Abortion - your views.

[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.

 

[CassinoChips]

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

Emphasis/addition mine. 1-25%? That's a wide gap. Spunds like a complete guess. And, frankly, they don't cite any sources of any kind, or where they're getting the information from, so who knows if it's even accurate?

From what seems a moderate source:

You'll have to forgive me if I doubt the neutrality of a source that plugs the LDS Church directly above the answer to an abortion question, and that is seemingly run by a company that caters to pregnant women, new mothers, and infants.

From the West End Medical Group of Reno, NV:

The Center for Disease Control conducted an extensive review of studies worldwide about the effect of abortion on future childbearing. They concluded that vacuum aspiration does not pose a measurable risk to a woman's childbearing ability. Compared to women who carry their first pregnancy to term, women who terminate their first pregnancy by vacuum aspiration abortion are at no greater risk of infertility or ectopic pregnancy in the future.

...

In general, complications from continuing a pregnancy to term are 10 times more frequent than terminating the pregnancy by surgical abortion.

From fertilityfacts.org:

The bottom line is that when an abortion has been conducted; legally, safely, professionally and providing there are no complications arising from it, there is no significant risk to the future fertility of the woman involved. ... a properly performed abortion will not affect the woman’s fertility.

 

[Shrouded]

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.

While I agree that we're not above the law, the US Constitution does not apply to the whole world. I got around 30+ countries that does say the child have every right to live within certain limits. Excluding the ones where the gov regulates abortion to a point where pro-choice ideals doesn't even apply anymore.

Now is there any reason why I should treat the US differently than these other countries? Heck, even the US govt seems to be lost in this issue even after the Roe V Wade ruling.

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.

No, medical science just referred to it as a distinct human organism.

Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed

Now if you're not familiar with the term. Organism basically means a living thing.

or⋅gan⋅ism

  /ˈɔr

gəˌnɪz

əm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [awr-guh-niz-uh

m] Show IPA Use organisms in a Sentence

–noun 1. a form of life composed of mutually interdependent parts that maintain various vital processes. 2. a form of life considered as an entity; an animal, plant, fungus, protistan, or moneran. 3. any organized body or system conceived of as analogous to a living being: the governmental organism. 4. any complex thing or system having properties and functions determined not only by the properties and relations of its individual parts, but by the character of the whole that they compose and by the relations of the parts to the whole.

 

[Bun]

Now if you're not familiar with the term. Organism basically means a living thing.

  /ˈɔr

gəˌnɪz

əm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [awr-guh-niz-uh

m] Show IPA Use organisms in a Sentence

–noun 1. a form of life composed of mutually interdependent parts that maintain various vital processes. 2. a form of life considered as an entity; an animal, plant, fungus, protistan, or moneran. 3. any organized body or system conceived of as *analogous to a living being: the governmental organism. 4. any complex thing or system having properties and functions determined not only by the properties and relations of its individual parts, but by the character of the whole that they compose and by the relations of the parts to the whole.

According to the definition of "organism" in your post, it isn't "technically" what people might think it is. Some keywords I'd like to point out has been bolded: analogous, which is similar to a living thing, but not necessarily the exact same thing. Also, in the second definition, they refer to it as a "form", which is still not technically the same. In this case, a fetus is technically living within the capacity it needs to be able to grow properly (i.e. the womb). However, despite the few rare cases where a fetus can survive out of the womb passed a certain point, it generally requires time to develop enough so that it is able to live on its own and, thus, able to experience life.

One thing we have questioned is where the line is drawn between an organism and when it is actually "living" (not technically growing inside of a womb but capable of thought, cognitive development, awareness and the general ability to experience everyday things). We know fetus respond to stimuli at a certain point in the gestation period, but what does that mere response mean? *shrug* I guess it all depends on how the woman is going to view such a thing as they are the ones who will be carrying the child.

I'm not saying anyone is wrong here, but this is just how I see it.

 

[Shrouded]

Alright I'll give you that, but when you compare an unborn child to single celled protozoa called paramecia(which is recognized by the science community as a live organism).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramecium

I'm pretty sure there's no problem calling a multi celled complex structure of an unborn child "alive" am I right? I mean, protozoas are basically smaller than a dot, and we all think it's alive, why then do we deny that one criteria to our own species?

One thing we have questioned is where the line is drawn between an organism and when it is actually "living" (not technically growing inside of a womb but capable of thought, cognitive development, awareness and the general ability to experience everyday things). We know fetus respond to stimuli at a certain point in the gestation period, but what does that mere response mean? *shrug* I guess it all depends on how the woman is going to view such a thing as they are the ones who will be carrying the child.

Isn't science enough to tell them that the child is alive, human and does respond to its environment? Does alive actually mean you have to have certain human functions and traits everyone has?

 

[Mehaha]

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

I believe it should be a choice regardless of situation. But I also think the doctors should be MANDATED! to tell of any risks. Also to throw this out their aborting carries less severe risk than giving birth when done by a proffessional.

Physics: everything that begins must end.

Mathematics: 10/3=No End

Alright I'll give you that, but when you compare an unborn child to single celled protozoa called paramecia(which is recognized by the science community as a live organism).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramecium

I'm pretty sure there's no problem calling a multi celled complex structure of an unborn child "alive" am I right? I mean, protozoas are basically smaller than a dot, and we all think it's alive, why then do we deny that one criteria to our own species?

Isn't science enough to tell them that the child is alive, human and does respond to its environment? Does alive actually mean you have to have certain human functions and traits everyone has?

But just like a paramecium is it human no... Chickens are alive but god damn I love my arroz con poyo.

Also I am a Male supporting abortion throwing that out there due to earlier posts...