Abortion

[edwardelricfreak]

Ok,,then i'll have to stick with "unborn" and throw that argument all over this thread, back and forth again. Clearly, its not possible to use a term everyone consents with... Then I might as well use something more biased.

o.o But fetuses are unborn. For me I would associate it more with a baby that could be born and survive but just isn't born yet, but the fetus is still technically unborn.

 

The definitions of unborn, while we're at it:

-(of a baby) not yet born

-not yet born; yet to come; future

-not yet delivered; still existing in the mother's womb

-existing without birth or beginning.

-not born; not brought into life

-existing without birth

 

So once again it's just a fact. There's no bias unless you make it so, as unborn is neutral. Baby is usually neutral, but it is used in a way that does give it a sense of bias. Also a fetus isn't the same thing as a baby so it shouldn't really be used.

[Syaoransbear]

Ok,,then i'll have to stick with "unborn" and throw that argument all over this thread, back and forth again. Clearly, its not possible to use a term everyone consents with... Then I might as well use something more biased.

What's the big deal what word people use? It's not like it will affect an argument. No one is going to become pro-choice or pro-life because someone called it a clump of cells and another person called it a baby.

 

Personally, you could call it a baby, a human, a person, whatever, and it makes no difference to me. I am emotionally unaffected by any of those terms, and they are irrelevant to my reasons for being pro-choice.

[7Deadly$ins]

My only dislike for using "baby" at that stage is that there are actually people who believe it's just a tiny, but fully-formed "baby" that simply gets bigger as it grows.

[Fuzzbucket]

@infinis: basically if you know for sure you're pregnant, its always at least an embryo.

That isn't factually correct. Not that I think it helps to talk stages of development when we are actually discussing choice.

 

But in future I shall call all "things growing in the womb that may or may not develop into a baby" Fred.

 

No wait - I shall call hydatidiform moles tumours. Because they are. And a molar pregnancy will show up as a pregnancy until the scans start showing different - weeks 10-16, usually. And they MUST be allowed to be aborted. No matter what any other side of the debate says.

[whitebaron]

fuzz: the embryoblast forms around day 5 of gestation.

 

Most women do not know then, as only very specific blood tests can show your pregnancy that early, and your period would not be due for another week at least.

 

@7Deadly$ins: it really depends on which date we are looking at. week 1-8, not so much. later, a big deal. thats why I am all for limiting the time you can abort, and not so much go for the reasons... You can't stand having a baby? Fine, go abort. But do it before its viable. Do it before it ressembles a human. We have an ultrasound of our daughter at 10 weeks LMP. Sucking her thumb.

[Syaoransbear]

fuzz: the embryoblast forms around day 5 of gestation.

 

Most women do not know then, as only very specific blood tests can show your pregnancy that early, and your period would not be due for another week at least.

 

@7Deadly$ins: it really depends on which date we are looking at. week 1-8, not so much. later, a big deal. thats why I am all for limiting the time you can abort, and not so much go for the reasons... You can't stand having a baby? Fine, go abort. But do it before its viable. Do it before it ressembles a human. We have an ultrasound of our daughter at 10 weeks LMP. Sucking her thumb.

I think a mother should be able to eject a fetus from her body whenever she wants. If the fetus is so old it can live independently of the mother, then the mother should have labor induced instead of an abortion.

[Fuzzbucket]

fuzz: the embryoblast forms around day 5 of gestation.

 

Most women do not know then, as only very specific blood tests can show your pregnancy that early, and your period would not be due for another week at least.

Yes - but you cannot be sure that it is a molar pregnancy until the 10-16 week scan. Because contrary to popular belief (as described by Deadly$ins) Freds do not look like itty bitty baybees the second they are fertilised - not for QUITE a while. I saw the product of my own 12 weeks or so abortion. Lumps of blood, it looked like. Certainly not like the way you describe your child's 10 week old scan.

 

Imagine knowing that you are pregnant (the urine and blood tests will say you are) and finding out around 10 weeks that it's a mole... Imagine then being told that you may NOT have an abortion.

 

In many cases, there are no signs that a pregnancy is a molar pregnancy, although you may get bigger more quickly than usual and suffer with bad morning sickness.

 

If there are symptoms, the most common is dark-coloured vaginal bleeding. This usually starts to occur about six-12 weeks after conception.

 

In most cases, the problem is first spotted during an early ultrasound scan that usually takes place between weeks 10-16 of pregnancy.

 

http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/Molar-pregnan...troduction.aspx

 

I think a mother should be able to eject a fetus from her body whenever she wants. If the fetus is so old it can live independently of the mother, then the mother should have labor induced instead of an abortion.

 

Fine by me It isn't a baby to me until it is outside the mother and alive. (well, OK if it's stillborn it's a dead baby...)

Edited December 3, 2013 by fuzzbucket

[whitebaron]

1 @scan: well, its so small, that you would not see it in the abortion-mass of blood, placenta... 12 weeks LMP, the fetus is around cherry sized.

2 @mole: its not a pregnancy, then.

3 @ syaoran: most "abortions after week 16-18 ARE INDUCED LABOR.

 

theres no way to get the child out, so they birth it and it just dies on the way out. now talk about cruelty.

[Fuzzbucket]

2 @mole: its not a pregnancy, then.

But I can assure you that many anti-choicers would still say no to aborting it. I can't find a source just now as I have Christmas stuff to do, but I'll look later...

[LascielsShadow]

3 @ syaoran: most "abortions after week 16-18 ARE INDUCED LABOR.

No, they're not. Most of them are D&C/D&E, neither of which involve inducing labor. (The cervix is dilated and the fetus/embryo extracted with aspiration and surgical tools, and no pitocin is used.) Less than 1% of abortions in the US are via induction. Most later-term abortions are done via D&E because they pose less of a risk of complications than induction.

 

And as to your point 2: Yes, it is. It's just never going to be a person. It's no less a pregnancy than an ectopic one, or any other abnormal sort. Non-viability of it does not negate the fact that egg plus sperm plus implantation equals pregnancy.

 

@fuzz: Here's one of those people you were talking about:

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/05/24...-abortion-bill/

That's specifically regarding a late-term abortion due to non-viability, but I have no doubt that his attitude would be the same regardless of trimester.

Edited December 3, 2013 by LascielsShadow

[brairtrainer]

3 @ syaoran: most "abortions after week 16-18 ARE INDUCED LABOR.

 

Even though LascielsShadow already commented on this I feel a need to add:

 

Abortions that are performed that late or later are typically done because of health issues or a non-viable fetus. Its very much the same as choosing to put down a dog when it can no longer truely be happy in order to prevent both it's suffering as well as the family's. Now before you start firing off 'Well you must think everyone who is disabled shoud be aborted' I'm going to clear something up: there are many genetic conditions that are not compatible with life, and others that are. Someone with down syndrom should not be aborted because they have down syndrom BUT, if that person also is developing with its organs outside of its skin the parents should be able to decide if the family as a unit can handle the extra stress if the child does not survive the life saving surgery, or if they, as a family unit, can even afford it.

 

There are other situations like this, sometimes the fetus becomes a tumor, sometimes it becomes a calcified mass, sometimes the fetus(baby) has no brain, or is missing a cruical part which is needed for the fetus(baby) to live to term or to live after its born.

 

Some people say it is good to expirance life rather than have no life at all. My response is think of a life where you can't breathe at all, think of the pain and the confusion as you tried to survive, before succumbing to death by asphyxation. Imagine a life where you can never fully appreciate it, being hooked up to machines and never to be able to open your eyes. Imagine a life where you can't learn because your body is so deformed or frail that you are already starting the shutdown process before you took your first breath. Think about that life then tell me why that life is worth living.

Edited December 3, 2013 by brairtrainer

[Ladykyuubirose]

It doesn't matter what the definition really is, does it? Parasites are alive, and the fetus is a parasite:

 

-an organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense.

-An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

 

Thats exactly what i said to my grandma when pregnant with my first child, everyone called my baby bump "The little parasite that we love" till she was born

[whitebaron]

Ok, I did a quick research - its week 20, when D&E does no longer work properly. my weeks were off.

 

 

@brair: true on most counts. though it needs adding, that extractions that late (you screen organs in week 24) can really only reliably done by inducing labor, the rest is very cruel (hacking the fetus into bits befor extraction, thats called D&X)

[brairtrainer]

Ok, I did a quick research - its week 20, when D&E does no longer work properly. my weeks were off.

 

 

@brair: true on most counts. though it needs adding, that extractions that late (you screen organs in week 24) can really only reliably done by inducing labor, the rest is very cruel (hacking the fetus into bits befor extraction, thats called D&X)

See my note on it like putting a dog down, the fetus is effectivly put down before labor is induced, the act of breaking the fetus is only done if needed to remove the child from the womb (depends on several factors). Some abortions only deal with the head (after the fetus is dead) and then covered up. When abortions are done that late it is not unusual for parents to have small funeral services, post mortum baptisms, etc.

[ShinyTomato]

We have an ultrasound of our daughter at 10 weeks LMP. Sucking her thumb. smile.gif

 

I have an ultrasound of a fetal tumor at 22 weeks. It resembles a human as much as any other 22 week ultrasound. You see heart, you see fingers. That doesn't mean it's human.

 

I was supposed to be a twin. My twin became a parasitic mass that eventually caused my mother's death. It was much later than week 8.

 

Just because something looks like a person does not mean it is a person. There is no guarantee that a fetus is capable of becoming a person until after the legal cut off.

 

its not a pregnancy, then

 

Wait a minute, if a fetus becomes a tumor it's suddenly not a pregnancy? That makes no medical sense whatsoever.

 

Between that and "parasites only count if it's another species" I don't know whose brain is hurting worse, mine or Nascha's. She muttered something in Hebrew and went to go get a book larger than my head.

[sparkle10184]

Its a coloring that tries to evoke/provoke an emotional reaction. In that case, one against the subject as baby would try to evoke one for.

 

If one is really as unbiased as many here claim, one should use neutral wording as well.

Uh, no. It's not trying to evoke anything. It's just scientific fact. We are all made out of cells and fetuses just happen to have less of anything else

[whitebaron]

Uh, no. It's not trying to evoke anything. It's just scientific fact. We are all made out of cells and fetuses just happen to have less of anything else

a clump of cells is definitely not a scientific fact.

Define clump scientifically. thank you very much. science is precise, clump is not.

 

just because it sounds scientific, does not make it so. and if its not trying to evoke anything, why is it always used to counter emotional responses?

 

 

@shiny: sorry. but: it was not meant in the technical terms and scientific facts section, but that pregnancy is: The state of carrying a developing embryo or fetus within the female body.

 

and if its gone (no longer a fetus or embryo) then, in my book, the pregnancy is over and needs to be seen as a purely medical condition. The only reason mammals are pregnant is to eventually get babies - if they don't, its not what pregnancy is all about, no matter how you call it.

[ShinyTomato]

shiny: sorry. but: it was not meant in the technical terms and scientific facts section, but that pregnancy is: The state of carrying a developing embryo or fetus within the female body.

 

and if its gone (no longer a fetus or embryo) then, in my book, the pregnancy is over and needs to be seen as a purely medical condition. The only reason mammals are pregnant is to eventually get babies - if they don't, its not what pregnancy is all about, no matter how you call it.

 

That isn't medically or scientifically accurate. A calcified or neoplasmic pregnancy is still medically and scientifically considered a pregnancy. Pregnancy effects the body far more than you seem to understand. These kinds of pregnancies can cause normal pregnancy side effects for years. Whether you think it should be or not does not change how the medical or science community looks at it.

 

And actually, you are incorrect. Mammals will get pregnant for other reasons. Wolves will get pregnant to cement themselves as alphas in a pack and then induce abortion by eating plants that induce miscarriage. Geladas will get pregnant to try and get a male. If a new male appears while they're pregnant and the first male is not with them, they will purposefully miscarry and get pregnant by the new male.

 

Define clump scientifically. thank you very much. science is precise, clump is not.

 

clump [klʌmp]

n

1. (Botany) a small cluster, especially of trees or other plants.

2. (Chemistry) a compact mass of chemicals or elements naturally or artificially occurring.

3. (Life Sciences) an inactive mass of microorganisms, especially a mass of bacteria produced as a result of agglutination

4. (Microbiology) a mass of microorganisms or cells of the same genetic strain.

 

[There are times when it is helpful to live with a scientist and their library. My crate of statistics takes up a whole lot less room, but they make more money than the poor overworked social worker.]

 

{How sad is it I had to go to look up a word in a definition? I had no idea what agglutination was.}

Edited December 3, 2013 by ShinyTomato

[Lila]

I think something a lot of people have as a misconception is that sex is only for reproduction. As a self-aware species, we recognise that sexuality feels good to us and therefore would like to do it often without the consequences of pregnancy/childbirth, so we have developed birth control for that very reason. So to the crowd that says "don't have sex until you can support a child" or that "birth control is unnatural", take a good hard look at nature and realise that not all species have intercourse with the intent to reproduce.

 

I don't believe at all that a fetus, which is only potential for life, has any rights over the person carrying it. Even if it was a human being, it's taking advantage of someone's body with or without their consent, and that is not at all fair. And even if the mother is forced/gives birth by choice/etc. because of emotional manipulation, those who pressured her should support her and her child. If the mother is mentally ill, offer to take care of her child whenever she struggles. Help her with groceries and paying bills. Until one can support the child that they so desperately believe DESERVES to be born, don't tell a stranger she's a murderer and a sinner for making a choice she is entitled to.

 

Because in all honesty, there are children who die everyday because their parents can't afford medical care or food or they are just tired of believing alive in a life they don't want. I don't have nearly the problems some other people my age and younger have or have had, but every day is a constant struggle because there are so many things I want to change but I can't. It's a totally desperate, painful feeling and all you want is to be free and breathe but if you're a child, 5-10 years is a hell of a long time to wait. It's hard to keep your hopes up and want to go on without any resources, and I know I'm lucky for having the few friends that I do and the handy dandy internet. But you should never, ever put someone in a situation where you cannot support them financially, emotionally, and mentally. I think a torturous life, being all you've known, is worse than no life at all. That's why people take their lives, and it's tragic. I'm not saying you can't take responsibility for your life and emotions, but when you're a child, you're subhuman, you really are. And it sucks. It's not fair to them.

 

I would much rather see a clump of cells that look like blood in a jar than my child hanging from a ceiling fan.

 

ETA: sorry this was all over the place I got carried away and passionate. I read this thread all of the time but I never post because I'm such an emotional person and I'm awful about putting emotion into rebuttals and such or whatever l0l.

Edited December 3, 2013 by Lila

[Cecona]

My opinion, I think the best term to use is fetus. That's what they refer to an unborn child in legal and scientific situations like a lab or court room. It's probably the most neutral word out of them all since people have a problem with baby, parasite, and clump of cells.

Edited December 3, 2013 by Cecona

[Fuzzbucket]

My opinion, I think the best term to use is fetus. That's what they refer to an unborn child in legal and scientific situations like a lab or court room. It's probably the most neutral word out of them all since people have a problem with baby, parasite, and clump of cells.

It isn't a foetus throughout the pregnancy though. It starts as a zygote; around 5 days it briefly becomes a blastocyst. When the blastocyst implants in the uterine lining, it becomes an embryo and only later it becomes a foetus - around 8 weeks.

 

[ShinyTomato]

My opinion, I think the best term to use is fetus. That's what they refer to an unborn child in legal and scientific situations like a lab or court room. It's probably the most neutral word out of them all since people have a problem with baby, parasite, and clump of cells.

People also have issues with "fetus." There have been attempts to remove the terms "fetus" and "embryo" from health classes as too prejudicial

 

[Fuzzbucket]

People also have issues with "fetus." There have been attempts to remove the terms "fetus" and "embryo" from health classes as too prejudicial

I'm sticking with Fred

 

But what are they prejudicial to ?

[BlitzDrake]

The only reason mammals are pregnant is to eventually get babies - if they don't, its not what pregnancy is all about, no matter how you call it.

Animals willingly consume plants that induce abortion/miscarriages, many animals get pregnant but without intention of having them (read examples above).

Abortion/induced miscarridges are nothing new. Many people in the past used herbs to induce them.

 

I'm just going to assume you are putting humans in this category as well. Mammals (humans) can get pregnant through rape, I don't think that's about "babies" as you put it, if anything its about some sick person getting satisfaction or whatever by the act at the victims expense; trauma, etc, etc, and on top of that, maybe getting pregnant.

 

And not everyone whom has sex gets pregnant willingly; BC could've failed or some other reason, maybe they do not wish to continue being a "standard female" and just breed. Some do not care if this species dies out, I know a few people (all women) whom supports the VHEM (Voluntary human extinction movement).

 

Back on topic, pregnancy is not "all about spawning things". There is such thing as an "accident".

Edited December 3, 2013 by BlightWyvern

[Obscure_Trash]

@brair: true on most counts. though it needs adding, that extractions that late (you screen organs in week 24) can really only reliably done by inducing labor, the rest is very cruel (hacking the fetus into bits befor extraction, thats called D&X)

Your description of the procedure is incredibly off. Also, we preform medical procedures the way we do for a reason. D&X isn't cruel. In fact, the reason it's done so is for a very sensitive reason.

 

Some language in comments: http://www.thinkatheist.com/forum/topics/t...rom-an-abortion

 

I’ve never done the famous “D&X” (dilation and extraction, “partial birth abortion”) procedure. This was the one that was outlawed because opponents thought it was too horrible of a procedure. The concept was to try to deliver the baby intact, but the brain matter was suctioned out to allow the delivery of the head through the cervix. This procedure was designed so that the parents of the child could hold an intact baby, back of the head covered up, after a surgical abortion. Not because we horrible abortionists love to torture babies and then kill them.