Abortion - your views.

[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...

 

[Shrouded]

We're going in circles now Mehaha. I gave a number of sources to you remember?

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.​

It's classified as a distinct human being.....Why are you still insisting that it's not human?

 

[Mehaha]

We're going in circles now Mehaha. I gave a number of sources to you remember?

It's classified as a distinct human being.....Why are you still insisting that it's not human?

They mean in a genetic sense... It still lacks what it needs to be human... So NO IT IS IN NO WAY [OTHER THAN GENETICALLY] A HUMAN BEING!!!

 

[Shrouded]

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.​

(......)

You really don't want that unborn child to be treated as a human being huh? I mean c'mon, people are gonna kill the child anyway. Why does s/he have to be dehumanize?
​

 

[Mehaha]

(......)

You really don't want that unborn child to be treated as a human being huh? I mean c'mon, people are gonna kill the child anyway. Why does s/he have to be dehumanize?
​

A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).

I can begin to freeze water but that doesn't make it ice until it is done...

You cannot dehumanize what isn't human! So no we are not killing human beings.

 

[Shrouded]

Yes, but ice is still water. Beginning of a new human being. The very start of a new human being....What are you talking about? Do you mean on a development stage?

 

[Mehaha]

Yes, but ice is still water. Beginning of a new human being. The very start of a new human being....What are you talking about? Do you mean on a development stage?

Until it meets all the requirements not just 25%[Flesh] it isn't human.

So to clarify my example just because you put water[Sperm] in a freezer[Egg] it isn't Ice[Human] until it has finished freezing[Developing] do you understand what I meant now?

 

[Shrouded]

You do know a newborn baby isn't fully develop yet though right?

 

[CassinoChips]

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).

Your paramecium argument is fallacious. When a paramecium is fully-formed, it only consists of one cell. When a human being consists of one cell, it is not fully-formed. A human being cannot exist viably as a single cell. By the same logic, I could say that humans are birds. They both have bones, right? Well, yeah, but that's only one defining characteristic of a bird/mammal.

I got around 30+ countries that does say the child have every right to live within certain limits.

There are three countries where abortion is illegal in all circumstances. Chile, Nicaragua, and El Salvador. All heavily Catholic. Draw your own conclusions there.

There are more than 30 countries where abortion is only legal in cases of rape, mother's health, life and mental health. Those countries are all in South America (heavily Catholic, largely poor, underdeveloped), Africa (alarmingly poor and underdeveloped), and Southwest and South Asia (heavily Islamic, and generally not known to be the most progressive of areas when it comes to women's rights).

Not to sound like the dumb, arrogant American, but we should look to the US to set the precedent in the world because our Constitution was devised to give its citizens as much freedom as is possible while still maintaining a viable central government. We are a wealthy nation, we are overdeveloped if anything, and we (theoretically) have a fundamental separation of church and state. We should be leading the charge on personal freedom, and yet we're doing our best to keep 51% of our population as second-class citizens.

 

[Mehaha]

You do know a newborn baby isn't fully develop yet though right?

I doubt your not capable of grasping the meaning of what I said right? If so please you need a HIGHER level of understanding.

You took me too literally. I meant until it reached around the time of newborn. Otherwise we technically wouldn't be humans until death.

 

[Shrouded]

CassinnoChips

Your paramecium argument is fallacious. When a paramecium is fully-formed, it only consists of one cell.

What fallacy would that be? And no, the number of cell doesn't matter, it's the structure of it compare to that of an unborn child. One is alive(a simple individual structured cell) and one is not(a complex individual structure of cells). That was your point against me remember?

Here's your last post to me btw:

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.

When a human being consists of one cell, it is not fully-formed. A human being cannot exist viably as a single cell. By the same logic, I could say that humans are birds. They both have bones, right? Well, yeah, but that's only one defining characteristic of a bird/mammal.

Actually you question the fact that it's alive, not human. That was Mehaha's point. Am I guessing you've changed your point now?

There are three countries where abortion is illegal in all circumstances. Chile, Nicaragua, and El Salvador. All heavily Catholic. Draw your own conclusions there.

Like I said, within certain limits, limits that I agree with. You forgot the Vatican btw. That's ok, I don't think it's a country either, but technically it is though.

Edit: There's also Malta.

There are more than 30 countries where abortion is only legal in cases of rape, mother's health, life and mental health. Those countries are all in South America (heavily Catholic, largely poor, underdeveloped), Africa (alarmingly poor and underdeveloped), and Southwest and South Asia (heavily Islamic, and generally not known to be the most progressive of areas when it comes to women's rights).

Not to sound like the dumb, arrogant American, but we should look to the US to set the precedent in the world because our Constitution was devised to give its citizens as much freedom as is possible while still maintaining a viable central government. We are a wealthy nation, we are overdeveloped if anything, and we (theoretically) have a fundamental separation of church and state. We should be leading the charge on personal freedom, and yet we're doing our best to keep 51% of our population as second-class citizens.

Thought so.....How's the US economy btw? Anyways, my point still stands, the US Constitution really has no hold over the internet. While you think we should follow what it says, I don't really have to, don't I? especially the fact that your US legislation still keeps fighting over such issue even to this day.

Mehaha

I doubt your not capable of grasping the meaning of what I said right? If so please you need a HIGHER level of understanding.

You took me too literally. I meant until it reached around the time of newborn. Otherwise we technically wouldn't be humans until death.

So in your opinion, being a newborn is the stage where we start being human right?

 

[Mehaha]

Mehaha

So in your opinion, being a newborn is the stage where we start being human right?

Around that time yes...

 

[Shrouded]

Ok any legitimate sources for that? Cus I got one that says otherwise....Do you still remember this Mehaha?

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.​

This is getting circular Mehaha....

 

[Mehaha]

Ok any legitimate sources for that? Cus I got one that says otherwise....Do you still remember this Mehaha?



This is getting circular Mehaha....

OMG that was funny I'll give you that... I took your question incorrectly... I believed you meant start being human as in actual full human not an ingredient to one.

 

[Bun]

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?

In this case, I was focusing more on determining where we draw the line at technically living (i.e. breathing, heart pumping, blood flowing, etc) as opposed to living (i.e. experiencing the world around you in a cognitive manner and giving those experiences value and meaning, etc). At what part in time does it matter whether the organism should live or die? We kill living things each and every day. Aside from our very own kind, what gives us the right to assign a specific worth to something that isn't even done developing yet? Why give it a chance over some other living organism that may contribute to the world and in a, possibly, better way?

I'm not saying I devalue human life, although there are times when I think we're just being a little high and mighty. I just think that sometimes there is too much worth assigned to the "miracle" of life.

 

[Shrouded]

Mehaha

OMG that was funny I'll give you that... I took your question incorrectly

I'm pretty sure the fault was all mine, since I'm the one who needs a "higher level of understanding".

I believed you meant start being human as in actual full human not an ingredient to one.

When you say full human, do you mean a fully develop one?

Bun

Aside from our very own kind, what gives us the right to assign a specific worth to something that isn't even done developing yet?

What gives us the right indeed. Shouldn't I be asking that question?