Abortion

[Fuzzbucket]

We all agree that effective contraception is important. As also decent sex ed. But it will NEVER be 100% - there will always be women on whom it simply isn't effective (see my comment from when I worked for a doctor, above.) There will always be women who are raped or otherwise abused. Sure there are also those who slip up, or are even careless with,  their contraception - I would to a small degree support charging those who use abortion as a method of birth control after their first couple of abortions, I think. Though I have to say many women were using the pill quite happily during the time when doctors had already learned that antibiotics could make it ineffective - and it was hardly trumpeted all over the press. I don't think it is reasonable to expect a woman to drop by the doctor with every repeat RX to ask if anything has been found out lately that would mean she should switch... I know that when I was on the pill, I simply got repeats by phone every few months and picked them up at the drugstore. I don't think that's unreasonable as a pattern of contraception.

 

There will always be a need for abortion, no mater how effective contraception is. And that is the issue here. Male (almost exclusively) politicians want to take away that right to choice from those of us who need abortions, for whatever reason. THAT is the issue. And they are aided and abetted by the religious right who want to force everyone to carry to term - and give no thought to the welfare of the woman or of the welfare of the child post birth. Women end up pregnant when they don't want to be for a HUGE number of reasons and contraception is not the be-all and end-all.

 

The issue here is the availability of choice. Because however good contraception may become it will NEVER obviate need for that choice.

[LadyLyzar]

This thread is temporarily closed while I go through it - things are getting out of hand in here.

 

In the meantime, all parties involved - please use this time to step away and cool off.

 

Topic reopened.  I understand this is a heated controversial issue, but let's remember to be civil to one another please.

Edited September 9, 2018 by LadyLyzar

[Fuzzbucket]

Thank you, Lady Lyzar.

[Dekka]

this issue really should not be as 'heated and controversial' as it is.   it really is as simple as the choice of the individual... although many people will disagree with that choice, it still comes down to the fact that it isn't their choice. abortion has always been and will always be a NEED for some women, regardless of contraceptive usage -- even if you do everything perfectly , or even if you abstain, something can ALWAYS go wrong and it is purely the choice of the woman at that point what will be best for her future.

Edited September 9, 2018 by Dekka

[HeatherMarie]

Personally, I'd love to think that someday, far off in the future, there wouldn't actually be a need for abortion at all. Science/medicine would progress to the point where contraceptives were 100% effective for all women. Every school would give comprehensive sex education that actually helps kids learn what happens during sex, what can and can't lead to pregnancy, the importance of safe sex, etc etc. There would be absolutely zero rapists in the world, zero childhood sexual abuse, incest, etc etc. ........ Indeed, in an ideal world there would be NO *need* for abortion. Every single pregnancy would be planned and wanted. But this is not an ideal world, is it? Crap happens. Contraceptives fail, people are misinformed about sexual facts, people are raped... In this imperfect world, we DO need the option of abortion. Because even if we do everything right that we possibly can, crap still happens.

[olympe]

Amen to that. 

[Fuzzbucket]

That's what MOST of us here have agreed all along

[hazeh]

On 9/9/2018 at 4:45 PM, HeatherMarie said:

Personally, I'd love to think that someday, far off in the future, there wouldn't actually be a need for abortion at all. Science/medicine would progress to the point where contraceptives were 100% effective for all women. Every school would give comprehensive sex education that actually helps kids learn what happens during sex, what can and can't lead to pregnancy, the importance of safe sex, etc etc. There would be absolutely zero rapists in the world, zero childhood sexual abuse, incest, etc etc. ........ Indeed, in an ideal world there would be NO *need* for abortion. Every single pregnancy would be planned and wanted. But this is not an ideal world, is it? Crap happens. Contraceptives fail, people are misinformed about sexual facts, people are raped... In this imperfect world, we DO need the option of abortion. Because even if we do everything right that we possibly can, crap still happens.

Absolutely! 100% agree. It'd also be neat for future science to be able to remove growing embryos and fetuses from pregnant people and incubate them outside of the body, for those who don't want to be pregnant, ended up that way, and have a moral issue with ending the pregnancy. An alternative for everyone! 

[HeatherMarie]

31 minutes ago, hazeh said:

Absolutely! 100% agree. It'd also be neat for future science to be able to remove growing embryos and fetuses from pregnant people and incubate them outside of the body, for those who don't want to be pregnant, ended up that way, and have a moral issue with ending the pregnancy. An alternative for everyone! 

 

That would be great. And it seems like it could totally be possible somewhere down the line. They are already able to take sperm and eggs from a couple, make an embryo, and implant it into a surrogate. If an embryo can successfully be made outside a host and then implanted into someone else, it does seem like it could eventually be possible to take one from a pregnant person and either implant it into someone else who does want it or grow it outside a body.

[CatCreature]

On 9/7/2018 at 9:28 PM, Laryal said:

They are talking about all abortions not just one an she was talking about an abortion that the baby was still alive an she could not help which is very sad. There are aborted babies still that are alive an they just leave to die in a pan.:(

 

Which just prove that the video on that page is a lie. Late abortions mean they induce labour and get the fetus out whole and not in pieces. Though late abortions means that there is something wrong with either the fetus or the mother. Usually it means the choice of letting the fetus die at week 24 or letting a child die at week 40. Or letting the woman die and kill both.

 

Most abortions take place before week 10 and women are willing to risk their lives to get them. There are several pages online that sell abortion pills and there used to be whole wards on most hospitals that were dedicated to women who tried self-abort. Laws can never stop abortions, only safe abortions.

[Cecona]

13 hours ago, HeatherMarie said:

 

That would be great. And it seems like it could totally be possible somewhere down the line. They are already able to take sperm and eggs from a couple, make an embryo, and implant it into a surrogate. If an embryo can successfully be made outside a host and then implanted into someone else, it does seem like it could eventually be possible to take one from a pregnant person and either implant it into someone else who does want it or grow it outside a body.

It might be more possible than you realize, as science is currently working on artificial wombs. They’ve successfully grown full term lambs last time I read about it, don’t know how well the lambs survived afterwards though. It could be something they start testing with humans in some years or decades.

 

though the issue would not be the existence of an artificial womb, but rather the ability for an embryo already attached with a placenta to survive being removed from its mother and implanted into the artificial womb or the womb of another woman. In vitro, the closest example we might have, implants multiple eggs about 4-5 days after being fertilized. That’s the same amount of time it takes for a fertilized egg to travel down the Fallopian tube into the uterus. It’s different than implanting an embryo a few weeks to a couple months old.

Edited September 12, 2018 by Cecona

[Starscream]

3 hours ago, Cecona said:

though the issue would not be the existence of an artificial womb, but rather the ability for an embryo already attached with a placenta to survive being removed from its mother and implanted into the artificial womb or the womb of another woman. In vitro, the closest example we might have, implants multiple eggs about 4-5 days after being fertilized. That’s the same amount of time it takes for a fertilized egg to travel down the Fallopian tube into the uterus. It’s different than implanting an embryo a few weeks to a couple months old.

 

If that was in lieu of an abortion, I would not consent to an embryo of mine (only of mine) to be continued on after chosen termination. I do not want some child searching for its genetic mother decades down the road. I also do not want the worry of wondering what ever happened to it. Because being a mother, regardless, would have that effect (at least for me) - and simply put. I do not want that emotional burden - I have enough of it right now.

 

If its a method for those who are unable to maintain children within their systems (frequent miscarries) to have children, then by all means let them use such a system. But for a person who wants to end it that, there, full stop, then its not an option. (some may agree for it to continue on in an incubate - I would not)

 

its an interesting idea, as a solution for, as I said, women who want children, but biology bests them.

Edited September 12, 2018 by Starscream

[Fuzzbucket]

18 hours ago, HeatherMarie said:

 

That would be great. And it seems like it could totally be possible somewhere down the line. They are already able to take sperm and eggs from a couple, make an embryo, and implant it into a surrogate. If an embryo can successfully be made outside a host and then implanted into someone else, it does seem like it could eventually be possible to take one from a pregnant person and either implant it into someone else who does want it or grow it outside a body.

 

I'm with Starscream. If I were ever to have supplied an embryo to an infertile couple, I would want to do so deliberately, for a couple I was aware of. The random products of an abortion are not up for donation - sorry, but there i is.

[HeatherMarie]

Well it would have to be the pregnant woman's choice, of course. @hazeh was talking about an option for women who end up pregnant and 'have a moral issue with ending the pregnancy'. If someone can't care for a child or it would be dangerous to carry to term or whatever other reason, but they really don't want to just eliminate the pregnancy, it would be great to have other options. Including being able to put that embryo into someone else who does want it, or even allow it to be grown in an artificial womb or whatever, so someone who really wants a child but maybe can't have one could benefit. It'd be nice to have options like that, instead of the *only* options being carry to term or terminate. But it would most definitely have to be the pregnant woman's choice, the same way abortion should be her choice. Her body, her choice.

[Laryal]

Ok i hear every one say her body her choice ok say it is her body what part of her body is she getting rid of? an arm a leg an organ what? Ok say it is her choice but what body are these women killing? is it their own body like i said or is it some one else's body that could as you guys say can be a human? Ok so you say it is just cells a fetus what kind of fetus is it can you tell me that? What part of the animal kingdom does a woman carry in any of the stages? Does these cells of a human start out as a dog cat what? Now i want facts answers to my questions here.

Edited September 12, 2018 by Laryal

[Zeditha]

A woman isn't killing part of her body in an abortion; she's protecting parts of it. Pregnancy and childbirth put a lot of stress on the body - the rate of death from childbirth is higher than that from abortion, and complications are very common. Thanks to our modern technology, these complications are usually easily dealt with, but it's still a valid concern and worry.

 

The idea of bodily autonomy isn't about what part of yourself you can kill, it's the idea that you can protect your own body. The foetus' cells contain human DNA, yes. In many ways, it could be considered human - but I would not consider it *a* human. (Hopefully that distinction makes sense.)

[Fuzzbucket]

2 hours ago, Laryal said:

Ok i hear every one say her body her choice ok say it is her body what part of her body is she getting rid of? an arm a leg an organ what? Ok say it is her choice but what body are these women killing? is it their own body like i said or is it some one else's body that could as you guys say can be a human? Ok so you say it is just cells a fetus what kind of fetus is it can you tell me that? What part of the animal kingdom does a woman carry in any of the stages? Does these cells of a human start out as a dog cat what? Now i want facts answers to my questions here.

 

She is removing something that is not part of her body from HER body, over which she should have control. And you know perfectly well that it isn't a cat or a dog - you are just being silly there, and that's not like you. The FACT is that she is carrying a lump of cells with human DNA that could potentially grow into a human - if that were what she wanted. What she is getting rid of is that clump of cells that is not yet a viable anything.

 

1 hour ago, Zeditha said:

A woman isn't killing part of her body in an abortion; she's protecting parts of it. Pregnancy and childbirth put a lot of stress on the body - the rate of death from childbirth is higher than that from abortion, and complications are very common. Thanks to our modern technology, these complications are usually easily dealt with, but it's still a valid concern and worry.

 

The idea of bodily autonomy isn't about what part of yourself you can kill, it's the idea that you can protect your own body. The foetus' cells contain human DNA, yes. In many ways, it could be considered human - but I would not consider it *a* human. (Hopefully that distinction makes sense.)

 

Exactly this.

Edited September 12, 2018 by Fuzzbucket
I swear my PC has developed autocorrect...

[Cecona]

I agree, if a woman doesn’t want to give her embryo up and end up having the child find them in adulthood they should not be forced to do so just like normal pregnancy and abortion.

 

It’s human in the sense it’s made of human cells, but keep in mind tumors and cysts are also made of human cell. Just because it’s made of human cells does not mean it is a human itself, not until it has developed enough to be its own person. Does that answer your questions, Laryal?

Edited September 12, 2018 by Cecona

[olympe]

I find this interesting:

First, many people here argue that abortion is not killing "because the embryo cannot survive on its own", and that abortion needs to be the woman's choice because it is her body. (I won't argue against the latter, but have issues with the former.)

Second, once the artificial womb (that may or may not become a thing) is mentioned, the very same people argue that they wouldn't want their aborted embryos to be saved because - it's their call? Why? Once the embryo is out, it shouldn't be the woman's choice any more, and if the embryo can be saved and turned into a healthy child (and later, adult) - shouldn't their chance at life be considered more important than a woman's fear of possibly being found out decades later, if that's possible at all? Once again, I don't quite get this.

[CatCreature]

3 hours ago, Laryal said:

Ok i hear every one say her body her choice ok say it is her body what part of her body is she getting rid of? an arm a leg an organ what? Ok say it is her choice but what body are these women killing? is it their own body like i said or is it some one else's body that could as you guys say can be a human? Ok so you say it is just cells a fetus what kind of fetus is it can you tell me that? What part of the animal kingdom does a woman carry in any of the stages? Does these cells of a human start out as a dog cat what? Now i want facts answers to my questions here.

 

Laryal, you have been getting answers for several years now. Please read what we tell you. LINK to old post

[Laryal]

4 hours ago, Fuzzbucket said:

 

She is removing something that is not part of her body from HER body, over which she should have control. And you know perfectly well that it isn't a cat or a dog - you are just being silly there, and that's not like you. The FACT is that she is carrying a lump of cells with human DNA that could potentially grow into a human - if that were what she wanted. What she is getting rid of is that clump of cells that is not yet a viable anything.

 

 

Exactly this.

What is she removing then what cells animal or human an i am not being silly all i see are women who want to do the party animal an then get rid of a human they started with a man.What choice in this does the baby or fetus have if it does  grow? you guys are lumps of cells with human dna so can someone come up to you an say ohh your not worth living an kill you? See where does the babies choice play in this when does it have life? cause what i can see is you can not bring dead cells back to life so that clump of cells that fetus is a living human.An you guys say it is a parasite then you were all parasites at that stge in your life an still are feeding off of animals  an fish.

  3 hours ago, Laryal said:

Ok i hear every one say her body her choice ok say it is her body what part of her body is she getting rid of? an arm a leg an organ what? Ok say it is her choice but what body are these women killing? is it their own body like i said or is it some one else's body that could as you guys say can be a human? Ok so you say it is just cells a fetus what kind of fetus is it can you tell me that? What part of the animal kingdom does a woman carry in any of the stages? Does these cells of a human start out as a dog cat what? Now i want facts answers to my questions here.

 

Laryal, you have been getting answers for several years now. Please read what we tell you. LINK to old posti can tell you this is the same post  from here  that link is from this chat no other post so your wrong.

 

So what your guys are saying is babies are not worth fulling with if you do not wan to own up to your mistakes an ohh i can get rid of this thing this human cause i do not want to take care of it but i still want to party but not have the responceablity from parting i get it now.You guys are heartless an inhumane saying that your choice  but yet it is not your body your getting rid of.Ohh but is is just dna cells nothing comes of these take a good look in the mirror.Those cells that was in your mom you are or will be looking at each day in a mirror.Oh i guess you guys are a bunch of dead cells so who cares. Think long an hard on what i am saying here an i know from my mom working with woman who had abortions who wanted help cause they realized that it was not a clump of cells or a parasite it was their baby.My mom had hundereds of thousands of women call her up when she worked for Life Warriors.No you will not find it on a computer cause they guy who made this oganazation saw that others were helping an he was called someplace else.So do not give me oh it is nothing but  dna we are all dna an we are all lumps of cells from a man an woman if you guys what to see babies like that. So incunclusion these cells are human nothing else an what your doing is taking the life of anouther human is what it boils down to.Oh but what if the fetus is handicapped or not able to live.Well letts see a heathly baby comes into the world it getts sick an dies after a few months or it getts cancer or some deadly desiese are you guys going to say well kill the unborn cuase it is better for then than to go thru that ok what if this baby is nine months old an it dies was  it's life worth living for those short months ask a parent who has these kinds of babies an get your answer. Also now adays doctors can save both baby an  mother so no excusses there either.Life threatening they can take the baby earlily so the mom an baby can survive so do not give me that excuss of why youshould kill a baby fetus.All i can see is you ro choice people are wanting excusses to kill babies plan an simple that is why i said you guys are inhuman cause you do not care about the life of that baby is all. If you did you would open your eyes an see that is is not just a fetus but a human too. One more thing here are pics of  fetus or what you want to call parasites or a clump of cells.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/7-images-that-prove-the-humanity-of-preborn-children

 

Edited September 13, 2018 by Laryal

[Starscream]

3 hours ago, olympe said:

 Why? Once the embryo is out, it shouldn't be the woman's choice any more, and if the embryo can be saved and turned into a healthy child (and later, adult) - shouldn't their chance at life be

I explained what I do not want done with MY DNA and Why. My husband would fully back me on this as well. I would not want the stress knowing that there is a child/person out there who likely wonders why I said, hell no. And for the most part, I would strictly be against companies using MY DNA as a commodity to sell to someone somewhere down the line. Because, someone would try to capitalise on it. you need permission to donate organs from an individual, you should also need permission to use someone's embryo - if they grant it so be it. I will not - ever.

[Fuzzbucket]

10 hours ago, olympe said:

I find this interesting:

First, many people here argue that abortion is not killing "because the embryo cannot survive on its own", and that abortion needs to be the woman's choice because it is her body. (I won't argue against the latter, but have issues with the former.)

Second, once the artificial womb (that may or may not become a thing) is mentioned, the very same people argue that they wouldn't want their aborted embryos to be saved because - it's their call? Why? Once the embryo is out, it shouldn't be the woman's choice any more, and if the embryo can be saved and turned into a healthy child (and later, adult) - shouldn't their chance at life be considered more important than a woman's fear of possibly being found out decades later, if that's possible at all? Once again, I don't quite get this.

 

Two things (for me) - the first is that I do not want to be worrying that my DNA may be being brought up in horrible circumstances, or that the child might want to seek me out later. Both options would upset me.  It's not the being found out - I wouldn't be at all ashamed - it's the possibility of being expected to be a part of that child's life that would bother me.

Secondly - and sadly also importantly - in the UK at least, there have been cases where a child given up for adoption has sought out its birth parents and demanded a measure of financial support (and in the case of fathers of abandoned children who were brought up in care, the courts have occasionally even ordered them to pay support. Probably this has happened to mothers too, though I don't know of any cases.) It would not surprise me at all if this became an issue.

 

10 hours ago, Laryal said:

What is she removing then what cells animal or human an i am not being silly all i see are women who want to do the party animal an then get rid of a human they started with a man.What choice in this does the baby or fetus have if it does  grow? you guys are lumps of cells with human dna so can someone come up to you an say ohh your not worth living an kill you? See where does the babies choice play in this when does it have life? cause what i can see is you can not bring dead cells back to life so that clump of cells that fetus is a living human.An you guys say it is a parasite then you were all parasites at that stge in your life an still are feeding off of animals  an fish.

 

 

Laryal - if you don't understand simple biology, there is no point trying to discuss anything with you. How could the cells possibly be animal cells ? That IS silly - silly or TOTALLY ignorant of scientific biological fact.

 

As for the party animal thing - you have also been shown many examples in this  thread where the party animal thing had nothing to do with it. People who used contraception correctly and it failed. People who were raped, coerced. People with tokophobia - something that doesn't always show up until the woman is actually pregnant (may even have wanted to be) and realises she simply cannot go through with it. And what about the women with DEAD FOETUSES in their wombs who have been denied abortions - one even died as a direct result. The women carrying babies who will certainly die minutes after birth.

 

And yes, sure - and you too were a parasite when your mother was carrying you. Presumably a welcome one. So  was I for my mother. So what. No-one is suggesting that our mothers made the wrong choice to keep us - though there are people on this forum who do actually wish their mothers HAD aborted them. How on earth you extrapolate from that that the fact that we now feed on animals and fish has anything to do with this makes no sense at all. Yes - we kill those to eat. Are you vegan by the way ?  I know that morally one should be, though I haven't  managed yet, much to the distress of my vegan grandson - but yes, we humans do see animals as valid food sources. What exactly does that have to do with abortion ?

 

The embryo/clump cells/even the foetus does not have a choice - they haven't the knowledge or ability to make choices, so that falls.

Edited September 13, 2018 by Fuzzbucket

[Cecona]

Laryal you are not making any kind of valid argument, only repeating fallacies like if it’s okay to kill a potential human it’s okay to kill an already established person with memories and experiences. Or that newborns should be killed because they might die later in life like as an adult. As well as trying to shock us with images. And I agree you are being very silly asking if it’s animal dna, especially after a couple of us gave you answers to your questions. That simply shows you will not accept any answer from us “heartless and inhumane” people. Can you please try to show us that you are here to have an actual discussion, rather than to argue and get angry?

Edited September 13, 2018 by Cecona

[olympe]

Actually, the newborn argument was from me... And it wasn't that newborns should be killed, but that they could be killed as easily as an unborn child, have no more memories than them and can't survive on their own (unless they get taken care of by another, usually adult, person).

 

Also, an embryo - even if it's yours - isn't "your DNA", it has its very own and very unique set of DNA that nobody else has (unless there's an identical twin around).