Abortion

[Kestra15]

How is it gray scientifically? I can understand morally, but is there really much mystery to it scientifically?

Yes, because we scientifically cannot prove when life - and more importantly, sentience - definitively begins. If we could prove that there was a definitive point where the fetus became sentient, became a human, then we'd have a much more clear-cut argument.

[Rosedamai]

Oh god, on adoption though, NEVER say things like "just give your kids up for adoption", because there are 1. Underground black markets for babies online and 2. A lot pf unmarried women do not want to give up their child but are often emotionally harassed to do so or in even worse cases their families give up the babies without their consent.

 

Do.not.adopt.from.abroad.

 

 

[edwardelricfreak]

Yes, because we scientifically cannot prove when life - and more importantly, sentience - definitively begins. If we could prove that there was a definitive point where the fetus became sentient, became a human, then we'd have a much more clear-cut argument.

Oh that's what was meant. I didn't think of that part; I thought they meant the abortion itself. o3o

[DarkLadyNyara]

Firstly I think the father of the child should very much have a say in whether an abortion happens or not, because I'm sorry, if a mother aborts her child with no attempt to contact the father and get his consent or ask how he feels about it, just seems wrong to me, because I've seen tons of proven situations where a girlfriend or even a wife aborts a child against the fathers explicit wishes,

No. Just...no.

 

The father can walk away at any time. The father does not carry the fetus. The father is not the one whose flesh and blood are used to build it. He doesn't have to deal with morning sickness, or any of the other myriad (and occasionally quite severe) symptoms of pregnancy. His heart does not have to work overtime. His bones are not strip-mined for minerals. His body is not permanently altered. He does not have to endure nine months of his body being co-opted. He doesn't experience labor and childbirth. He does not risk his health. He does not risk his life. He provides half the blueprint, and that's it. So no. He does not deserve a say unless the pregnant person wants him to have one.

 

Reacting to stimuli =/= being a person

 

Having a heartbeat =/= being a person

 

Having human DNA =/= being a person

This. (And even if it did, being a person =/= being allowed to use someones body/organs against their will.)

[JavaTigress]

MANY people are fiercely determined to stay in one mindset, then.

 

IMO it's stupid because it OFTEN (not always) boils down to whether or not it's a person, which really can't be proven or disproven.  It seems like a moot point to me.

 

One thing I'm curious about...why doesn't anyone on either side seem to care about improving much?  I see a lot of strongly pro or anti abortion discussions, artwork, etc, (often to the point of condemning/accusing/hating the entire other side of the argument) but why is there no "How can we improve the adoption system?" thread?  Why does everyone just care about abortion?

 

I'm not saying that nobody cares, I'm just saying that more focus is given to abortion than other solutions.  Why is that?

 

Also notice that almost many people in these discussions is incredibly defensive, at each other's throats, etc.  It certainly doesn't seem like a calm, helpful education center.  It seems more like "if you disagree with me, I'm gonna yell at you."  That happens a bit less HERE, but it certainly isn't uncommon.  On other sites *coughdAcough*, you can pretty much expect a total storm for voicing your opinions on the matter.

 

I've yet to see a completely respectful discussion regarding abortion between the members of the opposite parties.  And yet, I personally have had such respectful discussions with other controversial topics.  I guess it depends on who you talk to, but reading through threads like this (mostly for the LOLs), I've seen that people are almost ALWAYS jerks over abortion.

 

Like, this entire time I haven't said a thing to pick any fights, just asked some questions and voiced opinions, but I'm sure that someone will yell at me.  X3

This is actually an excellent point.

 

I mean, if the adoption system is as badly flawed as that, maybe fixing it would be a better use of EVERYONE's energy than arguing about things that just get everyone's hackles up and change no ones minds?

I think that is why people get so rude, honestly, is that most people have EXTREMELY strong opinions on it one way or the other.

That MAY be why so much time is spent on that particular issue, also... people feel strongly about it. Just my thoughts for whatever they are worth.

Edited September 26, 2014 by Silverswift

[demonicvampiregirl]

This topic is considered controversial but it needs to be discussed rationally without one of the sides screaming "Your wrong end of story shut up", which sadly seems to rarely happen...

 

Now onto my view,

 

I am very much Pro-Life, as a christian men's rights activist, it makes sense, but the issue is very gray scientifically and morally, I do feel that it probably should be available as an option in extreme cases, however I don't believe that it should be available for just anyone, you shouldn't be able to just walk into a clinic, say "I want and abortion" and then instantly get it with little checks and balances, Firstly I think the father of the child should very much have a say in whether an abortion happens or not, because I'm sorry, if a mother aborts her child with no attempt to contact the father and get his consent or ask how he feels about it, just seems wrong to me, because I've seen tons of proven situations where a girlfriend or even a wife aborts a child against the fathers explicit wishes, I also believe that their should be limits of some sort on the circumstances and the age of the fetus... Not really going to elaborate but if someone has questions feel free to ask

 

So to summarize, I think it should be legal, but have some restrictions and checks on it before its actually done

I have to disagree. I do not and will not tolerate anyone (man or woman) having any say over my body. It's mine not everyone elses. I wouldn't even ask if it was my own husband I do not want children and he has 0 say over it. If he wanted children he has found the wrong person for his life and needs to move on.

[sparkle10184]

thewatergamer: Should another person have a say in whether you have a vasectomy?

[Fuzzbucket]

thewatergamer: Should another person have a say in whether you have a vasectomy?

I believe some doctors do ask to talk to the woman, if the man has a partner.

 

But denying the woman you are with the possibility a child by you - when she can always find another man to do the business - isn't quite the same as forcing her to carry to term a parasite that will change her body for ever at the very least.

[sparkle10184]

I believe some doctors do ask to talk to the woman, if the man has a partner.

 

But denying the woman you are with the possibility a child by you - when she can always find another man to do the business - isn't quite the same as forcing her to carry to term a parasite that will change her body for ever at the very least.

Oh, I wasn't trying to say it was the same thing! I know it's not! I was just trying to use an example that may be relevant to thewatergamer.

[KageSora]

This is actually an excellent point.

 

I mean, if the adoption system is as badly flawed as that, maybe fixing it would be a better use of EVERYONE's energy than arguing about things that just get everyone's hackles up and change no ones minds?

I think that is why people get so rude, honestly, is that most people have EXTREMELY strong opinions on it one way or the other.

That MAY be why so much time is spent on that particular issue, also... people feel strongly about it. Just my thoughts for whatever they are worth.

No, the reason we get rude is because people literally want to strip us of our personhood and reduce us to walking incubators, giving a clump of cells more rights to our body than any other living person ever has.

 

 

Because no matter how people want to dress it up or lie to themselves about it, by denying a pregnant person the right to terminate a pregnancy they are saying said pregnant person matters less than the fetus. Because they are literally giving that fetus more rights than any born person has. They are giving the fetus the right to use the uterus-bearer's body against their will.

 

You cannot grab a stranger off the street and force them to give blood or plasma or bone marrow or organs. That would be horrific and unthinkable. And yet that's basically what arguing against allowing abortion is.

 

So, we're rude and continually discussing this because we enjoy being actual people. Not just baby-making machines.

 

 

Additionally, abortion being accessible and affordable is something that we need even if the adoption system was perfect. Because adoption is an alternative to PARENTING, not to pregnancy. So even if we had a perfect adoption system, there would still be plenty of times people aborted instead.

 

Besides that, there are a lot of factors that go into why the adoption system is crappy, and allowing abortion is one thing that can help, sad as the way it helps may be. After all--for every fetus aborted, that's one less person to potentially chucked into an overburdened system and more resources that can be used on those already in the system rather than trying to take care of a newcomer.

 

 

Also, this is shocking I know, but people are capable of caring about and arguing for more than one issue at a time! Just because you don't see it doesn't mean that people who are arguing against making abortion illegal aren't also trying to help reform the adoption system or to think of ways to do it or trying to get the attention of those who have the power/resources to make a start on it.

 

It's hardly like people spend all their time arguing about one issue then don't have any care about any other issues.

[JavaTigress]

No, the reason we get rude is because people literally want to strip us of our personhood and reduce us to walking incubators, giving a clump of cells more rights to our body than any other living person ever has.

 

 

Because no matter how people want to dress it up or lie to themselves about it, by denying a pregnant person the right to terminate a pregnancy they are saying said pregnant person matters less than the fetus.  Because they are literally giving that fetus more rights than any born person has.  They are giving the fetus the right to use the uterus-bearer's body against their will.

 

You cannot grab a stranger off the street and force them to give blood or plasma or bone marrow or organs.  That would be horrific and unthinkable.  And yet that's basically what arguing against allowing abortion is.

 

So, we're rude and continually discussing this because we enjoy being actual people.  Not just baby-making machines.

 

 

Additionally, abortion being accessible and affordable is something that we need even if the adoption system was perfect.  Because adoption is an alternative to PARENTING, not to pregnancy.  So even if we had a perfect adoption system, there would still be plenty of times people aborted instead.

 

Besides that, there are a lot of factors that go into why the adoption system is crappy, and allowing abortion is one thing that can help, sad as the way it helps may be.  After all--for every fetus aborted, that's one less person to potentially chucked into an overburdened system and more resources that can be used on those already in the system rather than trying to take care of a newcomer.

 

 

Also, this is shocking I know, but people are capable of caring about and arguing for more than one issue at a time!  Just because you don't see it doesn't mean that people who are arguing against making abortion illegal aren't also trying to help reform the adoption system or to think of ways to do it or trying to get the attention of those who have the power/resources to make a start on it.

 

It's hardly like people spend all their time arguing about one issue then don't have any care about any other issues.

My only point was that people have strong feelings/beliefs about it... which your post aptly illustrates.

 

I admit, I never REALLY considered it as giving the unborn MORE rights than the woman has.

 

Regardless, I was only pointing out that people have VERY strong feelings about this one way or the other and that those feelings color their responses as you point out. That, unfortunately, is hard to avoid when people's emotions run so high about an issue.

 

I certainly meant NO disrespect by that.

ALSO, I never said it was only pro-choice folks that could be rude at times, abortion opponents can be as well.

 

AND you are certainly right that people can argue for more than one issue at a time.

 

I only meant that I think, on the whole, the issues with adoption are a lesser known thing than abortion, for whatever reason. MAYBE because people do not want to see those problems, or maybe because most never have a chance to see them. As you say, fixing those wouldn't necessarily prevent EVERY abortion, but it would certainly help those kids that are already in the system.

 

I wonder... what would the legal punishment be for someone that did what you are describing... forcing another human being to give a blood transfusion to them, or bone marrow or such?

Edited September 26, 2014 by Silverswift

[hydrargyrum]

I got so distracted by arguing for the need for abortion itself that I missed a couple of interesting questions, which I'll bring back and give my opinions on.

 

I have heard it asserted that, in some parts of the world at least, fetuses that are found to be female prior to birth are more likely to be aborted than males because of their gender and no other reason.

 

Does anyone have any statistics on this?

I don't have statistics, but I've definitely heard of it. I don't know how often, but I know that it's often enough to be a thing we should be concerned about. However, I don't really think it has very much to do with abortion-it's done because female lives are valued less than male lives. Trying to just prevent sex-selective abortions from happening doesn't address the underlying issue that causes it to happen. Personally, I don't think the actual act of aborting a female fetus is really that bad, but the misogynistic society is a real problem, so I don't even really think that there needs to be that much of an effort to legally prevent sex-selective abortions.

 

IT almost seems to me that a BIG part of this issue is that there is NO real consensus as to WHEN it becomes more than 'just a clump of cells.' I mean, some want to argue that it is, in fact, more from the time of conception while others prefer to use birth as the point at which it becomes more... is the truth perhaps somewhere in between? Just an idea...

 

That is... an eight month fetus certainly LOOKS far less like just a clump of cells than , say a newly fertilized egg.

 

At what point does a person's life... as we think of it, the ability to think, feel pain and ect... actually begin? I am not trying to start an arguement, here, but the question does seem to have some bearing on the issue as as far as I know some people even oppose the use of birth control on the grounds that it might cause the fertilized egg to fail to implant.

 

( That is a view I don't agree with by the way, as plenty of fertilized eggs fail to inplant and develop into a child on their own)

 

Is there a point at which abortion, perhaps, should ONLY be allowed in extreme circumstances ( carrying the pregnancy threatens the mother's life)? IF a woman is pregnant and didn't want to be, why wait that long?

 

Just some thoughts on my part based on my knowledge, such as it is, of how pregnancy works.

In my opinion, I don't really think that there should be any restrictions based on when the pregnant person wants an abortion.

 

On the pro-restrictions side, I do see how aborting something that might be conscious or that's close to not needing a uterus to survive is different than aborting it when it's just a clump of cells, and I also to some extent agree that they had enough time to get one earlier.

 

However, I have more and stronger reasons why I would oppose restrictions. For one thing, regardless of anything else, the fetus is still using the pregnant person's body, and they always have a right to say what happens to their body. I agree that I wouldn't allow a born person to use another person's body against their will, so why should "it's almost a baby" give it those rights? Yeah, there was time to get an abortion earlier, but that just sounds like punishment-you didn't choose as I would've liked, so now you have to deal with the consequences.

 

I also feel like it's a bit of a moot point. People just simply don't get late term abortions without really good reasons-the idea of them being used willy-nilly is a scare tactic by pro-birthers. People who get late term abortions almost always have severe medical complications, and don't WANT the abortion, but NEED it. So the only people who are seeking late-term abortions are the ones that any restrictions would've allowed anyways. Occasionally, it might have to do with not having access or enough money to get one at an earlier term, but that isn't really solved by restricting access to late-term abortions, but rather by making easier access to early-term ones.

 

Relating to the point that the VAST majority of late-term abortions are because of unexpected health complications, restrictions would allow more legal loopholes to pro-birth doctors. They'd find excuses and reasons to deny late-term abortions to pregnant people who desperately need them. Savita Halappanavar DIED because a doctor didn't want to remove her already medically-dead fetus (which still had a heart beat). While Ireland is a particularly pro-birth country, restrictions will be used against people who absolutely NEED abortions.

Edited September 26, 2014 by hydrargyrum

[edwardelricfreak]

I also feel like it's a bit of a moot point. People just simply don't get late term abortions without really good reasons-the idea of them being used willy-nilly is a scare tactic by pro-birthers. People who get late term abortions almost always have severe medical complications, and don't WANT the abortion, but NEED it. So the only people who are seeking late-term abortions are the ones that any restrictions would've allowed anyways. Occasionally, it might have to do with not having access or enough money to get one at an earlier term, but that isn't really solved by restricting access to late-term abortions, but rather by making easier access to early-term ones.

I would like to add that, in some cases, some people can be pregnant *without knowing at all*. A lot of the time, they don't have the usual things with pregnancy, like morning sickness, cravings, kicks, discomfort, mood swings, or even much of a change in belly size. It's weird, but apparently it happens. Someone like that might not know they were pregnant until several months in; if they didn't want a child, I think they should still have the option to abort at that point.

[Brite]

After doing court cases research for a class, I learned that Roe "turned" pro-life, though something tells me that it's just smoke and mirrors to stop the death threats she got on a regular basis for making abortion legal.. I can guarantee she's still (secretly) pro-choice.

 

I would like to add that, in some cases, some people can be pregnant *without knowing at all*. A lot of the time, they don't have the usual things with pregnancy, like morning sickness, cravings, kicks, discomfort, mood swings, or even much of a change in belly size. It's weird, but apparently it happens. Someone like that might not know they were pregnant until several months in; if they didn't want a child, I think they should still have the option to abort at that point.

 

I always thought the no weight gain was odd. Wouldn't she gain a bit of weight due to a growing fetus?

[Omega Entity]

Depends on the person. An already-large person could, theoretically, not gain any noticeable extra weight, and also might not be able to visually notice due to their natural curves. There are some women still who might be in denial about their pregnancy, and chalk it up to eating too much junk food.

 

I also know a woman who, even when she was to term, was pretty small. She was noticeably pregnant, yes, but she was back in her pre-pregnancy jeans within a few days of giving birth.

 

Edited for better wording.

Edited September 29, 2014 by Omega Entity

[Shienvien]

I always thought the no weight gain was odd. Wouldn't she gain a bit of weight due to a growing fetus?

Nine months is a long time - a particularly large woman who is actively dieting might just about end up losing some of their weight, since they shed more than the fetus adds... And plenty of people gain some, lose some, gain some, lose some, "ugh, I am up 10kg again", lose some again...

 

(And then there are people like me who just plain don't watch their weight. Probably somewhere between 52-58kg, why?)

[JavaTigress]

Depends on the person. An already-large person could, theoretically, not gain any noticeable extra weight, and also might not be able to visually notice due to their natural curves. There are some women still who might be in denial about their pregnancy, and chalk it up to eating too much junk food.

 

I also know a woman who, even when she was to term, was pretty small. She was noticeably pregnant, yes, but she was back in her pre-pregnancy jeans within a few days of giving birth.

 

Edited for better wording.

Interesting. I wouldn't have THOUGHT it would be that possible to not know.

 

Early on, perhaps but after a certain point...

 

After a certain point wouldn't you feel the fetus moving. I know my mom did when she was pregnant with my sister. Little sis used to get quite active at times, move around and kick and things... though perhaps again, that depends.

[Fuzzbucket]

Interesting. I wouldn't have THOUGHT it would be that possible to not know.

 

Early on, perhaps but after a certain point...

 

After a certain point wouldn't you feel the fetus moving. I know my mom did when she was pregnant with my sister. Little sis used to get quite active at times, move around and kick and things... though perhaps again, that depends.

It does indeed depend. I used to work for a doctor - and if you have NO REASON AT ALL to think you are pregnant - trust me - it can indeed pass you by. Even if the foetus kicks - you assume it is butterflies in the tum, and so on. He had two patients I can recall who went into labour and were very much surprised. One had even thought she was menopausal and had already had three children...

[JavaTigress]

It does indeed depend. I used to work for a doctor - and if you have NO REASON AT ALL to think you are pregnant - trust me - it can indeed pass you by. Even if the foetus kicks - you assume it is butterflies in the tum, and so on. He had two patients I can recall who went into labour and were very much surprised. One had even thought she was menopausal and had already had three children...

I suppose that is the thing...

 

My mum already KNEW she was preggers, so she KNEW that what she felt was my sis. IF she hadn't had any reason to suspect it, she might well have chalked it up to some other cause.

[Koroshiya-Ichi]

There's an entire TV series dedicated to this in the U.S. called "I Didn't Know I Was Pregnant." I have a hard time wrapping my mind around the fact that so many of these women mistook pregnancy for indigestion, etc... I mean clearly it's possible, the evidence is right there on the screen, but... damn. It's mindboggling to me.

Edited September 29, 2014 by Koroshiya-Ichi

[edwardelricfreak]

Interesting. I wouldn't have THOUGHT it would be that possible to not know.

 

Early on, perhaps but after a certain point...

 

After a certain point wouldn't you feel the fetus moving. I know my mom did when she was pregnant with my sister. Little sis used to get quite active at times, move around and kick and things... though perhaps again, that depends.

I didn't *either*, but sometimes, some pregnancies just don't follow the typical symptoms! Some end up in denial and really don't think they're pregnant. Some also might not *know* all of the symptoms for pregnancy (or think they COULD get pregnant) and then mistake the symptoms for something else.

[catstaff]

There's an entire TV series dedicated to this in the U.S. called "I Didn't Know I Was Pregnant." I have a hard time wrapping my mind around the fact that so many of these women mistook pregnancy for indigestion, etc... I mean clearly it's possible, the evidence is right there on the screen, but... damn. It's mindboggling to me.

I've seen the show. Plenty of those women featured had been told by doctors that they were unable to become pregnant due to PCOS or other issues (one had even had her tubes tied years before!) and so that's a big part of the reason they didn't associate their symptoms with pregnancy.

 

I mean, if you're used to not having your period for six months to a year at a time anyway and it's been that way all your life, you're hardly going to notice not getting it. If you've been told by five or six specialists, "There's no way you're ever having a baby without in-vitro and even that's going to have abysmal odds of success due to your medical history," why would you even think to interpret nausea as a possible pregnancy symptom? (Unless you'd been actively pursuing in-vitro, of course.) I know from a friend with PCOS, plenty of the medications used to treat it can cause weight gain and water retention... so again, someone with that issue likely wouldn't find anything odd about puffy ankles and putting on some weight.

[Pixxelation]

I refuse to believe the whole thing about Roe becoming pro-choice. No matter what she says about this, I won't believe her, primarily because she left her job at an abortion clinic two days after being baptised and claims to "no longer be a lesbian." That last part makes me think that scare tactics were used on her after she was pressured into converting, and that she is living a lie right now.

 

...Of course, I'm not her, but I do know that you can't just stop being your sexuality like that (although sexualities can change, they don't really change THAT drastically).

 

Just my 0.02.

[Brite]

I've seen the show. Plenty of those women featured had been told by doctors that they were unable to become pregnant due to PCOS or other issues (one had even had her tubes tied years before!) and so that's a big part of the reason they didn't associate their symptoms with pregnancy.

 

I mean, if you're used to not having your period for six months to a year at a time anyway and it's been that way all your life, you're hardly going to notice not getting it. If you've been told by five or six specialists, "There's no way you're ever having a baby without in-vitro and even that's going to have abysmal odds of success due to your medical history," why would you even think to interpret nausea as a possible pregnancy symptom? (Unless you'd been actively pursuing in-vitro, of course.) I know from a friend with PCOS, plenty of the medications used to treat it can cause weight gain and water retention... so again, someone with that issue likely wouldn't find anything odd about puffy ankles and putting on some weight.

Good point, there was a lot of women on there that were on BC (mostly the shot, I noticed) or their doctor told them it was impossible to conceive.

 

I guess symptoms really do vary. My sister still has (all of) her baby weight, where my mother is extremely fit after four kids.

[lightbird]

There's an entire TV series dedicated to this in the U.S. called "I Didn't Know I Was Pregnant." I have a hard time wrapping my mind around the fact that so many of these women mistook pregnancy for indigestion, etc... I mean clearly it's possible, the evidence is right there on the screen, but... damn. It's mindboggling to me.

Of course, it's debatable how much of the content in these "reality" shows is actually real, because, I agree, even if you were to have a disorder that caused you to gain weight rapidly, I think the size increase distribution is a little too specific...

Then again, I've never been on birth control, so I wouldn't know what it'd feel like to not have a period on a regular basis...

 

Speaking of indigestion, in some cases, women can mistake early birth contractions for constipation pain; case in point - the mother of a friend of mine almost got born in the toilet because her mother thought she was just having issues with passing a hard stool.

Edited September 30, 2014 by lightbird