Abortion

[philpot123]

 

They can certainly feel pain and are biologically independent from a womb. They're out of the question. Some places don't care about special need kids/adults. They either torture them or leave them. Not all countries and places have the same healthcare as the U.S or good places. Just saying.

 

So how about the children who are always in pain physically and mentally in adoption systems and foster homes. Is it okay to force life into them? (Also read while lurking)

Well, if you believe something is right or wrong, is it based on the location where you live? Is murder okay if I move somewhere where it is legal? I'm asking about to you specifically.

 

Why are they out of the question? You said a fetus wasn't a person until it could survive outside the womb without needing extra care... well, certain fetuses will NEVER be able to survive without extra care.

 

 

You would make life-decision, judgment calls based on potential worst case scenarios? IMO, the problems with the adoption system need to be addressed, but they have nothing to do with justifying abortion. Either the fetus is a person or it isn't, either it's wrong to kill a fetus or it isn't, the situation after birth is irrelevant.

[CrippledCrow]

Well, if you believe something is right or wrong, is it based on the location where you live? Is murder okay if I move somewhere where it is legal? I'm asking about to you specifically.

Different places have different cultures and views with things, and religion. And since I don't force my religious beliefs on others, that can't be used. For example, dogs are eaten in some countries. A lot of people here are trying to stop them and label them as animal abusers. Here we eat cows and poultry, some countries don't like that.

 

Why are they out of the question? You said a fetus wasn't a person until it could survive outside the womb without needing extra care... well, certain fetuses will NEVER be able to survive without extra care.

 

Already answered.

 

the problems with the adoption system need to be addressed, but they have nothing to do with justifying abortion.

Yea it does, people love to pull out the adoption card against it. So what happens until it's addressed and settled? Keep throwing more and more unwanted kids in it?

 

 

Edited February 5, 2012 by CrippledCrow

[philpot123]

Different places have different cultures and views with things, and religion. And since I don't force my religious beliefs on others, that can't be used. For example, dogs are eaten in some countries. A lot of people here are trying to stop them and label them as animal abusers. Here we eat cows and poultry, some countries don't like that.

 

 

 

Already answered.

I'm not asking you to force your beliefs on anyone, I'm asking you what you think.

 

You answered it by saying it's out of the question... I asked why it's out of the question? Other than the "other places" deal.

 

Yea it does, people love to pull out the adoption card against it. So what happens until it's addressed and settled? Keep throwing more and more unwanted kids in it?

 

Fix the adoption system, deal with abortion separately. They're two entirely different issues.

Edited February 5, 2012 by philpot123

[CrippledCrow]

I'm not asking you to force your beliefs on anyone, I'm asking you what you think.

 

You answered it by saying it's out of the question... I asked why it's out of the question? Other than the "other places" deal.

 

 

 

Fix the adoption system, deal with abortion separately. They're two entirely different issues.

Because they aren't fetuses who aren't consciously there, and force nutrients out from the mother for their needs, like a parasite, but I'd rather not use that label very much.

 

Adoption and abortion are linked at the moment because most kids are from mothers who didn't want them and instead of abortion, they get chucked in the system. What abortion "issue"? I see no issue. It's simple privacy and people getting into buisness that isn't theirs.

[Brite]

Fix the adoption system, deal with abortion separately. 

 

They're far from seperate when antis throw in adoption as an alter way of getting rid of an unwanted child.

 

They're two entirely different issues.

I fail to see the abortion issue. The only issue I see with the adoption is the loop holes and the majority of parents waiting for a white healthy child with no problems.

[diannethegeek]

My state of Kansas has another ridiculous anti-abortion law they're trying to pass. I am not a happy camper.

 

My Webpagehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/06/kansas-anti-abortion-bill_n_1258185.html

 

Kansas lawmakers have been given six days to consider one of the most sweeping state anti-abortion bills to be introduced.

 

A Kansas House committee is scheduled to take up a bill Wednesday that would exempt doctors from malpractice suits if they withheld medical information to prevent an abortion. The measure would also take away tax credits for abortion providers, remove tax deductions for the purchase of abortion-related insurance coverage and require women to hear the fetal heartbeat. The bill includes several provisions, which passed in other states and now face federal lawsuits. The bill would also require women be told about potential breast cancer risks from abortions, even though medical experts discount such a connection. (all emphasis mine)

[...]

Among the most contested provisions of the bill is the section that would exempt a doctor from a medical malpractice suit if a woman claims the physician withheld information about potential birth defects to prevent her from having an abortion. In addition, a woman would not be able to sue if she suffers health damage from a pregnancy as a result of information withheld from her to prevent an abortion. A wrongful death suit could still be filed, however, if the mother died.

[...]

With language stating that anesthesia is administered to fetuses during surgery and indicating that an unborn child feels pain, the Kansas bills calls for making 20 weeks the latest time for having an abortion, a decline from the 21-week point adopted last year. Bollier said she has professional objections to this requirement, saying that medical reports show that a fetus does not feel pain until 25 to 30 weeks and that the anesthesia is administered to prevent a rapid fetal heartbeat, which she said arises as a reflex to external stimulation.

[elderberrysyrup]

 

potential breast cancer risks from abortions, even though medical experts discount such a connection.

Bluh Bluh, and yet no malpractice from a doctor refusing to dispel ignorance in the patient. That's just a bad doctor.

Edited February 7, 2012 by soullesshuman

[Fuzzbucket]

The bill would also require women be told about potential breast cancer risks from abortions, even though medical experts discount such a connection. (all emphasis mine)

 

Is there ANY evidence for this ? Any at all ?

[elderberrysyrup]

Is there ANY evidence for this ? Any at all ?

If there were studies, they've been discredited. See here: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factshe...ion-miscarriage

 

In February 2003, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) convened a workshop of over 100 of the world’s leading experts who study pregnancy and breast cancer risk. Workshop participants reviewed existing population-based, clinical, and animal studies on the relationship between pregnancy and breast cancer risk, including studies of induced and spontaneous abortions. They concluded that having an abortion or miscarriage does not increase a woman’s subsequent risk of developing breast cancer.

[Fuzzbucket]

Good. That was what I thought - thanks.

 

ETA that link doesn't work

Edited February 7, 2012 by fuzzbucket

[Princess Artemis]

Governmental meddling on this subject, as with most, isn't that hot of an idea :/

[Kestra15]

If there were studies, they've been discredited. See here: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factshe...ion-miscarriage

 

2003 is a bit old, however as far as Amerylis and I aware from more recent studies there is still no connection.

[Brite]

Seems that they're just trying to scare women and guilt trip them into staying pregnant. Sickening.

 

For some women with the phobia, they're rather be dead than stay pregnant. And no one seems to care about the life of the women...

[NobleOwl]

That doesn't answer my question. If a fetus is not equatable to a baby, it SHOULD be okay to kill a fetus at ANY stage of the pregnancy. 1st trimester, 2nd, doesn't matter, right? It's not a baby. Yes or no? I'm talking EVERYTHING from early to late, so try to stop fixating on early.

The difference is whether there is a guarantee that the foetus can become a person or not. Once it can be nothing else, only emergency abortions should be considered. Why? Because then it can become nothing else, though biblically it is still not murder.

[Alpha1]

The difference is whether there is a guarantee that the foetus can become a person or not. Once it can be nothing else, only emergency abortions should be considered. Why? Because then it can become nothing else, though biblically it is still not murder.

Ever heard of Treeman?

[Dr. Paine]

Ever heard of Treeman?

Isn't that just because of some incredibly freaky-looking tumors, not him literally becoming a plant? He's still human, just... covered with tumors.

[Zephyrgirl]

Okay, i'm just wondering, but what are your thoughts on making a mother see an ultrasound before she gets an abortion? I think I saw something earlier where some one was dissagreeing with a bill that stated a woman should have to get an ultrasound before an abortion and I was just wondering why every one seemed to object to this.

Edited February 10, 2012 by Zephyrgirl

[7Deadly$ins]

Okay, i'm just wondering, but what are your thoughts on making a mother see an ultrasound before she gets an abortion? I think I saw something earlier where some one was dissagreeing with a bill that stated a woman should have to get an ultrasound before an abortion and I was just wondering why every one seemed to object to this.

Because it's a blatant way to cause emotional stress and "change" people's minds. It turns into "Look at your baby! Do you REALLY want us to kill it?" and puts unfair pressures on the woman.

[Rosedamai]

Okay, i'm just wondering, but what are your thoughts on making a mother see an ultrasound before she gets an abortion? I think I saw something earlier where some one was dissagreeing with a bill that stated a woman should have to get an ultrasound before an abortion and I was just wondering why every one seemed to object to this.

Because it can result in disproportional sex rates. There's already a massive amount of fetuses being aborted because they're girls. That's one of the reasons from my POV anyway. Even if you make it illegal there are still ways to get around it and such.

 

Edit to add: For example-"Oh, it's a boy. Nevermind the abortion, we'll just give birth!" or "Oh, it's a girl. Let's go on full speed with the abortion!"

Edited February 10, 2012 by ylangylang

[Zephyrgirl]

Because it's a blatant way to cause emotional stress and "change" people's minds. It turns into "Look at your baby! Do you REALLY want us to kill it?" and puts unfair pressures on the woman.

And yet you claim that you're pro-choice, meaning the mother should be able to see both sides of the argument and decide for herself? Also, how does it create emotional distress? After all, if a fetus is really no more than a tumor than it should be no different then showing some one with cancer their tumors and saying that they're going to remove it.

 

Can you really tell their gender when they're not developed enough to be human?

Edited February 10, 2012 by Zephyrgirl

[Rosedamai]

Can you really tell their gender when they're not developed enough to be human?

Well, speaking from facts, it's why those sex-related abortions were performed after they could determine the gender of the fetus. Risky, over the first trimester in some cases, I know, but it was done. And is still being performed. I've heard that by week 8 external genitalia begins to form, and by week 10 you can pretty much tell, which is at around 3 months or so, so yes it can be performed.

 

Edit to add: I think doctors nowadays are not allowed to tell the gender of their future baby to the prospective parents, but there are ways to get around them- for example, "You'd need to buy some stuff in pink"(for a girl) and so forth. As we're discussing all abortions, and not only the ones over the first trimester, I thought this factoid should be relevant, as you're referring to ultrasounds before abortions in all cases.

 

Edited for factual info and such.

Edited February 10, 2012 by ylangylang

[Kai]

Fix the adoption system, deal with abortion separately. They're two entirely different issues.

I hope to see extra funding and attention for adoption process with all the pro life campaigns.... but I don't see it.

[Alpha1]

Isn't that just because of some incredibly freaky-looking tumors, not him literally becoming a plant? He's still human, just... covered with tumors.

 

Obviously not a plant, but those warts do look bark-like. I only posted it jokingly.

 

Other examples are China's Elephant Man (seen one before in the San Diego area...) and people with large tumors. One of the largest was developing from a woman's ovary, and it weighed over 300 pounds. Doctors basically did a humanectomy. They killed "Terry Toma"!

 

However, I don't think the argument that "it will be a person, so draw a line" is a good one. Hypothetically, what if we could know with absolute certainty in the very early stages of pregnancy that the baby will be delivered healthy? Do we start protecting them very early?

 

 

[xhunter]

And yet you claim that you're pro-choice, meaning the mother should be able to see both sides of the argument and decide for herself? Also, how does it create emotional distress? After all, if a fetus is really no more than a tumor than it should be no different then showing some one with cancer their tumors and saying that they're going to remove it.

they do that for guilt so that the mother will feel so guilty that they will ignore there problems like not being able to afford them. and do you realize the price a ultra sound would cost? 250 and 500 dollars are common prices and if the funds reserved for abortions were taken away the poor mother would have to pay out of her pocket and if that is the reason for the abortion that is not good because she could not even afford the abortion to prevent her from going under.

 

that is just one more restriction on a woman that wants to abort so that it is made harder. i'm shore those mothers that could not afford a abortion if they were desperate enough would kill there own offspring when its born. i have a 13 old cat that we picked up off the street a year or so ago that did the same thing, she would pick the kittens up and leave them in the road. a mother that knows she can't take care of her offspring will do whatever it takes to protect them even if it is to kill them, its odd though it shows that she cares for them over her personal wants.

[diannethegeek]

In addition to what everyone else has said (and I agree that it's clearly meant to be punitive), many of those bills require women to come in for the ultrasound 24 hours before the procedure. That means an extra day off work, an extra day's worth of transportation and child care to arrange for, etc. For low income women, teenagers, or anyone of limited means this can become a real problem.