Abortion

[Rosedamai]

I didnt actually come here to debate because I'm not going to change my opinion since abortion goes against my religion. I just wanted you guys to know that the practicality of abortion is irrelevant to me and other anti-abortionists because of our moral beliefs.

I fail to see why your specific morals grounded on a specific set of beliefs should preside over othe people who do not share the same beliefs.

 

That's like a muslim saying that because pigs are unclean and thus immoral to eat, no one else should eat it either (sorry if this example offends any muslims out there.) I thought religious teachings were something specifically designed for people of said faith to follow, not everyone. To expand on this, pigs are actually quite smart and sentient. Link here

 

Your religious beliefs are not universal and thus should not be followed by everyone in the world. If you think otherwise, why does it have to be YOUR religious text that should be the dominant religious belief? What about Buddhism? Jainism? Paganism? Zoroaster?

 

The list is endless.

 

ETA:

Laws are based on morals, so really a world without morals is a world without law, and the world needs laws.

 

1. You hold up one clash with your worldview-that women should get abortions- and argue that anyone who says otherwise lacks morals and it will destroy the world? There are perfectly valid reasons based on morality as to why a woman should have access to abortions. Plenty of them can be found in this thread.

 

2. Laws are NOT based on morality. That would mean that there would be a law, say, that requires that while riding a bus, subway, etc, anyone who does not give seats to pensioners, disabled people, pregnant women, etc should get a fine. Ditto with speaking loudly in public places. To reflect the general consensus of the public, maybe, but not on morals. And to add to this confusion, there are actually two major type of legal system, the common law system and the civil law system, and so in each system the concept of making a law is completrly different. Add other, less practiced legal systems, such as customary law and bijuridicial law, and you are in for one hell of a mix. BTW, the only legal system that actively incorporates morals from a specific religion in it, as what you suggest, is the Islamuc law, or Sharia.

Edited March 20, 2012 by ylangylang

[Spyder]

There is a huge difference between murdering a human being who is recognised as an individual by law, with a birth date and an identity, and 'murdering', if you will, a clump of cells that has the potential to be a human. That's like getting upset because people eat seeds instead of planting them and letting them grow into trees.

 

 

 

Abortion has been around for thousands of years, just not in the form it's in currently. Also, you're forgetting that sex is also a natural thing.

 

As for the so called 'consequences' of having sex, yes, as a grown woman I am well aware of the possibility of pregnancy if and when I choose to have it. However, on the flipside, if I am taking birth control and making sure my partner does as well, yet still concieve? How is that my fault? I did everything I could to prevent it and still got pregnant anyway (and one could argue against my will, as well).

 

So what should I do then? Be forced to throw my life away and have the kid? And before you mention adoption, it doesn't exist in my country.

 

Sex is a nessacary part of a healthy partnership. Old people have sex even though they can't have kids anymore. Is what they're doing unnatural to you?

 

 

 

So's abortion.

 

 

 

If you don't think it's right to take away a person's future, then you're advocating for taking away billions of woman's futures by forcing them to give birth against their will. And I hope you're against the Death Penalty as well.

 

 

 

Numbers 5:12-14

Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them: If any man's wife go aside, and act unfaithfully against him, and a man lie with her carnally, and it be hid from the eyes of her husband, she being defiled secretly, and there be no witness against her, neither she be taken in the act; and the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she be defiled in conception; or if the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she be not defiled in conception;... [skipping some of it which just explains about the offering)

 

Numbers 5: 16-24

And the priest shall bring her near, and set her before HaShem. And the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel; and of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle the priest shall take, and put it into the water. And the priest shall set the woman before HaShem, and let the hair of the woman's head go loose, and put the meal-offering of memorial in her hands, which is the meal-offering of jealousy; and the priest shall have in his hand the water of bitterness that causeth the curse against fruit of the womb.

And the priest shall cause her to swear, and shall say unto the woman: 'If no man have lain with thee, and if thou hast not gone aside to uncleanness, being under thy husband, be thou free from this water of bitterness that causeth the curse;

but if thou hast gone aside, being under thy husband, and if thou be defiled, and some man have lain with thee besides thy husband--and be by him then the priest shall cause the woman to swear with the oath of cursing, and the priest shall say unto the woman--the HaShem make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when HaShem doth make thy thigh to fall away, and thy belly to swell; and this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, and make thy belly to swell, and thy fruit to fall away'; and the woman shall say: 'Amen, Amen.'

And the priest shall write these curses in a scroll, and he shall blot them out into the water of bitterness.

And he shall make the woman drink the water of bitterness that causeth the curse; and the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her and become bitter.

 

[blah blah ritual]

 

Numbers 5:27

And when he hath made her drink the water, then it shall come to pass, if she be defiled, and have acted unfaithfully against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her fruit shall fall away in blood; and the woman shall be a curse among her people.

 

It's pretty cut and dry explanation about "Hey, the herbs used to consecrate the temple are abortifacents, and here's how you induce herbal abortion if someone cheats,"

 

FYI, that's a direct translation from the Hebrew Bible, so it's far more accurate than the other english translations.

I may be mistaken, but I believe there are more successful pregnancies than miscarriages. Really, life isnt something to gamble with, so killing something based on the small chance of it turning out to be a miscarriage anyway, is not a good justification for having an abortion.

And trees are totally different from human beings.

 

Even so, back then people were more responsible and I'm sure there were more risks to having an abortion like that. Otherwise, that just proves the point that people can live without having sex as proved by the premarital sex rate back in the early 1900's.

 

Having sex is like gambling. You know that condoms can break and you know that birth control can fail sometimes yet you still have sex (gamble). You cant lose if you dont have sex, just like you cant lose if you dont gamble. If you have sex and you know of the possible consequences, than it is totally you and your partner's fault if you get pregnant.

 

You're not being forced to throw your life away. Just dont get yourself pregnant. I dont think there's any excuse for a woman who has a partner, is not disabled, and not poor to abort a baby or give it up for adoption. That is just extremely selfish and irresponsible. People today think it's a necessity to have sex. It isnt.

 

I'm all for sex after marriage, but not premarital sex.

 

... how is abortion natural?

 

You act like getting pregnant is not a decision that that woman made. You have to have sex to get pregnant, and if it's completely consentual than she and hoefully her partner, should take responsibility for their decision.

 

Well that's a different context. In the passages it says that if a woman cheats on her husband, that the baby should be aborted, and that's probably because adultery is against the ten commandments.

 

Having irresponsible sex just because you know you can abort the baby is a different thing.

 

EDIT:

 

@ylanglang: You posted while I was replying. I'll reply to you when I get the time.

Edited March 20, 2012 by Spyder

[Rosedamai]

You're not being forced to throw your life away. Just dont get yourself pregnant. I dont think there's any excuse for a woman who has a partner, is not disabled, and not poor to abort a baby or give it up for adoption. That is just extremely selfish and irresponsible. People today think it's a necessity to have sex. It isnt.

In my country a single mother can end up getting disowned and unable to find a job anywhere, even at McDonalds. I would say that yes that's throwing your life away.

 

And no, we are not "totally different" from trees. 50% of your genes can be found in a banana.

 

And actually some animals can induce abortions by themselves, so...

[DarkLadyNyara]

Your whole argument doesnt make sense. That's like a serial killer arguing that he's sick of people's morals and laws getting in the way of his murdering.

Because killing an actual person is just like killing something that lacks the ability to think, feel, or suffer. Or, y'know, live without using the body of another.

 

Laws are based on morals, so really a world without morals is a world without law, and the world needs laws.

Not always. Not even most of the time. And religious morals are a really bad basis for laws.

 

If you look back a hundred years ago, the premarital sex rate was extremely low.

Citation Needed.

 

Just not having sex is an option.

*facepalm*

 

Abortion isnt a natural thing and was not around for a long time

Citation Needed.

 

And btw- medicine, agriculture, and a whole host of other things we rely on aren't natural either. Are you going to argue that antibiotics are immoral?

 

I know this is an overused argument, but what about the baby's rights?

What about them?

 

Even if I thought an embryo or fetus was a person and in possession of rights (for the record, I don't), no person has a right to use the body of another without consent. You can't be forced to donate a kidney to a dying relative. The state can't require you to donate blood, plasma or bone marrow (despite the procedures being far safer and less invasive than pregnancy.) Hell, your corpse can't be harvested of lifesaving materials without prior consent. Why are pregnant women seen as less worthy of protection that the dead?

 

"For a society, which respects the rights of one individual, to sink its teeth into the jugular vein or neck of one of its members and suck from it sustenance for another member, is revolting to our hard-wrought concept of jurisprudence. [Forcible] extraction of living body tissue causes revulsion to the judicial mind. Such would raise the specter of the swastika and the inquisition, reminiscent of the horrors this portends."- from the decision in the McFall v Shimp case.

 

ETA-

 

I may be mistaken, but I believe there are more successful pregnancies than miscarriages.

Yeah, you are. At least by current estimates. (It's just that most occur before the woman is even aware of the pregnancy.)

 

Otherwise, that just proves the point that people can live without having sex as proved by the premarital sex rate back in the early 1900's.

And again- Citation Needed.

 

You act like getting pregnant is not a decision that that woman made. You have to have sex to get pregnant, and if it's completely consentual than she and hoefully her partner, should take responsibility for their decision.

Aborting an unwanted pregnancy is taking responsibility.

 

Well that's a different context. In the passages it says that if a woman cheats on her husband, that the baby should be aborted, and that's probably because adultery is against the ten commandments.

But if abortion is "just like murder", why would that context make a difference?

Edited March 20, 2012 by DarkLadyNyara

[Syaoransbear]

You're not being forced to throw your life away. Just dont get yourself pregnant.

 

Women can't 'get themselves pregnant'. Women don't have semen and can't impregnate themselves. Men impregnate them, or a doctor does if a man has donated sperm. So maybe you should tell men to 'stop getting women pregnant', because then it might make more sense.

 

 

I dont think there's any excuse for a woman who has a partner, is not disabled, and not poor to abort a baby or give it up for adoption. That is just extremely selfish and irresponsible.

 

Well that's a different context. In the passages it says that if a woman cheats on her husband, that the baby should be aborted, and that's probably because adultery is against the ten commandments.

 

Having irresponsible sex just because you know you can abort the baby is a different thing.

 

So you find it okay to abort in some scenarios, like a woman cheating on her husband and becoming pregnant by another man? Or by being poor, disabled, or single?

 

It doesn't matter if a baby is the result of rape, irresponsible(unprotected) sex, or protected sex. It doesn't matter what the woman's lifestyle or situation is. It's either murder, or it isn't.

 

The government doesn't force people to give blood or organs to save the life of another, they don't even harvest organs from DEAD BODIES if they aren't organ donors, yet they would force a woman to give up rights to her body to save the life of an unwanted fetus. Why does the baby have more rights to the mother's body than the mother? Why do dead bodies have more rights to their bodies than pregnant woman?

 

Also, I'm getting married in August, but I don't want children. Should I abstain from sex for the rest of my life and never consummate my marriage?

 

Sex is not just about reproducing. We aren't animals.

[skinst]

I may be mistaken, but I believe there are more successful pregnancies than miscarriages. Really, life isnt something to gamble with, so killing something based on the small chance of it turning out to be a miscarriage anyway, is not a good justification for having an abortion.

And trees are totally different from human beings.

Miscarriage is the involuntary death of a zygote/fetus. Abortion is the induced death of a zygote/fetus. Personally I find abortion more likeable, since I, you know, get to chose what hosts my body and when.

 

Trees are still living things.

 

Even so, back then people were more responsible and I'm sure there were more risks to having an abortion like that. Otherwise, that just proves the point that people can live without having sex as proved by the premarital sex rate back in the early 1900's.

 

24.6% of abortions are performed on married woman. :/

 

Having sex is like gambling. You know that condoms can break and you know that birth control can fail sometimes yet you still have sex (gamble). You cant lose if you dont have sex, just like you cant lose if you dont gamble. If you have sex and you know of the possible consequences, than it is totally you and your partner's fault if you get pregnant.

 

You're not being forced to throw your life away. Just dont get yourself pregnant. I dont think there's any excuse for a woman who has a partner, is not disabled, and not poor to abort a baby or give it up for adoption. That is just extremely selfish and irresponsible. People today think it's a necessity to have sex. It isnt.

 

I'm all for sex after marriage, but not premarital sex.

 

You say you're for sex after marriage, but what happens if a woman gets pregnant after marriage, and doesn't want to have a baby at that time? Marriage doesn't automatically give men a liscense to impregnate their wives, nor does it mean that the couple even want kids at that point, either.

 

And yes, woman have had to throw their lives away because they've gotten pregnant and either not had access to abortion, it was against their beliefs, or were pressured into not having one. And it's so simple for you to say 'don't get pregnant', but what about the men who tamper with the woman's birth control? What about the men who refuse to wear a condom? What about the men who also act just as irresponsible?

 

I do not see you bringing up the other gender (which, btw, is just as responsible for the pregnancy as the woman) in this arguement. What is your stance on men, or should they get of scott free? :/

 

... how is abortion natural?

 

nat·u·ral/ˈnaCHərəl/ Adjective: Existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.

 

Abortion exists naturally in nature. Animals abort their offspring it they do not want it for various reasons. Abortifacts also exist in nature that woman from the stone ages ate to cause miscarriages. It's a natural process that has simply been improved by human technology.

 

You act like getting pregnant is not a decision that that woman made. You have to have sex to get pregnant, and if it's completely consentual than she and hoefully her partner, should take responsibility for their decision.

 

Because as I've already pointed out, sex isn't simply about making babies.

 

Well that's a different context. In the passages it says that if a woman cheats on her husband, that the baby should be aborted, and that's probably because adultery is against the ten commandments.

 

You stated you were against abortion because you were a Catholic. Abortion exists in your bible and no one has an issue with it. Therefore, you are going against your beliefs by being against it.

 

Having irresponsible sex just because you know you can abort the baby is a different thing.

 

What constitutes as 'irresponsible' to you? I made a hypothetical situation where the couple used contraception properly, yet that's still not okay to you? I find that a bit hard to swallow.

[prairiecrow]

I'm going to just throw this out there, since a few people seem to view abortion as something women do casually because it's as easy as (or requires less thought than) using contraception...

 

Abortion is not easy. It is not simple. It is an invasive medical procedure with risks that (at least in my experience) doctors and clinics make women well aware of. I had two abortions in my early 20s, both the result of contraceptive failure while on medications associated with severe birth defects, and neither of them was a walk in the park. The preparation beforehand to dilate the cervix was highly unpleasant, and the procedures themselves completely drained me.

 

But both were preferable to the outcome of remaining pregnant, even setting aside my crippling and suicidal pregnancy phobia: bringing forth a child who would almost certainly have been badly deformed, AND being unable to provide that child with the quality of life they deserved.

 

Abortion isn't easy. But sometimes it's the best option available.

 

[elderberrysyrup]

I may be mistaken, but I believe there are more successful pregnancies than miscarriages. Really, life isnt something to gamble with, so killing something based on the small chance of it turning out to be a miscarriage anyway, is not a good justification for having an abortion.

And trees are totally different from human beings.

 

Even so, back then people were more responsible and I'm sure there were more risks to having an abortion like that. Otherwise, that just proves the point that people can live without having sex as proved by the premarital sex rate back in the early 1900's.

 

Having sex is like gambling. You know that condoms can break and you know that birth control can fail sometimes yet you still have sex (gamble). You cant lose if you dont have sex, just like you cant lose if you dont gamble. If you have sex and you know of the possible consequences, than it is totally you and your partner's fault if you get pregnant.

 

You're not being forced to throw your life away. Just dont get yourself pregnant. I dont think there's any excuse for a woman who has a partner, is not disabled, and not poor to abort a baby or give it up for adoption. That is just extremely selfish and irresponsible. People today think it's a necessity to have sex. It isnt.

 

I'm all for sex after marriage, but not premarital sex.

 

... how is abortion natural?

 

You act like getting pregnant is not a decision that that woman made. You have to have sex to get pregnant, and if it's completely consentual than she and hoefully her partner, should take responsibility for their decision.

 

Well that's a different context. In the passages it says that if a woman cheats on her husband, that the baby should be aborted, and that's probably because adultery is against the ten commandments.

 

Having irresponsible sex just because you know you can abort the baby is a different thing.

 

EDIT:

 

@ylanglang: You posted while I was replying. I'll reply to you when I get the time.

Okay. Sorry to jump on the bandwagon, but let me get some sources.

 

Rabbits will abort their young and absorb them into their bodies when under stress. This is considered natural, as the mothers will not give birth to a situation that may be bad for their young. This is especially common in overpopulated warrens or malnutrition. In other animals, miscarriage is very common.

 

The premarital sex rate can easily be explained by the simple fact that there were other cultural pressures in the early 1900s that made the data unreliable. Besides...

Access to abortion continued, despite bans enacted on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean, as the disguised, but nonetheless open, advertisement of abortion services, abortion-inducing devices, and abortifacient medicines in the Victorian era would seem to suggest.[53] Apparent print ads of this nature were found in both the United States,[54] the United Kingdom,[3] and Canada.[55] A British Medical Journal writer who replied to newspaper ads peddling relief to women who were "temporarily indisposed" in 1868 found that over half of them were in fact promoting abortion.[3]

Source

 

Also, abortion has been dated since ancient times. It's a very well known phenomenon. In fact, a miscarriage, which is basically an abortion, happens similar to 30% of all pregnancies in humans. Source This is considered perfectly natural for humans. As another note, the 'natural' argument should no longer apply to humans. We use unnatural substances in our everyday lives. Computers, cars, pain medication, soaps, etc. The fact you're using a computer should invalidate your own naturalistic argument.

 

To say a couple shouldn't have sex for your own personal morality confuses me. You may look down upon them for having sex, and then aborting, but it takes a different leap of logic to say that your morality should apply to millions of couples you don't know. I'm not here to attack your own beliefs, those are personal for you. However, I don't see where you make the distinction that your personal beliefs should apply to other strangers. Could you outline that for me?

Edited March 20, 2012 by soullesshuman

[Fuzzbucket]

I am very very old.

 

My mother is even older. HER mother assured HER that it was unthinkable in her day (that would be the late 1800s) to marry someone you hadn't - checked out - first. So - maybe premarital is just something that wasn't talked about, rather than something that didn't happen.

 

And there are LOADS of recipes and techniques for procuring abortions, right back to 2500 BC at least. That's way PRE-CHRISTIAN. So the Christian thing that it was always perceived as wrong and they are right just does not hold up. It wasn't even declared non-OK for Roman Catholics until Pope Sixtus V took against it in the 16th century.

 

Laws based on religious beliefs masquerading as general ethics are profoundly wrong.

[hazeh]

Rabbits will abort their young and absorb them into their bodies when under stress. This is considered natural, as the mothers will not give birth to a situation that may be bad for their young. This is especially common in overpopulated warrens or malnutrition. In other animals, miscarriage is very common.

 

Many bird species also kill off their own fledglings/eggs if conditions are too hard to raise a certain amount of young. So I'd consider that a natural abortion in its own right, too.

 

Just thought I'd add that in there too. c:

[yaoi1fangirl]

And there are LOADS of recipes and techniques for procuring abortions, right back to 2500 BC at least.

I remember seeing a "history of sex" on the history channel a few years back. Almost all ancient Egyptians old enough to have sex had multiple partners (unless married) and a local plant was a popular type of birth control that worked so well they harvested it to extinction. Not exactly abortion but I would wager they had methods of abortion since sex and birth control were so common. Its not a very far stretch.

 

Abortion and birth control has been around for thousands of years, it wasn't until the rise of certain religions that it became taboo. Its natural for humans (and other animals) to choose if they can raise a child in an environment they choose optimal and if they deem it a bad time for offspring they will induce abortions/miscarriages.

[elderberrysyrup]

I remember seeing a "history of sex" on the history channel a few years back. Almost all ancient Egyptians old enough to have sex had multiple partners (unless married) and a local plant was a popular type of birth control that worked so well they harvested it to extinction. Not exactly abortion but I would wager they had methods of abortion since sex and birth control were so common. Its not a very far stretch.

 

Abortion and birth control has been around for thousands of years, it wasn't until the rise of certain religions that it became taboo. Its natural for humans (and other animals) to choose if they can raise a child in an environment they choose optimal and if they deem it a bad time for offspring they will induce abortions/miscarriages.

You may be referring to the Silphium.

[Ruins]

With the "It's unnatural!" arguments, this Sir Terry Pratchett quote comes to mind...

'Not natural, in my view, sah. Not in favor of unnatural things.'

Vetinari looked perplexed. 'You mean, you eat your meat raw and sleep in a tree?'

[gravity404]

I honestly didn't (still kinda don't) like the idea of abortion. It really took me awhile to get used to the idea of technically killing someone. However, I logically debated this in my head instead of emotionally, and came out of the Pro-Choice end. There are so many situations that people could be in that we don't even understand until we're in them ourselves. Abortion is a huge gray area and there are many reasons for an abortion that are very logical. If the family cannot support the child, whether it be financially or emotionally (many times it's both) do you really want that child to have to grow up in an environment like that? There are enough poor children and families in this country, and I think if abortion were illegal it would add to that number. Yes, you can put the kid up for adoption, but how much better off would he/she be? Many foster care systems are already overflowing with children. Also, many children that aren't immediately adopted have problems later in life.

Then, there's the parents. My biggest issue with the pro-life stance is rape. If a woman is raped, I believe it should be her right to have an abortion if she so pleases. Aside from that, many of the women/girls who would want abortions are underage. This ties into another issue we're dealing with (especially the US): contraception. A lot of kids and teens are not educated enough about sex and contraception in schools, which then leads to underage sex without protection. Then these teenagers become pregnant and have to drop out of school to take care of the child. Often times it becomes solely the mother's responsibility and the father is left out of the picture. Is it really fair to do that to someone who is really just a child themselves? If we aren't providing contraception as part of health care benefits and educating children more about sex and how to protect themselves, then how are we going to deal with all of the underage pregnancies without abortion? Because you know that plenty of teens are going to have sex no matter what...*stops self from being redundant and getting into a long rant about contraception*

 

Okay, it's time that I get off of my soap box now. Sorry for the length everyone.

[Thunderwing]

I believe it is morally wrong to force a person to use their body to benefit another person. Period.

 

Why should a woman be forced, against her will, to use her body to support a fetus? You would never consider forcing a person to donate blood or an organ (even if they will suffer no long term harm from it) to support or save the life of another person.

 

That said, I do NOT support such extremes as partial birth abortions, where the baby is delivered but killed before it can draw breath. Since at that stage of development the infant is, in fact, capable of living on it's own.

[Syaoransbear]

I believe it is morally wrong to force a person to use their body to benefit another person. Period.

 

Why should a woman be forced, against her will, to use her body to support a fetus?  You would never consider forcing a person to donate blood or an organ (even if they will suffer no long term harm from it) to support or save the life of another person.

 

That said, I do NOT support such extremes as partial birth abortions, where the baby is delivered but killed before it can draw breath. Since at that stage of development the infant is, in fact, capable of living on it's own.

Agreed.

 

They don't even force criminals who may cause that organ damage or blood loss to donate their organs/blood. If I went and stabbed my mom in the kidneys and I was a perfect match and could donate a kidney to her, I wouldn't be forced to do it even if she would die if I didn't.

 

I just think a woman's right to control her body is so much more important than the murder/not murder argument. A person should be allowed to live until their life becomes dependent on taking away the rights of another.

[Obscure_Trash]

That said, I do NOT support such extremes as partial birth abortions, where the baby is delivered but killed before it can draw breath. Since at that stage of development the infant is, in fact, capable of living on it's own.

Just something to maybe make you think (warning for language in comments): http://www.thinkatheist.com/forum/topics/t...rom-an-abortion

 

The 1st trimester and early 2nd trimester abortions are most frequently done as elective abortions for unwanted pregnancies. I don’t like to do elective terminations after 22 weeks because of the viability issue. Late 2nd trimester pregnancies are very different.

 

Virtually all of the late 2nd trimester abortions I do are for fetal anomalies, fetal deaths, and for maternal health reasons. These poor souls really wanted their babies. They are in deep mourning because of the loss of their children. They come in deep grief, many times feeling guilty because they are “killing” their loved and wanted children. They worry if the baby will feel the abortion, and they don’t want their child to suffer.

 

[...]

 

2nd trimester abortions are very different. The later procedure is much more difficult and riskier for the mom, hence the limited number of us who actually do them. They are also unpleasant, because the procedure (dilation and evacuation, D&E) involves pulling out the baby in pieces. That all being said, the procedure (in the hands of an expert) is much safer than inducing the delivery, and has a much lower complication rate that the induction does. Many of these poor parents don’t want to be awake for the birth of the child they are going to lose, and just prefer to lose the child under general anesthesia.

 

I’ve never done the famous “D&X” (dilation and extraction, “partial birth abortion”) procedure. This was the one that was outlawed because opponents thought it was too horrible of a procedure. The concept was to try to deliver the baby intact, but the brain matter was suctioned out to allow the delivery of the head through the cervix. This procedure was designed so that the parents of the child could hold an intact baby, back of the head covered up, after a surgical abortion.

 

Sorry if I misunderstood your point (or you were talking about those not included in 'virtually all')! Ignore me if this is irrelevant.

[xhunter]

none of this is to offend but.

 

And trees are totally different from human beings.

 

Having sex is like gambling. You know that condoms can break and you know that birth control can fail sometimes yet you still have sex (gamble). You cant lose if you dont have sex, just like you cant lose if you dont gamble. If you have sex and you know of the possible consequences, than it is totally you and your partner's fault if you get pregnant.

 

You're not being forced to throw your life away.  I dont think there's any excuse for a woman who has a partner, is not disabled, and not poor to abort a baby or give it up for adoption. That is just extremely selfish and irresponsible. People today think it's a necessity to have sex. It isnt.

 

I'm all for sex after marriage, but not premarital sex.

 

... how is abortion natural?

 

Well that's a different context. In the passages it says that if a woman cheats on her husband, that the baby should be aborted, and that's probably because adultery is against the ten commandments.

 

Having irresponsible sex just because you know you can abort the baby is a different thing.

1. trees are more important than the human race. their the reason there is a livable atmosphere for oxygen breathing creatures. if humans and there things vanished over night there would be less problem other races would have to worry about. if trees vanished there would not be enough oxygen and things would die in large number, i think if most creatures understood they would want humans to vanish before trees. so yes there is a lot of deference between human and trees though it does not lean in human favor. so sense trees are more important that would only make sense that it should be illegle to destroy a possible sampling which would grow up and give us more oxygen, and fruits if their that type of tree, this would be bad for people that would eat fruits because they would have to harvest every seed and plant them if not give them away to be planted by someone else. people don't realize, animals in their own right don't have to give a flying rat tail about human life because of the misjustace they have been give, talking about wild animals and mass market farm animals.

 

2. yes sex is like gambling but have you thought about it might be the males fault, a egg has to have sperm in order to become the possibility of a fetus. some women ever have sex but make the mistake of sleeping in the same bed as a male (rape when the woman is asleep.) not every human has the desire to mate, i'm one and very happy that i don't have to think about having sex, and when they want a companion to love and stay close to, share bed, they sometimes have this problem. but even if you don't want sex or a child you sometimes get pregnant and you don't always know how it happens till there is a dna check. so its not the women fault if their preg. in this manner at all. takes a egg 'and' sperm to make a baby.

 

3. a woman forced to carry the child is throwing her life away if she can't handle it or the male refuses to take the child, adoption is horrible i knew people that where adopted. (what if the partner bails on her and the child and doesn't want to pay child suport? adoption is horrible and most of the children are on happy pills so suicide attempts are brought down. any loving mother would kill her child before letting there children suffer under those conditions mentally and physicality, it would make a difference if people were not after the perfect little healthy baby.) what is selfish and irresponsible is wanting others to suffer for something that you believe when it can never happen to you. irresponsible is ignoring the problems caused by those things that don't effect you.

 

4. what if you just want a partner and don't believe in the unnecessary, money consuming weddings just to say your together? i know people that have been together for years without getting married, some of them have children. marriage is man made, cavemen don't have them and animals don't care for them.

 

5. abortion happens in nature but you will read that form the other reply to your comment so i will not waste my or your time restating what everyone else has said already. anyways next?

 

6.what if the male cheats on the woman with another woman? should she be forced into a abortion or does your god favor males thoughts over a woman?

 

7. that would make the man irresponsible to have sex too, see above comments.

 

and to tell you the blunt truth. males should have no say about abortions sense they can't produce children from their body so they should not worry about it, if they want a child then go to a willing mother. and for females that are against it, good for them they don't have to have one because making abortion lawful is for those that know there is a place to go if they need this hard decision made. i think the very first post goes over the problems on making abortion illegle, please read it if you haven't we don't like to have to keep repeating that data over and over. i don't mean to sound harsh but it's annoying having to go over that data when it was stated already on the forum. in a debate you have to see other peoples thoughs and not just your own it would be pointless for a debate if no one would hear others out. it's just like little children with them shouting at the top of their lungs the same thing over and over.

Edited March 21, 2012 by xhunter

[DarkLadyNyara]

That said, I do NOT support such extremes as partial birth abortions, where the baby is delivered but killed before it can draw breath. Since at that stage of development the infant is, in fact, capable of living on it's own.

"Partial birth abortion" is a political term, not a medical one. And the number of post-viability abortions performed is actually very low, and they're generally only done when medically necessary, or in the case of severe birth defects.

 

I just think a woman's right to control her body is so much more important than the murder/not murder argument. A person should be allowed to live until their life becomes dependent on taking away the rights of another.

 

QFT.

[Vhale]

Apologies for the drive-by linking. But I've been harassing my sister, who is a registered Republican, about Santorum for awhile. Needless to say, she and her husband are rather horrified about the current state of the primaries. But, they still want to vote Republican or not at all. That's a big part of the problem here. It's very similar to what happened with Prohibition. An extremist group got their candidates into the primaries and won them, because not so many people vote. Then everyone else votes straight party ticket. And bam, you get something completely crazy, like Prohibition. The same thing is playing out now with abortion, birth control, health care, immigration. And there does seem to be a correlation about how all this is happening at once.

 

I also think it's important for people to understand that this anti-abortion legislation does NOT just affect abortion. It's affecting health care, education, insurance, privacy laws.

 

Also, don't try too hard to make this into a men vrs women issue. It's not. It's a Evangelical/Catholic vrs Not issue. There are plenty of men that are happy to see their ladies get good health care.

 

Anyways, the email and links.

 

First link deals with ALEC. Apparently it's an elite conservative organization that is 40 years old, that specializes in writing legislation for state to pass. Which seems to be where a lot of these bills are coming from. They are similar because the same group wrote them.

Who and What is ALEC?

 

One of the more worrying Anti-Abortion bills. I remember the clinic shootings when I was in school. It was ugly.

Tennessee's Bill

From the article:

"The Life Defense Act of 2012, sponsored by state Rep. Matthew Hill (R-Jonesboro), mandates that the Tennessee Department of Health make detailed demographic information about every woman who has an abortion available to the public, including her age, race, county, marital status, education level, number of children, the location of the procedure and how many times she has been pregnant. Each report would also have to include the name of the doctor who performed the procedure."

 

Georgia's Bill that would require a women to carry a dead baby to term because, Cows and Pigs have to do that.

Georgia's Bill

 

Arizona's bill that would require a woman seeking birth control to provide detailed medical information to her employer. The same bill repeals a law making it illegal for an employer to fire a woman for taking birth control. Yes, this includes married women.

Arizona's Bill

 

Idaho's Bill, which does not include an exemption for victims of rape and incest. The lawmaker pushing the bill is concerned women will lie about being raped and use that as an excuse to get an abortion.

Idaho's Bill

 

New Hampshire's Bill that forces Doctor's to hand out information that is not medically sound, IE linking abortion to breast cancer

New Hampshire's Bill

 

Pennsylvania's Bill requiring a transvaginal ultrasound: The lawmaker explains that if women don't like it, "they should just close their eyes".

Pennsylvania's Bill

 

Wisconson's legislature, speaks about being against divorce in all cases, even spousal abuse.

Wisconsin Foolishness

And his colleague has a bill in the running to make being a Single Parent a cause of child abuse.

Wisconsin Part Deux

I included these bits about Wisconsin because I think it shows how... freakish these bills are. On the one hand, we've got a group moving against birth control and abortion. And at the same time, they want to stigmatize, if not criminalize, single mothers and divorce.

 

Explanation over the current partisan divide over renewing the Violence Against Women Act. A bill that never had a partisan divide before.

http://www.salon.com/2012/03/20/the_coming..._against_women/

 

Did I even mention Texas robbing 70 million out of it's women's health funding? Then losing all their federal funding?

 

And Romney has been very clear, he will kill all funding to Planned Parenthood. So there is more of that to come.

Romney, vote for the other guy

 

4.28.12

There is a plan for a nationwide rally against the current crop of laws. Much like the Million Mom March. The organizing is at http://www.wearewomenmarch.net/

 

And just for fun, Rick Santorum. What's horrifying is how high this man is in the polls.

Who cares about unemployment?

Rick doesn't care about unemployment. Because he feels it's more important to combat porn and make that illegal. That does rather follow the current crop of bills doesn't it? I'd say he's the most honest candidate on the trail.

Rick Vrs Porn

 

I suspect that's more reading than most want to do. Just remember, voting in local elections is important! This includes primaries!

Register to Vote!

 

Voter registration link provided by http://www.lwv.org/

 

Banners about the march can also be found here:

http://www.wearewoman.us/2012/02/unite-aga...omen-press.html

[Marrionetta]

See, things like mandating gestation sounds an awful lot like cruel and unusual punishment. Enforced gestation and delivery sounds like a tool of nazi germany. >: I am very very afraid about imposing restrictions on abortion if it means people will be forced to bear children in certain circumstances.

[kiffren]

See, things like mandating gestation sounds an awful lot like cruel and unusual punishment. Enforced gestation and delivery sounds like a tool of nazi germany. >: I am very very afraid about imposing restrictions on abortion if it means people will be forced to bear children in certain circumstances.

How is this a cruel and unusual punishment?

[Kai]

You have to ask why forcing people to carry foetuses is cruel and unusual punishment?

[Fuzzbucket]

There are so many situations that people could be in that we don't even understand until we're in them ourselves.

This is the absolute nub of it ALL.

 

*applauds*

[TikindiDragon]

How is this a cruel and unusual punishment?

For someone like myself - who hates the body they were born with to start with, and is also a pregnancy-phobe - I can tell you it would be an utter nightmare. If forced to carry a child there's a good chance I'd become suicidally depressed. I'd call the "cruel and unusual punishment" myself.