least because "She's like a real baby now," as her mother, 37-year-old teacher Sonja Taylor, told the Miami Herald. "Now I can feel her when I hold her." The doctors involved, having initially been prepared to break the news of the baby's death to parents who had already been through a gruelling IVF programme and scare after scare during pregnancy, are expressing informed incredulity. "This is not the norm," says neonatologist Dr William Smalling. "Really, greatly, most of these babies don't survive ... This is a miracle." Even more surprisingly, apart from some expected respiratory issues, Amillia appears to be doing well: the prognosis is excellent.
To put Amillia's achievement into perspective: babies who go to full term are born at 37 to 40 weeks. According to the American Association of Pediatrics, babies born at less than 23 weeks are not considered "viable". According to a landmark report published by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics late last year, which provides guidelines that all British neonatologists and paediatricians are asked to consider, babies born before 22 weeks and six days gestation should not generally be resuscitated. Below 22 weeks, no baby should be resuscitated. "For this age group, we consider current attempts to resuscitate a baby to be experimental," the report said. Even between 23 weeks and 23 weeks and six days, there is no legal obligation on doctors to try to save a baby if they judge it to be against the child's best interests.
Meanwhile, although it doesn't often happen, the Abortion Act allows terminations to be carried out until 24 weeks in Britain; any time after that there must be incontrovertible medical evidence that it would be dangerous to continue. The law in the US is predictably fraught and unclear, and in any case varies from state to state. Roe v Wade bans it after the foetus is viable, which, as Amillia has shown, is something of a contestable point.
In fact Amillia would not have lived at all if her mother, in desperation, had not deceived doctors about how far along she was. Sonja, who had had to deal with cervical abnormalities and infections during pregnancy, showed signs of labour at 19 weeks; nine days later doctors realised that they could delay a vaginal birth no longer and performed a caesarean. Incredibly, Amillia was breathing without assistance and even made several attempts to cry when she emerged; doctors assumed she might be 23 weeks old and Sonja did not disabuse them. It was only later that it emerged how early Amillia had really been. At a press conference later, one of the doctors said that Sonja had been in such distress for so long that the hormones she was producing actually helped Amillia to survive. Now she has done so, it is time to consider her future.
Fifty years ago, of course, she would not have survived (she would probably not have been conceived, either, but that is another issue), and no one would have expected her to; in many countries in the world babies like her still don't. She is, of course, oblivious to her record-breaking status, or the ethical dilemmas that she represents. How and why we prolong life and what that life will finally be like are some of the most sensitive issues of our age. Survival is not everything: at what point should medical heroics cede to considerations of the best interests both of the baby and of her family? Is it even possible to make those calculations?
"There are grave doubts about it and there have to be," says Hilary Rose, professor of the sociology of science at City University. "I think medicine tends to regard life itself as the great achievement, and of course any parent out of their mind with anguish is also going to feel that. But when we are calmer we want the child to have a good chance of life, to enjoy life. Somehow one has to provide a caring environment so that parents, who are the ones who are going to have to care for these children, can make a calm decision. The pressures on them, particularly if conception has been difficult, are enormous. I do think that society has to think about these things much more deeply and carefully."
Babies born prematurely face a daunting array of problems, both immediately and in the long term. At less than 23 weeks, foetuses have very little in the way of lungs, or brains. In fact, says John Wyatt, a professor of neonatal paediatrics at University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, who also has a longstanding interest in medical ethics, "All the organs are extremely immature. The critical issue is the lungs. Even with machines, it's impossible to get oxygen in because the lungs are almost solid. Trying to keep the baby alive may involve inflicting a very high degree of irretrievable damage. The skin is often very thin, and the kidneys underdeveloped. The brain is extremely immature, and very prone to injury, especially bleeding. Furthermore, follow-up studies suggest that babies who survive below 23 weeks have a very high chance of developmental or neurological problems."
A 1995 study quoted in the Nuffield report records that of 138 babies who showed signs of life after being born at less than 22 weeks, only two survived to be discharged, and a follow-up at six years of age found that one of those two had severe disabilities, classed as "likely to make a child highly dependent on care-givers, and involving one or more of the following symptoms: cerebral palsy that prevented the child from walking, an IQ score considerably lower than average, profound sensorineural hearing loss, or blindness." (The other child was classed as mildly disabled.) Quite apart from the state of the child, such levels of disability cause great stress to the parents and to their relationship.
"Should one really be trying at all to keep that baby alive?" asks Professor Richard Nicholson, editor of the Bulletin of Medical Ethics. "Chances are it will require an enormous amount to be spent on it for the rest of its life. We have much less experience of death, so we have become much less willing to accept it. In countries where infant mortality is higher it would be seen as absurd. We live in a society where we have become addicted to physical existence. It's totally unsustainable. Our attempts at the moment to keep every human physically alive as long as possible will make it less likely that the human race will survive climate change."
Wyatt urges caution, however. According to the premature baby charity Bliss, around 80,000 babies are born prematurely in this country, of whom approximately 17,000 require incubator care. Around 5,000 are born before 31 weeks; fewer than 300 are born between 22 and 23 weeks. "If you take the case of all very premature babies," says Wyatt, "the majority do well and go to normal schools, and do the normal things. However, the studies confirm that there is a high incidence of educational and behavioural problems. Of babies less than 28 weeks that figure is about 50% - but that doesn't mean to say it would be better not to have given them a chance."
At the same time, he, along with many others, is uncomfortable about "this idea of a record-breaking Olympics, which is not in the best interests of patients and children. I think this is clearly an extremely unusual case, and entirely outside our experience. Most parents, when given the facts, would accept that the best thing for a baby born below 23 weeks is to allow nature to take its course, and most neonatalogists would agree that they shouldn't be resuscitated. And yet ... we need to decide what is best for each individual baby. A premature baby is as much a member of the human community as anybody else, and deserves the best care that's available. By and large this care has been extremely successful. There are thousands going into adulthood who previously wouldn't have done so. There are some children at the extremes, for whom intensive care can't provide hope, and who will not survive. In those circumstances it's best not to start."
At the Baptist Children's Hospital in Miami, where Amillia was born, doctors found that even caring for such a baby, once she was seen to be viable, was like charting new territory. "We didn't even know what normal blood pressure is for a baby this small," says Smalling. But Amillia, against all the odds, now weighs just over four pounds. She can bottlefeed. Once home she will be dependent on asthma medication, and will need Vitamin E for her skin. For a while yet, every move she makes will have to be monitored; every time her skin might be damaged - such as at bath time - special precautions will have to be followed. She may require some supplemental oxygen. But in many respects she is beginning to resemble a normal baby.
"We are delighted to hear that Amillia is doing well and is able to return home with her parents," says Professor Margaret Brazier, who chaired the Nuffield committee. "In our report we suggest that attempts to resuscitate babies born at or before 21 weeks six days should normally only take place within a clinical research study. These are not intended to be hard and fast rules, and each case will always need to be considered individually. We also recommended that any guidelines should be reviewed regularly and revised to reflect any changes in outcomes for extremely premature babies. Cases like Amillia's would need to be taken into consideration".
'You think - will my child be normal? But ultimately, you don't care'
The mother of a premature baby writes
On my desk is a photograph of my eldest daughter at two days old. This treasured picture shows an emaciated form lying prone in an incubator. Her skin is grey and thin; her face is hollow and fragile; there are tubes taped to her cheeks and protruding from her nose and mouth. Her eyes are closed: you can tell that she's conserving every bit of her energy just to stay alive.
Rosie, my daughter, was - like Amillia Taylor - born long before she was ready to leave the womb; long before she was ready to look cute; long before she was ready to breathe and eat and stay warm on her own.
I am in that picture on my desk, too. I am gazing at my daughter: and the strange thing is that, although you would find it hard to identify the grey shrimp in the box with what we generally think of as an appealing newborn, you would recognise the look on my face straight away. I am a proud, adoring new mother. I am utterly and entirely caught up in my child's existence.
I was just 28 weeks pregnant - 12 whole weeks away from when I thought I would be giving birth - when Rosie was born, delivered by caesarean after I developed pre-eclampsia over the space of a weekend.
It was the most extraordinary transformation of my life: in the morning I was a journalist at my desk; by the afternoon I was at my doctor's surgery; by nightfall I was in a hospital ward; and by dawn the following morning I was in a high-dependency unit with my 2lb 10oz daughter in the special care unit on the floor below. For the next two months, my entire world revolved around a tiny baby in an incubator; first, whether she'd survive, and then how quickly it would be before she was well enough to come home.
Of course, Rosie wasn't as early as Amillia, who arrived just short of 22 weeks' gestation, and Rosie was born two pounds heavier, but I understand why Sonja Taylor, Amillia's mother, lied to hospital staff about her baby's gestation, and why she did everything humanly possible to keep her child alive. I think stories like this show that there shouldn't be an artificial cut-off point with premature babies - a rule which says that before a certain date, we won't save your baby, end of discussion. Every case should be considered on its own merits, because while it's all very well chewing over the ethics of keeping very premature babies alive - talking about death, talking about horrific outcomes - the bottom line is that there are an awful lot of individual, complicated and emotional - not to mention financial and practical - issues at stake.
Not to mention a baby who, however small and premature, has a personality all of his or her own; not to mention doctors whose views may be conflicting; not to mention a nursing team who may also have different viewpoints. The whole thing's very messy. And in the midst of it all there's the powerful, emotional force of a parent's love.
Right from the start, Amillia's mother knew her baby was unique, irreplaceable, perfect. Know this, and you might begin to understand why parents of premature babies will plead, pray, beg and even cheat and lie about their baby's gestational age, if it's going to make a difference as to whether they get the treatment to keep their baby alive, to make their baby better, to take their baby home.
You worry about their future, of course, and Amillia's mother will be worrying right now. You scan the pictures in the special-care baby unit of children whose lives started here, and you find yourself thinking: are they normal? Will my child be normal? But even though some of the children in the pictures don't look "normal" - they're too thin, they've got a squint, they're in a wheelchair - you don't ultimately care whether that is what is going to happen to your baby. You hope everything will turn out fine, of course you do: but you already know you love this baby anyway, and you know that nothing is going to change that. Not a doctor's grim predictions today; not a teacher's pessimistic evaluation tomorrow; not the fact that your friends' babies can do more, and earlier. You have that one, precious person - I have my Rosie, Sonja Taylor has her Amillia - and the world will be brighter and better because of it.
Joanna Moorhead

 

[Caedus]

Posting would be so much easier if the admins and moderators held as much value to insignificant posts like the one you're reading now as they do in articles pasted as posts. The act of taking the time to find something like this and not posting anything about your opinions on the matter... makes me at the fact that you even took the effort to do so. Does this reflect anything you agree or disagree with? What are your thoughts on it? Damn whippersnapper.

 

[Ashe B'nargin]

Don't know kind of mixed on everything, guess it depends on the Mother..If she is the type to well- sleep around and get abortions quite often. Then feel like angry about what kind of choice the Mother is making. But if the Mother was attacked, or raped by another man. Then guess will feel okay about her getting a abortion. They say that babies faces look like their Fathers, imagine the pain that you have to go through each day. To child and try and love a child that looks like the person who has abused you..

If the Mother just didn't want a child because she was too lazy and couldn't raise a child because she couldn't be effed to raise another child. Then guess will feel pissed off about too. But if the Mother had money problems, couldn't afford to raise a child and is almost in the stage of struggling to pay for bills and debts. Then would understand if she had the choice of heading into a Abortion Clinic.

As a young Christian really believe that Abortion kills. But in life there is some cases where a Mother can't really raise a baby. Reasons why said before would get pissed off if a Mother casually removed a baby just for the sake of it. Because feel like the Mother is taking God's children and creation for granted...

Reckon that Abortion Clinic should only be open to the truly needy, and Mother's who are in total strife and in no shape to raise a baby. Maybe even to open to young Teenagers too who are too scared to raise a baby and ended up pregent by incident..

 

[Mehaha]

To be honest abortion will always be around even if made illegal. But it will be more dangerous to the mothers life that is all. Doctors do things off the books all the time. My mother had a problem in which the baby needed to be adjusted. The doctors assessed the risk and said it was too high. Something came to which it actually became illegal to do so and yet a doctor did it though it was illegal. Now for abortion I know it is to remove life but my point remains.

If you remove the safe doctor alternative the what will be left? The hangar method, bicycle spoke method maybe even the stair case and for anyone who has access to a computer many more. To be honest abortions are rather easy and can be performed at home in under 10 minutes by someone with no medical experience... Period.

Old Man I will get to that post but I am tired but yeah.

 

[bitteroldman]

Posting would be so much easier if the admins and moderators held as much value to insignificant posts like the one you're reading now as they do in articles pasted as posts. The act of taking the time to find something like this and not posting anything about your opinions on the matter... makes me at the fact that you even took the effort to do so. Does this reflect anything you agree or disagree with? What are your thoughts on it? Damn whippersnapper.

Ya see? this is what's wrong with kids these days... they come onto a post several pages in, and fail to read the early parts. Uninformed whelp
Dude, I've been a fair ray of sunshine to this thread since before your mama had her choice.

Ive SEEN the article tyvm Biteroldman, thanks, Ive seen it REPEATEDLY now. She survived, Im aware of this, she was over 7. months. gone. Babies can survive at that age, Ive never once denied that OR agreed with people having an abortion at such a late stage, I think it should be lowered. I might as well just copy paste what I said the last TWO times, Im sick of repeating myself now

I do not deny a baby would survive at that stage, but most women find out around the 6 week mark, and generally make the decision to terminate around that time. That 'child' will not survive outside the womb at 6 weeks. I would not allow someone to make me feel like Im some kind of animal by aborting at that EARLY stage

The cut off point for abortions should be lowered, but not made illegal.

PRO-CHOICE

Hon, 21 weeks=just about five months.

If you remove the safe doctor alternative the what will be left? The hangar method, bicycle spoke method maybe even the stair case and for anyone who has access to a computer many more. To be honest abortions are rather easy and can be performed at home in under 10 minutes by someone with no medical experience... Period.

Old Man I will get to that post but I am tired but yeah.

Okay, here's a point that really chaps my liver:
"Ooh! Ooh! Butz if theyz closeded the abortion clinickz, then all the poooor womenz will getz illeeegal abortionz!"

No. No they won't.

1. Making something illegal and enforcing the law automatically drops the participation in any activity. Just to humor you, I'll use the prohibition of alcohol as an example. Alcohol was prohibited because of a staunch believer that it is responsible for many of life's woes, getting into the Oval Office. When it became illegal, I'll grant you that it only started happening behind closed doors. However, participation in drinking WENT WAY THE BLOODS AND CRIPS DOWN.
Having used that example to humor you, methinks it would be a teeny bit more like, say, SMUGGLING. First, you have to be willing to risk getting caught. Then, you have to be well-connected enough to actually know a "fence"/ someone able and willing to kill your unborn child without killing you. Finally, you have to be able to hide the evidence of the act after the crime.

2. NO. Not many doctors are willing to put their license and/or insurance on the line by breaking rules/going against procedure/working off the books. Y'know why? BECAUSE THEY CAN LOSE THEIR LICENSE AND/OR INSURANCE, THEY CAN BE SUED BY THEIR EMPLOYERS AND PATIENTS, AND THEY CAN GO TO PRISON.

3. As to ye olde flinging oneself upon yonder steps...this is very likely to land you in the hospital, where a) they can save your baby and b)you don't want to go, because then your pregnancy is ON THE BOOKS. I'll even throw c) at you: people don't normally self-harm, because that would harmful to oneself.

4. I wouldn't know how easy it is to do your own abortion, or to get a professional abortion done. However, under my laws as bitteroldking, such an act would likely get you in trouble by putting you in the hospital, and you getting caught.

Surely, common sense must tell you that abortions are only so popular because it's so available and easy to get done? I mean, people who HATE abortion get abortions because of an emotional response. It's like hamburger: people only flock to the drive-thru for a Big Mac because it's available, cheap, and easy. But if you make hamburger illegal, not a bunch of folks are gonna go outta their way to slaughter a cow, grind its meat, season and cure it, cook it, and eat it. Once it becomes inconvenient, it doesn't sound like such a hot idea after all.

Finally, why the heck isn't anyone educated on what their baby/fetus/embryo/junior is/looks like/etc? The abortion providers, to my knowledge, try everything they can to keep their patients ignorant of all the facts. They tell them about the procedure and after-care, and that's it. This isn't like getting a manicure; a little insider knowledge should be shared here. Planned Parenthood even fought against allowing certain pamphlets on the development of an unborn child some years back, if I'm not too senile. That's just dorky and wrong.
When I'm bitteroldking, there will be thorough education on the matter. And there will be proper programs to help these scared girls/women get the support they need to improve their lives, whether they keep the child or give it away.
And self-defense and CPR will be mandatory in PE, and kids will know before they graduate how to get in shape and stay there. And money management will be a required course. And I'll make an apprenticeship program for school credit for kids who want to go straight to the workforce, rather'n college. And everyone will have a nickname which I give to them.
:ed:Vote bitteroldman 2016!

 

[M'aiq the Liar]

My view on abortion is this. If the woman who has the child decides she wants an abortion, than i believe that it should be in the earliest stages of embryo that it should be done. Also, i believe that people who have the baby in them have the right to decide what to do with it, depending on the stage its at. Now granted that people debate when exactly a child is "born", but in this case i just say get it as early in the process as possible.

But what i think is more important than the debate of abortion is unwanted pregnancies. Instead of saying abortion is the only option, or not an option at all, i feel it is important to target the dilemma at its core:unwanted pregnancies. We should focus on prevention of unwanted pregnancies, so as to stop abortions from being necessary.

 

[Bambi]

Bitteroldman, please don't double post, use the edit button

Ya see? this is what's wrong with kids these days... they come onto a post several pages in, and fail to read the early parts. Uninformed whelp

Dude, I've been a fair ray of sunshine to this thread since before your mama had her choice.

Less of the unnecessary comments please, the age of our members has no bearing on the topic at hand

And excuse my poor maths skills, everyone knows I'm shite at it, doesn't deflect from my original point of the 6 week mark though

 

[Donald Trump]

"

No. No they won't.

1. Making something illegal and enforcing the law automatically drops the participation in any activity. Just to humor you, I'll use the prohibition of alcohol as an example. Alcohol was prohibited because of a staunch believer that it is responsible for many of life's woes, getting into the Oval Office. When it became illegal, I'll grant you that it only started happening behind closed doors. However, participation in drinking WENT WAY THE BLOODS AND CRIPS DOWN.
Having used that example to humor you, methinks it would be a teeny bit more like, say, SMUGGLING. First, you have to be willing to risk getting caught. Then, you have to be well-connected enough to actually know a "fence"/ someone able and willing to kill your unborn child without killing you. Finally, you have to be able to hide the evidence of the act after the crime.

2. NO. Not many doctors are willing to put their license and/or insurance on the line by breaking rules/going against procedure/working off the books. Y'know why? BECAUSE THEY CAN LOSE THEIR LICENSE AND/OR INSURANCE, THEY CAN BE SUED BY THEIR EMPLOYERS AND PATIENTS, AND THEY CAN GO TO PRISON.

3. As to ye olde flinging oneself upon yonder steps...this is very likely to land you in the hospital, where a) they can save your baby and b)you don't want to go, because then your pregnancy is ON THE BOOKS. I'll even throw c) at you: people don't normally self-harm, because that would harmful to oneself.

4. I wouldn't know how easy it is to do your own abortion, or to get a professional abortion done. However, under my laws as bitteroldking, such an act would likely get you in trouble by putting you in the hospital, and you getting caught.

No.
People will have illegal abortions performed. Less than usual that's irrelevant. Women will still have abortions if they believe that not being pregnant is worth the risk, it's the same as before, just with increased risk and increased cost. It's a rational decision, and people are rational.

Finally, why the heck isn't anyone educated on what their baby/fetus/embryo/junior is/looks like/etc? The abortion providers, to my knowledge, try everything they can to keep their patients ignorant of all the facts. They tell them about the procedure and after-care, and that's it. This isn't like getting a manicure; a little insider knowledge should be shared here. Planned Parenthood even fought against allowing certain pamphlets on the development of an unborn child some years back, if I'm not too senile. That's just dorky and wrong.
When I'm bitteroldking, there will be thorough education on the matter. And there will be proper programs to help these scared girls/women get the support they need to improve their lives, whether they keep the child or give it away.

So you're going to force your opinion on people?
Pregnancy and Abortion are both risk fulled, I hope that you will educate women on the risks of having a parasite inside of her for nine months. Then again, why bother, she doesn't have a choice, I digress.
Point is, both have risks.

 

[blakstang98]

You know, I never really thought about this, but it makes total sense. Why not just make/keep abortion legal and have offices that carry them out regularly, continue to do so. If someone doesn't believe it should be done, then they never have to go there right? In this case, everyone wins, the ones who want to abort can, and the ones that don't believe in it don't have to. Anyways, I'm not gonna drop a long novel-like post like I already have, I just figured I'd put that out there and see what people think of that.

 

[Shu]

Ya see? this is what's wrong with kids these days... they come onto a post several pages in, and fail to read the early parts. Uninformed whelp
Dude, I've been a fair ray of sunshine to this thread since before your mama had her choice.

So you read all the posts? Hardly thinking you did this entire thread justice, even I don't claim to have read most of these posts. I generally don't because I don't like to be influenced by bias, until after my first post.

Let me step aside from the moral grounds, and let me hit the sexist grounds. No offense, but what the hell are you doing giving your opinion about a woman's body in the first place? It seems the people who are bashing abortion in this thread are men.

Abortion Law? What a laugh. No offense to you sheltered folks, but Abortion will be around till the end. I support it. Pro-Choice all the way. I believe that firmly there will never be an abortion law here in the States either as long as we have quite a few open minded, less "ignunt" people.

Abortion is not something you do out of an automated response. Abortion is not planned. People have to go through counseling as well because of their guilt, assumed by their peers.

Abortion is like the new form of divorcing as it was in the 1950s. People are outcasted in small towns because of it, but why?

We have gone over the repetitious facts, and I care not to hit on all of them. So let me summarize what I can.

1) Abortion should be circumstantial. Not something that should be done out of a response from an "accident." If the mother is unfit, then of course I could see the need for one as well.

2) Your morals, are the ones you follow. By trying to make people understand them and follow them; it comes off as a forced delivery approach. By acknowledging both sides of the argument, you at least get some credibility, rather than spewing out "horror" stories about mishaps through abortions.

3) Bringing religion into this will get you destroyed. Religion isn't regarded as highly as it used to be, in the newer generations. Pretty soon the bible will be illegal at public schooling. Your god, is your business, let's keep it that way.

4) A woman should have a right to control her body. If my mom wanted me aborted, then so be it. Easy to say, since I'm alive, but in all reality this is the truth.

5) Lastly.. If I hear another person saying.. "oh but the baby could have been this.. could have been that.. could have been a miracle.." - Could of, would of, should of... leave it at home folks. You are living in a fairy tale. The organism was never a baby. It never had conscious thoughts. It never breathed out of the womb a day in its life, so therefore, I don't acknowledge that as a baby. It is a organism, almost like a parasite still. I can't feel for that. I love kids, not in the Jack-o, kind of way, but kids to me are the light of our generation, but I think abortion should always be around. "What if Osama Bin Ladin was aborted" .. there, happy?

---

And yes, I'm a sarcastic a-hole.

 

[CassinoChips]

You know, I never really thought about this, but it makes total sense. Why not just make/keep abortion legal and have offices that carry them out regularly, continue to do so. If someone doesn't believe it should be done, then they never have to go there right? In this case, everyone wins, the ones who want to abort can, and the ones that don't believe in it don't have to. Anyways, I'm not gonna drop a long novel-like post like I already have, I just figured I'd put that out there and see what people think of that.

YES, YES, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, YES.

*intelligencefives Twin*

Therein lies the rub of the argument. If person A feels abortion should be legal, and person B feels abortion should be outlawed, then we're stuck in an unequal situation. If person A's viewpoint is adopted, it has no direct bearing on person B. Person B is still free to determine whether or not they want an abortion. They still have individual liberty.

However, if person B's viewpoint is adopted, person A no longer has any choice. Assuming we don't want to break laws, person A has had their individual liberties removed. They have no choice in the matter.

And thus, we play the age-old game of subjugating women, implying they have the inability to make rational decisions on their own, and taking all choice out of their hands, finding another way to keep them as second-class citizens.

If men carried children, abortion would be legal everywhere, at all times.

 

[Shrouded]

Just for the record, I think women are great. I love em, especially my mother. I'm very grateful that she went through that hellish, gruesome, incomparable nine months ordeal we call "pregnancy" just so I could live. More power to them.

Now take note, while most of you supported women's right to choose. There's quite a number that mayhaps, inadvertedly discarded the child's right to live. Worse, most of you seem to have decided that they're insignificant in this whole issue. You've dehumanize them to a point that you don't even acknowledge that these are human beings we're talking about. In this issue, nothing is black and white, we all walk under the shades grey. There's a reason why the phrase "right to choose" is depicted in such a broad/generalized sense. It's because if you look at it in a bigger picture,the choice includes "the right to take someone's life".

That is how the law defines human... Not me... At one point slavery was legal...

Ok...how about medical science?

The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology

: "Zygote: this cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo). Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm ... unites with a female gamete or oocyte ... to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual."

​

-----Moore, K. and T.V.N. Persaud. 1998. The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (6th ed.), W.B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia, pp 2-18.​

Essentials of Human Embryology

: "In this text, we begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual. ... Fertilization takes place in the oviduct ... resulting in the formation of a zygote containing a single diploid nucleus. Embryonic development is considered to begin at this point... This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development."

​

----Larsen, W.J. 1998. Essentials of Human Embryology, Churchill Livingstone, New York, pp. 1-17.​

Human Embryology & Teratology

: "Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed... Fertilization is the procession of events that begins when a spermatozoon makes contact with a secondary oocyte or its investments... The zygote ... is a unicellular embryo... "The ill-defined and inaccurate term pre-embryo, which includes the embryonic disc, is said either to end with the appearance of the primitive streak or ... to include neurulation. The term is not used in this book." (p. 55)."

​

----O'Rahilly, R. and F. Muller. 1996. Human Embryology & Teratology, Wiley-Liss, New York, pp. 5-55.​

 

[CassinoChips]

Just for the record, I think women are great.

In the '50s, we thought women were great, too. Especially when they were in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant.

the child's right to live

It's not a child. It has no rights.

By law, the Constitution only confers rights upon American citizens. One can only become a citizen of these United States through three channels: 1) Immigration and naturalization. 2) Being born to a citizen of the U.S. 3) Being born on U.S. soil.

The operative phrase there is, obviously, "being born." Note that it is not "being conceived." Thus, an unborn fetus, by Constitutional law, has no rights.

Ok...how about medical science?

Nowhere in those foot/endnotes did I see the word "life." Nowhere did it explicitly state "life begins at this point." It only says "development" or a "unique individual" or some other, highly interpretive phrase that does not necessarily equate to making something a viable living entity.

 

[bitteroldman]

So you read all the posts? Hardly thinking you did this entire thread justice, even I don't claim to have read most of these posts. I generally don't because I don't like to be influenced by bias, until after my first post.

I hardly ever step into a conversation without first figuring out what's being discussed. Them's manner's.

Let me step aside from the moral grounds, and let me hit the sexist grounds. No offense, but what the hell are you doing giving your opinion about a woman's body in the first place? It seems the people who are bashing abortion in this thread are men.

Because society and laws aren't built to accommodate special classes. You might see me as a sexist because I think abortion is wrong. I might see you as elitist for trying to shut me out of what I consider an important debate.

Abortion Law? What a laugh. No offense to you sheltered folks, but Abortion will be around till the end. I support it. Pro-Choice all the way. I believe that firmly there will never be an abortion law here in the States either as long as we have quite a few open minded, less "ignunt" people.

Physics: everything that begins must end.

Abortion is not something you do out of an automated response. Abortion is not planned. People have to go through counseling as well because of their guilt, assumed by their peers.

Oh? What about the folks who get their abortions secretly, yet still feel guilty? Guilt isn't an automatic response: it comes from the heart, and all hearts are different. Some folks feel guilty for wanting something they don't have; others feel no guilt for committing mass murder. If you're arguing that abortion isn't an automated response, I suggest you consider your own words, for you've suggested something similar.
At any rate, I never meant to discount the deep drama that occurs within many who consider abortion, and those who have been through it. I know what it's like to be scared, confused, alone, and overwhelmed; so for those purposes, I do intend at least an attempt at sensitivity.

Abortion is like the new form of divorcing as it was in the 1950s. People are outcasted in small towns because of it, but why?

It's a shame, really. Nobody wins.

We have gone over the repetitious facts, and I care not to hit on all of them. So let me summarize what I can.

1) Abortion should be circumstantial. Not something that should be done out of a response from an "accident." If the mother is unfit, then of course I could see the need for one as well.

2) Your morals, are the ones you follow. By trying to make people understand them and follow them; it comes off as a forced delivery approach. By acknowledging both sides of the argument, you at least get some credibility, rather than spewing out "horror" stories about mishaps through abortions.

See 1. Because there are those who would think you're out of line for suggesting any limitation on abortion.
Acknowledging both sides of the argument is what I've intended to do here. If I have not done so, please PM me with particulars.

3) Bringing religion into this will get you destroyed. Religion isn't regarded as highly as it used to be, in the newer generations. Pretty soon the bible will be illegal at public schooling. Your god, is your business, let's keep it that way.

Don't try to take away my freedom of religion. The Constitution says I have a legal right to practice and express my beliefs.
However, I haven't brought up my religion in this thread; I responded to others who have.
The Bible is already, in many ways, illegal in a public school setting. Yet kids bring them anyway. Kinda like the sixties.

4) A woman should have a right to control her body. If my mom wanted me aborted, then so be it. Easy to say, since I'm alive, but in all reality this is the truth.

I agree a woman has a right to control her body. I don't see this as the right to end life prematurely, but to prevent the conception. Please don't respond with rape, etc., because those are already illegal. No one is defending them. I see the choice as very simple; If you don't want to get prego, don't have sex. Not only is this just common sense, it's the very definition of control. If you want to have sex, even with protection, pregnancy is one consequence you may face. If you don't want four, don't play with two. Easy.

5) Lastly.. If I hear another person saying.. "oh but the baby could have been this.. could have been that.. could have been a miracle.." - Could of, would of, should of... leave it at home folks. You are living in a fairy tale. The organism was never a baby. It never had conscious thoughts. It never breathed out of the womb a day in its life, so therefore, I don't acknowledge that as a baby. It is a organism, almost like a parasite still. I can't feel for that. I love kids, not in the Jack-o, kind of way, but kids to me are the light of our generation, but I think abortion should always be around. "What if Osama Bin Ladin was aborted" .. there, happy?

Medicine disagrees with you, as can be seen in a previous post.
But why focus on what the child could be, when what it is is so beautiful?

---

And yes, I'm a sarcastic a-hole

No sarcasm when I say, "Not as much as you might think." At least not that I've seen.

 

[jasminepotts]

I have tried to read as many of these posts as I could, but not all of them.

My view is that if its going to harm the mother its ok for the abortion to go ahead. But there's also the case that there could be something wrong with the baby/fetus. An example of this is one that's currently happening to my mum. She's about 10 weeks pregnant and has found out something is wrong with it. When its born it would only survive for a few days. So I think its better that its aborted so the pain and time doesn't have to be gone through. it's incidents like that that make me think that abortion should be allowwed. Though if its someone who knew what they were doing and realised when they were pregnant that they just couldn't be bothered with it then they shouldn't be able to have it aborted.
Also a lot of young girls have abortions, which I've not really got a set decision about. They were stupid enough to get themselves pregnant (though some cases that's not that case) but at the same time they've got to go through with telling their parents and it could have been an accident anyway.

there just should be circumstances when its allowed and times when its not.

 

[bitteroldman]

I have tried to read as many of these posts as I could, but not all of them.

My view is that if its going to harm the mother its ok for the abortion to go ahead. But there's also the case that there could be something wrong with the baby/fetus. An example of this is one that's currently happening to my mum. She's about 10 weeks pregnant and has found out something is wrong with it. When its born it would only survive for a few days. So I think its better that its aborted so the pain and time doesn't have to be gone through. it's incidents like that that make me think that abortion should be allowwed. Though if its someone who knew what they were doing and realised when they were pregnant that they just couldn't be bothered with it then they shouldn't be able to have it aborted.
Also a lot of young girls have abortions, which I've not really got a set decision about. They were stupid enough to get themselves pregnant (though some cases that's not that case) but at the same time they've got to go through with telling their parents and it could have been an accident anyway.

there just should be circumstances when its allowed and times when its not.

When the baby isn't expected to survive birth, I would consider it not as abortion, but as euthanasia. Ironically, I consider this to be the same debate, but I'll hold back because others might not agree.

I guess I agree pretty heavily with you. If abortion's going to be around, there ought to be more accountability for it. Because the ability to get abortion at a whim opens the doors for abuse of it. It allows predators to get away with their crimes. It allows women to destroy their bodies without full knowledge of it. (Abortion has been found to affect fertility, among other things, and Planned Parenthood is not obliged to inform their client of this, if I remember right.) It invites people to check their inhibitions and engage in revelry that is overly destructive, not only for them, but really for everyone. I think if the courts are going to allow abortions, there should at least be a system in play that finds out why these abortions are happening, who's getting these girls prego and why the girls are deciding against going full-term. Because teenagers getting it on is ultimately bad for everybody, and people taking advantage of others is worse.

I guess, unless someone wants to reply to something I've said, I'm going to duck out of here. I don't know what else I can add to all this chaos.

Thanks, Jasmine, for sharing your story. Is your mom okay?

 

[jasminepotts]

When the baby isn't expected to survive birth, I would consider it not as abortion, but as euthanasia. Ironically, I consider this to be the same debate, but I'll hold back because others might not agree.

I guess I agree pretty heavily with you. If abortion's going to be around, there ought to be more accountability for it. Because the ability to get abortion at a whim opens the doors for abuse of it. It allows predators to get away with their crimes. It allows women to destroy their bodies without full knowledge of it. (Abortion has been found to affect fertility, among other things, and Planned Parenthood is not obliged to inform their client of this, if I remember right.) It invites people to check their inhibitions and engage in revelry that is overly destructive, not only for them, but really for everyone. I think if the courts are going to allow abortions, there should at least be a system in play that finds out why these abortions are happening, who's getting these girls prego and why the girls are deciding against going full-term. Because teenagers getting it on is ultimately bad for everybody, and people taking advantage of others is worse.

I guess, unless someone wants to reply to something I've said, I'm going to duck out of here. I don't know what else I can add to all this chaos.

Thanks, Jasmine, for sharing your story. Is your mom okay?

I've heard about how abortions can hinder your chances of getting pregnant again, which is why I've always said if I ever get pregnant I wouldn't ever have an abortion unless it was desperately needed under the circumstances I've said before. I think people seem to think of abortions as a rewinding system, undoing something that they didn't like and changed it to the way it was before but without knowing what they are actually doing to themselves. I think abortions should only be suggested by doctors and the like. After the mother getting tests (for problems with themselves or the baby). But I think if someone doesn't have the ability to look after it or have the money to look after it they should still give birth and consider adoption instead.
It just all needs to be set under a system that isn't abused and something that people actually adhere to.

and thank you for asking and she is doing ok at the moment at least, its just when it comes round to it it will probably be a different story. but thank you for asking

 

[CassinoChips]

(Abortion has been found to affect fertility, among other things, and Planned Parenthood is not obliged to inform their client of this, if I remember right.)

Planned Parenthood doesn't inform their client of this because it's patently untrue.

According to a study published in the journal Family Planning Perspectives in 1995, abortions performed in the first trimester pose virtually no risk of infertility and no increased risk of miscarriage, premature birth or low birth weight. Only pro-life organizations and their web sites appear to cite it as a significant concern.

Abortion itself rarely causes infertility. It is the infection that might develop after the abortion that most often prevents further pregnancies. There are probably many millions of women alive today in North America who became infertile as a result of an abortion. Most of them are the victims of back-alley abortionists in the days before Roe v. Wade made early abortions legal. Thus, there is circumstantial evidence to support the concept of "keep it legal, keep it safe; make it illegal, make it dangerous."

The chances of becoming infertile as a result of a hospital or clinic abortion are negligible at best.

 

[bitteroldman]

Planned Parenthood doesn't inform their client of this because it's patently untrue.

According to a study published in the journal Family Planning Perspectives in 1995, abortions performed in the first trimester pose virtually no risk of infertility and no increased risk of miscarriage, premature birth or low birth weight. Only pro-life organizations and their web sites appear to cite it as a significant concern.

Abortion itself rarely causes infertility. It is the infection that might develop after the abortion that most often prevents further pregnancies. There are probably many millions of women alive today in North America who became infertile as a result of an abortion. Most of them are the victims of back-alley abortionists in the days before Roe v. Wade made early abortions legal. Thus, there is circumstantial evidence to support the concept of "keep it legal, keep it safe; make it illegal, make it dangerous."

The chances of becoming infertile as a result of a hospital or clinic abortion are negligible at best.

From what seems a moderate source:

Some groups estimate that as many as 25% of women who have abortions will have fertility problems in the future, while other groups put the number at less than 1%.

Here's the source: http://www.thelaboroflove.com/articles/can-abortion-affect-my-fertility-in-the-future/

I saw a headline yesterday or the day before that suggested new findings in this argument. The headline suggested it does affect fertility. Unfortunately, I didn't read the article (in a hurry), and didn't bookmark it. It was featured either on AOL or MSN.