Jump to content
Bear

Abortion

Recommended Posts

I'm not saying that it'll ever be possible--just that you can't argue that abortion exits purely as a fetus-killing procedure that is designed with the sole intention of killing the fetus as it's primary purpose.

 

Isn't this just semantics?

 

When you take a terminal patient off life support, your goal is usually to end their suffering. As a direct result of this the patient will die. Death ends their suffering. It would not be incorrect to say, "Taking this patient off life support will kill them." Nor would it be incorrect to say, "Having an abortion will kill the fetus." At the end of the day it's all the same.

 

Saying that the purpose of an abortion isn't necessarily to kill the fetus is never going to change the fact that it does.

Share this post


Link to post

Isn't this just semantics?

 

When you take a terminal patient off life support, your goal is usually to end their suffering. As a direct result of this the patient will die. Death ends their suffering. It would not be incorrect to say, "Taking this patient off life support will kill them." Nor would it be incorrect to say, "Having an abortion will kill the fetus." At the end of the day it's all the same.

 

Saying that the purpose of an abortion isn't necessarily to kill the fetus is never going to change the fact that it does.

I think the distinction is important. If the purpose of abortion was to kill the fetus, then potential advances in medicine like artificial wombs are pointless. However, when the purpose is to end a pregnancy, then alternatives that can do so without killing the fetus are worth looking for.

 

The difference between the cases you present is that for a fetus, the life support is another person's body. That person has the right to bodily autonomy, and cannot be treated the same as a machine. The decision to take a terminal patient off life support is naturally centered around the situation of that patient. However, the decision to abort is generally centered around the situation of the pregnant person, not the fetus. Hence, killing the fetus is generally a side effect, not the goal.

 

"Having an abortion will kill the fetus" is not the same as "The purpose of abortion is to kill the fetus". The latter statement means that alternatives that wouldn't kill the fetus would not be acceptable, which is often untrue.

 

The reason I haven't responded to this is that I see no difference between transplanting a fetus into an artificial womb to be carried through to term and putting a child up for adoption after birth. For the child, the outcome is the same.

When you say there is no difference between those situations, you are saying that the person forced to go through pregnancy doesn't matter. They're just an object, an incubator for the fetus.

Share this post


Link to post
I think the distinction is important. If the purpose of abortion was to kill the fetus, then potential advances in medicine like artificial wombs are pointless. However, when the purpose is to end a pregnancy, then alternatives that can do so without killing the fetus are worth looking for.

 

The difference between the cases you present is that for a fetus, the life support is another person's body. That person has the right to bodily autonomy, and cannot be treated the same as a machine. The decision to take a terminal patient off life support is naturally centered around the situation of that patient. However, the decision to abort is generally centered around the situation of the pregnant person, not the fetus. Hence, killing the fetus is generally a side effect, not the goal.

 

"Having an abortion will kill the fetus" is not the same as "The purpose of abortion is to kill the fetus". The latter statement means that alternatives that wouldn't kill the fetus would not be acceptable, which is often untrue.

 

 

When you say there is no difference between those situations, you are saying that the person forced to go through pregnancy doesn't matter. They're just an object, an incubator for the fetus.

You've said what I was trying to say much better than I did!

 

In regards to both the idea of artificial wombs having the same end result as adoption and the difference between "fetus dies as a result" and "fetus must be killed as the goal".

Share this post


Link to post

If the purpose of abortion was to kill the fetus, then potential advances in medicine like artificial wombs are pointless.

 

Would artificial wombs be used for this purpose? Who would pay for the child's stay in the artificial womb? Not the woman receiving the abortion, she doesn't want the child. You do realize that in this hypothetical situation where a fetus can survive an abortion, any woman choosing not to put her fetus into an artificial womb or a donor, even if she cannot afford to do so, would be considered a murderer simply because this alternative exists?

 

It seems to me that an artificial womb would most likely be used to help children born prematurely or to allow women for whom childbirth would be extremely dangerous to have children. A woman with very narrow hips might opt to have her fertilized eggs raised in an artificial womb in order to prevent harm to herself or the infant during childbirth, or to avoid a C-section. They could also be useful for women who take medication that could be harmful to a developing baby. They could stay on their medication and still have the child, because it would mature outside their body. These ideas are just off the top of my head.

 

"Having an abortion will kill the fetus" is not the same as "The purpose of abortion is to kill the fetus". The latter statement means that alternatives that wouldn't kill the fetus would not be acceptable, which is often untrue.

 

Personally? I don't believe that they are. The only difference would be if the woman having the abortion had already found another woman willing to take it, but I wager that, in most cases, the woman needing the abortion isn't going to have time or resources to do this. This ties in with my next response...

 

When you say there is no difference between those situations, you are saying that the person forced to go through pregnancy doesn't matter. They're just an object, an incubator for the fetus.

 

I'm saying that when the child comes out of the artificial womb, it likely won't have a mother. It would be born into the same position as a baby forfeited to the state at the moment of birth.

 

There are already so many children in the foster system. I think that adding to that number just because of the 'sanctity of life' is completely irresponsible and wrong, if abortion is an alternative. You should not give birth to a life you're not willing or able to take responsibility for.

 

PS - In case it needs repeating, I'm pro-choice. I just think that separating the ideas of abortion and death is naive. It's a controlled miscarriage.

Share this post


Link to post

An abortion does kill a fetus simply because the fetus cannot survive outside the womb on its own during the time frame when most abortions take place. There is a time between when it can survive outside of the womb but with medical intervention only, in which case an abortion will still kill it.

 

The purpose of an abortion is to terminate a pregnancy, which is fancy terminology for "kill a fetus."

 

Termination of a living thing simply means killing it. It's all wordplay that in the end means exactly the same thing and leads to exactly the same outcome: something living dies.

 

The hypothetical artificial womb situation isn't 100% great, either, because in the end it's still unwanted by its mother. Unless an adoptive family is found for it, it will become one of already far too many children in a broken adoption and foster system. The hypothetical womb situation would please a lot of people, yes, but it would further obscure the already too-little-known end problem of finding it a home it will probably never have.

Share this post


Link to post
Who would pay for the child's stay in the artificial womb? Not the woman receiving the abortion, she doesn't want the child.

Most woman probably wouldn't want to, but some might actually be willing to. Please don't assume all woman who have abortion hate children and want them dead. Some women have an abortion for health reasons, but they might actually want to adopt kids someday. In that case, the woman might want to pay for the fetus to live.

Share this post


Link to post
Most woman probably wouldn't want to, but some might actually be willing to. Please don't assume all woman who have abortion hate children and want them dead. Some women have an abortion for health reasons, but they might actually want to adopt kids someday. In that case, the woman might want to pay for the fetus to live.

They already have a massive selection of children currently in the system to choose from. Clear them out first, they're more important.

Share this post


Link to post
They already have a massive selection of children currently in the system to choose from. Clear them out first, they're more important.

The thing is, though, there are already people who will force themselves to go through a pregnancy that they don't actually want and/or that is actually dangerous to them so they can put the child up for adoption because they don't believe abortion is ever morally acceptable due to the killing of the fetus.

 

These people would already be possibly risking their lives to chuck a child into the system. So, an artificial womb or an ability to transplant the pregnancy to another host would just at the very least allow them to avoid possibly having two deaths from the pregnancy and would ultimately end up with the same possible outcome as if they had managed to give birth.

 

 

I'm not arguing that it's right to chuck more kids into the system--just that there ARE people who would use such alternatives because they don't want to kill the fetus but can't properly raise the child/handle a pregnancy.

 

Killing a fetus isn't necessarily the explicit goal of abortion as a procedure. Termination of pregnancy is. Killing the fetus is currently the only (and, with the adoption system the way it is even if we had alternatives it'd probably be the best/kindest) method we have right now.

Share this post


Link to post
The thing is, though, there are already people who will force themselves to go through a pregnancy that they don't actually want and/or that is actually dangerous to them so they can put the child up for adoption because they don't believe abortion is ever morally acceptable due to the killing of the fetus.

 

These people would already be possibly risking their lives to chuck a child into the system. So, an artificial womb or an ability to transplant the pregnancy to another host would just at the very least allow them to avoid possibly having two deaths from the pregnancy and would ultimately end up with the same possible outcome as if they had managed to give birth.

How about instead we just educate these people on birth control and family planning in order to avoid this whole convoluted scenario in the first place? huh.gif

 

I'm pro-choice, so if a mother wants to risk her life by going through a pregnancy she knows is a health risk, she is welcome to do so. There's no woman on the planet who is going to go through a pregnancy she does not want if birth-control is an acceptable option. That's the real problem here. Make sure women know that being on the pill doesn't make you a censorkip.gif. Make men want to wear condoms. You wanna live in a world without killing fetuses? This is how you do it. These are the resources we have right now, in reality, and we should be using them.

Share this post


Link to post
They already have a massive selection of children currently in the system to choose from. Clear them out first, they're more important.

I wasn't stating my opinion on artificial wombs. I was simply correcting Likewise. I never said what is more important, I was just telling them that what they said isn't always true.

Share this post


Link to post

How about instead we just educate these people on birth control and family planning in order to avoid this whole convoluted scenario in the first place?  huh.gif

 

I'm pro-choice, so if a mother wants to risk her life by going through a pregnancy she knows is a health risk, she is welcome to do so. There's no woman on the planet who is going to go through a pregnancy she does not want if birth-control is an acceptable option. That's the real problem here. Make sure women know that being on the pill doesn't make you a censorkip.gif. Make men want to wear condoms. You wanna live in a world without killing fetuses? This is how you do it. These are the resources we have right now, in reality, and we should be using them.

I've always been for properly educating people on birth control and other options, and for reforming the adoption system to try and make it work better. We need comprehensive education on all forms of birth control--the pros, the cons, the side effects, the failure rates, what's safe to use in combination with what, etc.

 

However, even that won't stop abortion. Because birth control fails. Accidents happen. Abusive partners tamper with birth control or lie about it. Some people believe that anything other than things like the withdrawal or rhythm methods are sins. Some people are told by medical professionals that they're infertile and then suddenly they're pregnant. Sometimes something changes during the pregnancy like a sudden change financially that makes it a bad time to raise a child--maybe sudden loss of employment or housing. Rape sometimes results in pregnancy.

 

 

And, that aside... It's not always something known beforehand that the female can't handle the pregnancy. If it's discovered during the pregnancy that there's a serious health risk for the female, then it doesn't really matter how much education on birth control they had.

 

 

 

I don't really think if we had the means to transplant pregnancies or use artificial wombs that it would be better--just that it's not possible to say that abortion as a procedure is 100% designed with the sole purpose of killing fetuses. Because right now there are no viable alternatives (and, even if there were, at the moment the adoption system makes it a better alternative to kill the fetus unless you actually have a parent lined up already or something).

 

 

Though I do believe research into such things could be potentially helpful. Not all abortions are unwanted pregnancies or pregnancies that occur due to a defect in the fetus. If the female wants the fetus but is at high risk for health issues or death as a result of the pregnancy, then an alternative like transplanting it to a new host or an artificial womb would allow for the pregnancy to be terminated in the original host while still allowing the fetus to come to term.

 

Not to mention it'd help people who believe abortion is a sin but don't want or can't handle a pregnancy but had a problem with birth control like any of the reasons I listed above.

Share this post


Link to post

However, even that won't stop abortion.  Because birth control fails.

 

If used properly, 99% of the time it does not.

 

... at the moment the adoption system makes it a better alternative to kill the fetus unless you actually have a parent lined up already or something.

 

EXACTLY.

 

If the female wants the fetus but is at high risk for health issues or death as a result of the pregnancy, then an alternative like transplanting it to a new host or an artificial womb would allow for the pregnancy to be terminated in the original host while still allowing the fetus to come to term.

 

In an earlier post I said that this specifically was an instance where an artificial fetus could be useful.

 

Not to mention it'd help people who believe abortion is a sin but don't want or can't handle a pregnancy but had a problem with birth control like any of the reasons I listed above.

 

The problem is that if it was possible to have an abortion without killing the fetus, then all women would be pressured to do this even if they weren't financially able. Any woman who wanted her pregnancy terminated and the fetus killed, either because the fetus had a deformity or because they did not want to contribute to the foster system, would be labeled a murder simply because this alternative exists. You would still be forcing the woman to have a baby she might not want, even if she doesn't have to incubate it in her body.

 

And I don't care if the woman does want the baby because THAT'S NOT THE SCENARIO I'M TALKING ABOUT. I'm talking about women who don't want a kid for whatever reason, a woman who doesn't want to contribute to the adoption system.

 

The bottom line is "terminating a pregnancy" is just another way of saying "killing the fetus." At the end of the day, what do you have? A dead fetus. And you know what? No matter how much you dance around the issue with words, no pro-lifer is ever going to agree with you that the death of the fetus is "merely a consequence of abortion."

 

This is why education is so important: because abortion is a terrible thing that no woman should ever want to go through. It is something we should all try to avoid, our last resort when our usual precautions fail us or when something unexpected goes wrong. And frankly, I really don't care if a woman refuses to use birth control because of their personal religious beliefs. That's her choice. And if she decides she doesn't want to have the child after all, then she should have the option of destroying it before it grows into a person.

 

I'm done here.

Share this post


Link to post

because abortion is a terrible thing

 

I heartily disagree with this. Tbh, I think the constant stigmatization and trying to pander to pro-life people by going "oh well no one likes abortion it's a necessary evil!" doesn't help things.

 

Does anyone want to go through many medical procedures? We don't really go around going "yay, I can't wait until I get an appendectomy!" when our appendix is perfectly fine, no. But when you're in a position when you need that medical care, it certainly doesn't seem as terrible. It's terrible you're in that position, but that medical care is necessary and you're probably grateful to be receiving it. You're probably thinking how awful the sickness/illness/disease/pregnancy/etc. is, not how awful the procedure that could save you or help you is.

 

Do I particularly care if people think abortion is terrible? Not really, as long as they're not shouting this at the people they're harassing who are walking into PP and such. But this was up here in public, so I wanted to reply with my thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post

I heartily disagree with this. Tbh, I think the constant stigmatization and trying to pander to pro-life people by going "oh well no one likes abortion it's a necessary evil!" doesn't help things.

 

Does anyone want to go through many medical procedures? We don't really go around going "yay, I can't wait until I get an appendectomy!" when our appendix is perfectly fine, no. But when you're in a position when you need that medical care, it certainly doesn't seem as terrible. It's terrible you're in that position, but that medical care is necessary and you're probably grateful to be receiving it. You're probably thinking how awful the sickness/illness/disease/pregnancy/etc. is, not how awful the procedure that could save you or help you is.

 

Do I particularly care if people think abortion is terrible? Not really, as long as they're not shouting this at the people they're harassing who are walking into PP and such. But this was up here in public, so I wanted to reply with my thoughts.

To be fair, I think Likewise meant that abortion isn't something anyone actively wants to go through, not that the act is terrible in principle.

 

Abortion isn't pleasant, and it would have been a great deal better not to have become pregnant in the first place. In that sense I would agree.

 

And that is where making contraception hard to obtain, and saying sex ed should be left till you're about to get married (OK, an exaggeration, but it sometimes feels like that !) is so very very wrong.

 

(But for the record, I did ask for a preventive appendectomy once, when I was having another op. The surgeon refused !!!)

Edited by fuzzbucket

Share this post


Link to post

If used properly, 99% of the time it does not.

I just wanted to point out, that the failure rate of properly used birth control (all methods averaged together) is very much higher than 1%.

 

Also, even the doctors can screw up and increase the odds of failure on occasion. I know I've said it before in this thread, but my daughter is the direct result of a doctor switching my pill prescription (from one I'd been using for years with no problems) despite my protests, because the one he wanted me to use was supposedly gentler on my body. I specifically questioned if there might be a problem with this as the new prescription might have different levels of hormone in it, and he assured me that as long as I took it the same way I took my old one, I'd be fine. That was late September or early October of that year. In mid-November, the pregnancy test was positive.

 

Now, I was in a good situation at the time. Her father and I were both working, we had already been looking at each other as probable marriage-partner material, and had even already discussed the possibility of kids together. So the fact that she came along a couple years before we'd vaguely figured on trying for a child merely forced a bit of adjustment to our long-term plans.

 

But it still comes down to the fact that I followed that doctor's instructions to the letter, and I still got pregnant while on the pill. Diaphragms can slip or be dislodged. Condoms can break or even slip off. Various medications and herbal supplements can interfere with the pill, and since many of them are OTC stuff, it's possible that a woman will either not think about the possibility of interference (as with certain cold medicines) or she won't consider them as "medicine" (herbal supplements) because she thinks of them in the same way as a multivitamin and again just overlooks the possibility of interference. And while it could be argued that such a medical interaction is the woman's fault for having taken the whatever, the fact is that not all doctors adequately explain those interactions to women getting started on the pill... which just increases the chances of failure.

Share this post


Link to post
If used properly, 99% of the time it does not.

Which means that, even with perfect use, 1 in 100 sexual encounters during ovulation result in a pregnancy. This is a vast improvement, but people tend to have the idea that that means it almost never happens. When you're talking about millions or billions of people, that's still a lot of unplanned pregnancies, and not all of them will be able to adjust plans and lifestyle to encompass a child the way catstaff was.

 

As far as that situation, people also need to be educated that it's the pharmacists we need to talk to when asking about medication, interactions, interferences, and so on and not the doctors. We've been taught that doctors know everything about medicine, but they don't, and when they prescribe the wrong medication it can be anything from annoying to dangerous.

 

A friend of mine went to fill a prescription, and the pharmacist was horrified - the pills contained something she was violently allergic to. If she'd done as her doctor wanted, she'd have gone to the ER and possibly died. The pharmacist was immediately on the phone and gave the doctor an earful, the prescription was changed right there, and she was okay, thank goodness... But it taught her she couldn't trust doctors with prescriptions anymore, so now she always reads up on them and talks to the pharmacist before she actually takes anything.

Share this post


Link to post

A very good point Kith. I have seen drs prescribe birth control pills and antibiotics in the same visit and not say a word about the interactions.

Share this post


Link to post
In an earlier post I said that this specifically was an instance where an artificial fetus could be useful.

blink.gif

 

Artificial fetus?

Share this post


Link to post

Not to mention foods.

 

Any dairy product you buy may have come from cows treated with rBGH, which can interfere with b/c pills.

 

Also several common foods, including licorice, yam, soy and dairy products, can theoretically impair the effectiveness of oral contraceptives.

 

The hormone-like compounds in soy such as soybeans, soy milk, tofu, and other soy products imitate estrogen. According to the National Institute of Health these hormonal effects could, in theory, interact with birth control. Another food that may interfere with birth control is alfalfa.

 

Source.

Edited by fuzzbucket

Share this post


Link to post

Fertility doctor's son who poisoned pregnant girlfriend with pill 'because he was in love with another woman' is jailed for 14 years

 

- John Welden of Tampa, Florida gave his ex-girlfriend Remee Jo Lee pills and told her they were antibiotics - but they induced an abortion

- He gave her the pills 'because he was worried about his other girlfriend finding out about the pregnancy'

- Welden's father is prominent Tampa fertility doc Dr. Stephen Welden, whose signature Welden forged to get the drugs

 

Any thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Fertility doctor's son who poisoned pregnant girlfriend with pill 'because he was in love with another woman' is jailed for 14 years

 

- John Welden of Tampa, Florida gave his ex-girlfriend Remee Jo Lee pills and told her they were antibiotics - but they induced an abortion

- He gave her the pills 'because he was worried about his other girlfriend finding out about the pregnancy'

- Welden's father is prominent Tampa fertility doc Dr. Stephen Welden, whose signature Welden forged to get the drugs

 

Any thoughts?

He should get prison time for his actions (which it seems he already is) but a proper medical evalutation should probably be done on him as well, considering the amount of times the article mentioned that he stated he just wanted to die. Either he has other problems or he's manipulative.

Share this post


Link to post
Not to mention foods.

 

Any dairy product you buy may have come from cows treated with rBGH, which can interfere with b/c pills.

 

Also several common foods, including licorice, yam, soy and dairy products, can theoretically impair the effectiveness of oral contraceptives.

 

The hormone-like compounds in soy such as soybeans, soy milk, tofu, and other soy products imitate estrogen. According to the National Institute of Health these hormonal effects could, in theory, interact with birth control. Another food that may interfere with birth control is alfalfa.

 

Source.

Those common foods are things I ate trying to increase my odds of getting pregnant. It was a soy based product that I took to get myself to ovulate at a reasonable time so I actually got pregnant with a very much wanted child.

Share this post


Link to post

"Any thoughts?"

 

Uh..... not any that I can say here. *just sits, muttering curses under breath*

Share this post


Link to post

I think the distinction is important. If the purpose of abortion was to kill the fetus, then potential advances in medicine like artificial wombs are pointless. However, when the purpose is to end a pregnancy, then alternatives that can do so without killing the fetus are worth looking for.

True! And I love going into research that helps save lives without having a low quality of life... However, we aren't really there yet, scientifically speaking. I suppose we do have the technology to incubate a fetus in an external source, but it must be a woman... A WILLING, woman. So, this often gets tossed out the window.

If there was a way to incubate a fetus through science and machines, that would still lead to a healthy child, then go ahead... But we're here to discuss what to do since we don't have that technology. Also, the cost of using that that technology would most likely cost more than anyone trying to get an abortion would spend, so... Yeah.

 

My opinion stands as PRO LIFE. And I expect full frontal assault, as that is normal when I post practically anything here, so hack away. I'll be watching! wink.gif

Share this post


Link to post
My opinion stands as PRO LIFE. And I expect full frontal assault, as that is normal when I post practically anything here, so hack away. I'll be watching! wink.gif

Define "pro-life".

Share this post


Link to post

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.