Abortion

[Emeelia]

Am I misunderstanding the websites/your? reasoning? or is it just a fundamental disagreement?

Fundamental disagreement. *shrugs*

 

I disagree with the reasoning of the article, too.

Both articles, I presume. Not much I can say about that.

[hazeh]

If a fetus has the potential to be something else other than human (tumor, calcified mass, etc), I don't consider it to be a full human until after it passes the cut off, which I believe coincides with the viability rate (correct me if I'm wrong here). *shrugs*

 

At that point removal would be like a premature birth, but it shouldn't be the mother's fault if it dies afterward.

[KageSora]

There is a problem with both comparisons; in mine, the child is older, which brings the question of 'is the fetus a person?' into the picture, and in yours, the child is barely past being a zygote, in which even the human body might naturally perform a miscarriage without the woman even knowing anything except a stronger period, so there is hardly any emotional attachment for most people in this case, at least, not enough to override concern for the father.

There is no question on if a fetus is a person--it is not, in my eyes. It cannot be a person because it cannot even think for itself. It can be a person no more than a tapeworm can be a person.

 

If life begins at conception, however, then why should it matter that a fetus is barely past being a zygote? A woman can know that she is pregnant and have emotional attachment to the fetus but it can still die, be miscarried, etc.

 

I disagree with this. The fetus as soon as 20 weeks is alive, and it does retain knowledge.

 

There is a difference between being alive and living. A tapeworm is alive, but it is not living in the same sense that a human is living--it is not of the same awareness of self and world that a human is.

 

What's the difference between the two? How is one murder and the other acceptable?

I view it as acceptable because for it to be murder, it needs to be a human. In the same way that removing a tapeworm is not murder, removing a fetus is not murder.

 

 

But it's just a picture.

It's an emotional appeal, attempting to use a picture to subtly influence the viewers in favor of the sites bias. It shows something that looks very much like an actual, born baby in an attempt to appeal to the emotional side of viewers.

 

It's a calculated attempt to sway viewers to see things their way. I'm not saying that to discredit them--I mean, who in their right mind would intentionally put up a picture that would UNDERMINE what they want viewers to think? Food places put up pictures of delicious-looking food, car sites put up really nice pictures of their cars, etc. If they want people to think of the fetus as a baby, they will use a picture specifically chosen to be most likely to influence that sort of thought.

[Zovesta]

"Give me ten minutes and an abortion thread and I'll make more tapeworm comparisons than Magdalena Zarowiecki on a good day!" - KageSora aka this thread in a frikkin nutshell.

 

I agree though, especially with the "alive but not living" point.

[High Lord November]

I'm curious, Eemila - would you mind restating on why you think it's murder? (I'm sorry, I just missed a ton of this thread and I'm a bit short on time ^^; )

 

If it's because it's human, well - my skin cells are human as well. I can just as easily kill those, and no one weeps. A zygote doesn't have the capability to even register that it exists yet. Is it because of the potential of becoming a human being? Others have covered the reason why that's invalid (to me, at least).

 

 

And finally, of course, there is a distinction between human and a person. Human is simply material, and I don't give one about that. Human is common and boring. Person, on the other hand, is the collection of memories, thoughts, personality, and complexity that makes a being individual and intelligent (and the ability to form those things). A foetus is not that individual. It does not have the capability to form those thoughts, those feelings, those memories. A baby does. A foetus doesn't. As well, a person doesn't even need apply to humans only - if we met sentient aliens, for example, or if my dog stood up with the personality and complexity of my sister, I would consider them persons as well.

 

One thing that really angers me are those who say "we are giving a voice to the unborn!" If I were accidentally conceived and was unwanted (as well as a magical foetus so that I could choose whether I wanted to be aborted or not) I would gladly be aborted - so that a) I don't ruin my parents life, put my mother through a possibly traumatizing pregnancy, c) so I don't force my possibly single mother to drop out of school, loose a significant amount of her income, and drop below the poverty line, d) I want to give my hypothetical future, WANTED siblings a chance at a stable, loved life, while allowing my mother to prepare for a more stable financial life and allowing her to keep her career and schooling, and e) I don't want to force myself upon a woman who does not want children. I don't want to force her through pregnancy, nor do I want to take my chances with the adoption system and steal the chances for a better life from the theoretical wanted siblings, if they exist. I find that to be incredibly selfish, taking away those chances from everybody just so you can be born into a place that probably doesn't want you. And into a world of 7 billion and counting, to boot.

So please, stop putting words into my imaginary foetus's mouth (this isn't directed at anyone in particular, just a rant).

 

I'm curious - under any of those conditions, who would do the same?

 

[Fuzzbucket]

As a foetus - I wish someone had put me into a different womb. My life would have been hugely improved.... But my mother should NEVER have had children. What of people like her ? Had she not been so self-centred that she knew she was perfect, had she had the sheer smarts to ask to abort me, I WISH she had.

 

And adoption is not the answer for 99% of unwanted babies. Not that most of those who ARE adopted are taken as babies - they suffer years of abuse in children's homes first... and then shuffled from home to home as they are unmanageable.

 

Even if I got upset about the elimination of a few cells, I would still be totally pro CHOICE (not "pro abortion" - to say that is to say that I think every baby should be aborted !) because of what happens to children in the system, once their parents agree that they can't cope and give them up.

[Kestra15]

Because the fetus isn't just the potential to grow up to be human. It really is human. This article, although not necessarily "scientific", has sound facts and reasoning. http://christiananswers.net/q-sum/q-life000.html

Incorrect. A fetus is the potential to be a human - or a calcified mass, or a failure of cell division, a tumour...many other things. And I'll take my evidence from the two bookcases of medical texts and my nursing degree than a biased, non-peer reviewed, non-scientific blog.

[VictorianVivian]

Incorrect. A fetus is the potential to be a human - or a calcified mass, or a failure of cell division, a tumour...many other things. And I'll take my evidence from the two bookcases of medical texts and my nursing degree than a biased, non-peer reviewed, non-scientific blog.

This.

 

The sources that I have seen thus far are not peer-reviewed, academic sources. They are opinions (perhaps a hypothesis at best) and do not carry any validation or weight of "proof."

 

 

[KageSora]

Repairing the Damage, Before Roe

 

Doctor recalls the damage seen in the days before abortion was legal.

 

Keeping abortion legal isn't about letting everybody kill babies--it's about making sure those who would already seek such procedures have a safe place to get them rather than dying from an illegal procedure.

[senyi]

Repairing the Damage, Before Roe

 

Doctor recalls the damage seen in the days before abortion was legal.

 

Keeping abortion legal isn't about letting everybody kill babies--it's about making sure those who would already seek such procedures have a safe place to get them rather than dying from an illegal procedure.

Thank goodness for Roe vs. Wade That article was just...eep!

[VictorianVivian]

That's the thing. If someone wishes to have an abortion, I would want them to have a safe, professional environment in which to get this done. Also, some PRIVACY would be nice, but let's face it. When it comes to your womb, it's apparently everyone else's business. No such thing as privacy.

 

Also, I saw a billboard today that proclaimed the following:

 

"PLANNED PARENTHOOD = MORE ABORTIONS!"

 

Wtf, really?

[LascielsShadow]

That's the thing. If someone wishes to have an abortion, I would want them to have a safe, professional environment in which to get this done. Also, some PRIVACY would be nice, but let's face it. When it comes to your womb, it's apparently everyone else's business. No such thing as privacy.

 

Also, I saw a billboard today that proclaimed the following:

 

"PLANNED PARENTHOOD = MORE ABORTIONS!"

 

Wtf, really?

YES. THIS. I want us to live in a world where anyone who wants one can have one safely, like we make sure people who need root canals or kidney transplants or eye surgery or even cosmetic surgery can. Guys like that butcher Gosnell only exist because women are denied access to legitimate clinics.

 

 

*facepalm @ that billboard* Because, yeah, that's all they ever do. No preventative care for women or men, no prenatal care, no contraceptives. Just all abortions, all the time, like the way-less-entertaining cousin of a dedicated radio station.

 

And, you know, I'm perfectly happy with OMG MORE ABORTIONS!!!111!! if the alternative is more unwanted, unhappy children and mothers.

[BlitzDrake]

So uhm...*posts that the Texas Bill is signed*

 

Are we screwed? Is Texas screwed...will this screw us over eventually?

 

http://www.cospp.com/articles/2013/06/texa...d-into-law.html

 

http://www.christianpost.com/news/texas-be...ound-law-69047/

Edited July 9, 2013 by BlightWyvern

[brairtrainer]

So uhm...*posts that the Texas Bill is signed*

 

Are we screwed? Is Texas screwed...will this screw us over eventually?

 

http://www.cospp.com/articles/2013/06/texa...d-into-law.html

 

http://www.christianpost.com/news/texas-be...ound-law-69047/

I hope someone challenges these laws really I do. There has to be something they can use.

 

Sorry women in Texas

[BlitzDrake]

I hope someone challenges these laws really I do. There has to be something they can use.

 

Sorry women in Texas

Will this lead to it eventually affecting people in FL, CA, MA...ok..how about will it affect other states eventually? As in they try to make similar laws?

[pikapooka]

I'm back, with a better standpoint and understanding of the whole matter.

 

I have a question for you all:

 

Where does life begin?

[LascielsShadow]

I'm back, with a better standpoint and understanding of the whole matter.

 

I have a question for you all:

 

Where does life begin?

In what context, exactly, do you mean "life"? Sperm cells are alive. Egg cells are alive. Zygotes/embryos/fetuses are alive. A z/e/f, provided it does not develop into something else( like a calcified mass), is a life the way any animal or plant is a life-it is a living thing. Whether they are a "life" in the sense of "a person" is part of the debate. There is no consensus. There is no single point at which every single person can/will point to a z/e/f in the womb and say "Yep, this is definitely a person now!" Where and when life begins is fairly subjective, depending on how you're defining "life".

 

 

 

I keep editing this, because I'm not entirely sure it's appropriate to add. It's a separate but related thought: hearing this question over and over makes me wonder one thing-why does "when/where does life begin" matter in the context of a human being (who is most definitely alive and A Life) having control over her own body and the contents thereof? If a fetus is not a person/life, then there's no problem. If a fetus is a person/life, then it is subject to the same rules as every other person on earth: it does not get to use my body without my permission, no matter what.

 

 

 

Also, @BlightWyvern: It is a definite possibility. Other states are already making restrictive laws. There's a very dangerous precedent being set there, I think.

Edited July 9, 2013 by LascielsShadow

[Obscure_Trash]

I'm back, with a better standpoint and understanding of the whole matter.

 

I have a question for you all:

 

Where does life begin?

If you want to discuss abortion, we should also discuss personhood and also bodily autonomy. :3 But I agree with LascielsShadow on what is "alive".

 

Yeah, I should have known better than to say that.

 

Can't say anything regarding "men" or "women" any more without being suddenly transphobic, even if you're not.

 

You could have easily clarified to "cismen", just for future reference.

[HeatherMarie]

If a fetus is not a person/life, then there's no problem. If a fetus is a person/life, then it is subject to the same rules as every other person on earth: it does not get to use my body without my permission, no matter what.

This, sooooo much this.

 

What I've seen, these pro-birth people, when it comes to a possible-life-in-a-womb, that's ALL THAT MATTERS. That thing needs to live, needs to be born, *deserves* to be born! And we are all horrible, horrible people for daring to think anything different.

 

Are those same people the kind of people who don't believe there is such a thing as rape? Or think ritual circumcision is completely acceptable no matter how the person feels? Or think that medical experiments should be done on the appropriate humans forcibly, in the name of science?

 

If a pro-birth advocate can say no to those things (and I'm having my doubts), then why is it suddenly so different when it *might* be baby that *might* be born and be a real person? Why is it different if it IS a "real person"? If it's illegal to rape, illegal to use an *alive* person's body against their will, why does that suddenly not matter when it's about a "baby" using that body against their will?

[Banuk]

You could have easily clarified to "cismen", just for future reference.

Also for future reference...

 

I literally JUST learned the term "cis" two weeks ago and have ONLY ever seen it used in offensive ways ("f-ing cis scum"), so forgive me if I'm reluctant to use it in my everyday vocabulary.

 

I'm pretty sure everyone else got the point I was trying to make.

[Obscure_Trash]

Derranged, my reply is in the sexism thread.

[LascielsShadow]

Here's a small amount of good news regarding combatting these new anti-abortion laws: a federal judge has granted an injunction on part of a new law in Wisconsin. From the article:

"In a 19-page opinion issued Monday evening, U.S. District Judge William M. Conley cited a "troubling lack of justification" for the law and said he would stay enforcement of the admissions provision until July 18, a day after a more deliberate courtroom hearing scheduled before him next week."

 

 

Here's the entire opinion pdf: http://media.jrn.com/documents/Order+-+gra...tion+070813.pdf

 

So, yeah, there is some hope for fighting back against these laws. It may not be much given that in this specific case, unnecessary ultrasounds are still mandated, but it's something.

Edited July 9, 2013 by LascielsShadow

[Amazhing]

Fun Fact:

 

"Roe," (Norma McCorvey) later became a christian after the trial, and regrets playing a major role in making abortion legal.

 

(Not insinuating that all Christians should look down upon abortion, just stating the facts here. :3)

 

Source: I did a 6 month research project on abortion. Quite the controversial topic, indeed.

Edited July 9, 2013 by Amazhing

[Syaoransbear]

Fun Fact:

 

"Roe," (Norma McCorvey) later became a christian after the trial, and regrets playing a major role in making abortion legal.

 

(Not insinuating that all Christians should look down upon abortion, just stating the facts here. :3)

 

Source: I did a 6 month research project on abortion. Quite the controversial topic, indeed.

I wonder if she actually regrets it or if it was easier to claim she was now pro-life instead of dealing with the threats, violence, and hostility she received after she revealed herself as Roe, such as this: "After Norma McCorvey revealed that she was Jane Roe, she encountered harassment and violence. People in Texas yelled at her in grocery stores and shot at her house. " I have trouble believing that someone who worked in clinics that provided abortions, someone who had multiple pregnancies, would radically change her views on abortion because of a poster depicting fetal development, which was likely idealized.

 

And now she's blaming her lawyers for making her do the case and supporting abortion even though after the case she was still very pro-choice up until she met an evangelist, which was 20+ years later. I doubt her lawyers had such long lasting skills at persuasion. And then suddenly she's christian, pro-life, magically no longer a homosexual, and speaks at anti-abortion rallies/churches/catholic schools which just so happen to make her a lot of money. All in all, it sounds like being pro-life very conveniently made her life much easier than remaining pro-choice.

Edited July 9, 2013 by Syaoransbear

[KageSora]

Where does life begin?

"Life" as in "alive" begins with the development of cells, as those cells are alive.

 

"Life" as in "a person" doesn't begin until after a child is born, IMO. I consider it wrong to kill a newborn child--even if it's not a "person" yet IMO (I mean, a newborn baby does not have an identity yet, it's JUST been born! It needs time to develop that)--because it is no longer existing by living off the body of another, and that's what I have an issue with when it comes to abortion. As long as the fetus is living off the mother's body, it's her right to terminate it or not. As soon as it's no longer living off her body, then she loses that right.

 

 

If a fetus is a person/life, then it is subject to the same rules as every other person on earth: it does not get to use my body without my permission, no matter what.

This.