Jump to content

Abortion Debate


Nuclear

Recommended Posts

I regret to say that as presently constituted, this US Supreme Court may hold this legislation to be unconstitutional. This case and the pending "Pledge" matter, i.e., the 9th Circuit decisions, are causing some to quietly question if the time has not come for a major change in our Constitutional system.

Thirty years of Judges pre-empting the legislative functions have lead to the current perversion of the "Advise and Consent" function of the US Senate by Democratic fanatics - and I use that word advisedly. After all, if you can have the Judicial Branch hijack the functions of the Legislative, why can't the Legislative hijack the functions of the Executive Branch?

At a minimum, "Life Tenure" will be removed from the Federal Judiciary by Constitutional Amendment. The major open question will be to retain the present system of appointment or go to overall election of Judges to mandate control by the people. I suspect the better course (lesser of two evils) will be popular election for a term of years.

The vast majority of people in America are religious and by our religious, moral and ethical views we believe abortion to be murder. We could be wrong and our commitment to religious freedom makes us hesitate to ban abortion as this would be the imposition of our religious views on another. But I believe we have reached a cusp, a decision that we can not allow what we consider to be murder to continue.

With that decision comes a responsibility to those unwillingly pregnant. And to those who don't wish to become pregnant.

We must make certain that every woman who is fertile knows and has freely available 'morning after' pills. You do all know that certain birth control pills if taken for three or four days after unprotected sex prevent conception, correct? I doubt it as this seems to be rather restricted information, and it shouldn't be! If there is no conception, there is no abortion necessary.

Let me request some expert help on this one: KK, I presume you are reading this thread, would you post some information on the types of programs a responsible society would create and support to allow those women pregnant options other than abortion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 377
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Rather the aborted baby has a face, if you will, and could live independently from the birth mother.

well living independantly is a vauge term.

sure, if you took me out at 7 months, and hooked me up to a dozen machines, yeah you could force me to live. but premies have long term health problems, and its more like you can force a 7month baby to live, but it cannot in the natural sense of the term, survive away from its mother.

i still dont see why how the procedure is done is important. neither option is pleasent nor reasonably civilized if you ask me. as long as you are not causing unneeded suffering the end cause is ending the pregnany. the details are just a way for both sides to use medical terminology to obscure the real ethical debate.

either its right for a mother to end her pregnancy, or its not. removed from causing real physical suffering, nothing else matters.

i can only conclude its unavoidable, adn thus would cause more suffering by forcing unwilling women to find thier own methods to not have a child. many of which i suspect woudl involved abandoning, or starving the child after pregnancy. which would be more cruel in many ways.

SirRiff

SirRiff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i can only conclude its unavoidable, adn thus would cause more suffering by forcing unwilling women to find thier own methods to not have a child.

72% of women who procured an abortion would not have done so had it been illegal, according to David C. Reardon in Aborted Women: Silent No More. That's not an absolute, but it represents hundreds of thousands of lives. Furthermore, just because something happens anyway is no reason to decriminalise it. Murder and robbery happen whether they are punishable under law or not. Should they be legalised?

In 1960, even according to Planned Parenthood, 90% of illegal abortions were performed by licensed physicians in good standing, in their offices. In 1972, the year before abortion was legalised, 39 women died in illegal abortions. Since that time, Dawn Stover has found that 300 women died in legal abortions in Cause of Death: Legal Abortion, August 1991. Legal abortion has not greatly decreased the risks for women, and it certainly hasn't decreased the risks for the unborn - they still die, and now in far greater numbers.

many of which i suspect woudl involved abandoning, or starving the child after pregnancy. which would be more cruel in many ways.

Abandonment and starvation of children are crimes, and the answer to those crimes is not to pre-empt them by killing the children before they can be abandoned or starved. Not only does that punish the victim instead of the criminal, it punishes the victim before the act has occurred or before there is any conclusive evidence that the act will ever occur.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

72% of women who procured an abortion would not have done so had it been illegal

even assuming thats true, thats just up to one point. then you still have 100% of the mothers who were going to have abortions with children they didnt want. some may adapt and become good mothers. most wont.

babies are still abandoned, or put into horrible foster care and just raised in neglect.

i am wondering if it takes more then delivoring a baby to actually save its life. it doesnt seem massively more moral to let an unwanted child languish in poverty and neglect for a lifetime when there are no reasources to take care of it.

ultimately, there are a finite amount of resources in society. so many children already are neglected. it doesnt seem like a great accomplishment to add some more in there. its not like they have a good chance at avoiding even more suffering.

SirRiff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it doesnt seem massively more moral to let an unwanted child languish in poverty and neglect for a lifetime when there are no reasources to take care of it.

So, rather than risk that, you would just kill the children before they are born?

What you are basically advocating is killing those who would live in poverty. Not only is this a disgusting concept, it opens the door to killing others in society who are felt to be unproductive or unhappy - the disabled, for instance. Before Hitler began his Holocaust against the Jews, he had 270,000 handicapped people put to death.

This argument makes absolutely no sense to me. Death is better than poverty? Why do we have any poor people at all, then? Wouldn't they all just commit suicide once they dropped below the poverty line?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, rather than risk that, you would just kill the children before they are born?

risk it? who is risking it? its not your risk, its not my risk, its the risk of the mother and her control over her child. you will never know if the child suffers becuase you have no interest in its life. thus the mother is the one risking producing a suffering child and the chid is at risk for suffering anonymously throughout its life.

What you are basically advocating is killing those who would live in poverty

no thats not really representing my position.

first of all you cant kill what isnt alive. now while the fetus may be an advanced embryo, i dont think it deserves all the rights and protections of a senscient developed human being. but that may stem from my scientific viewpoint, so it admit it could philosophically be argued that even potential life must be equal to realized life for life to have any dignity at all.

but, i cannot escape the fact that there is a finite amount of resources that cannot currently fufil (for many reasons) all the needs of all citizens at the same time.

thus it seems unreasonable to force a completely empowered women, against her wishes, to continue with an unwanted pregnancy, which will most likely lead to a known outcome, namely the introduction of an unwanted child who is among the worst of in our society. the child will definately be subject to either abandonment or neglect through its life as we have withnessed again and again and again. even in the states, the wealthiest nation in the history of history, social child services are horrible, and rampant with abuse and neglect.

so i think that when you take into account the most fundamental right that we must all possess to control our own person that must be granted to women, and secondly, the fate that awaits the child that society would force to exist, i think the second point only strengthens the first, that women must be able to prevent an unwanted life from developing and society should not interfere with that right unless they can provide a high quality of life that any unwanted child would deserve. obviously we cannot, thus i conclude it would be unethical to force that child into such a situation.

SirRiff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thus the mother is the one risking producing a suffering child and the chid is at risk for suffering anonymously throughout its life.

So, better to kill the child in case that happens? That is a truly monstrous argument. After all, anyone in poverty has the hope and opportunity of improving their situation. Once you've taken that person's life, you have rendered them bereft of any hope and any opportunity, forever.

so it admit it could philosophically be argued that even potential life must be equal to realized life for life to have any dignity at all.

But when it's not clear, is it not normal to err on the side of preservation of life? If you were driving at night and saw a shape that looked like a child ahead of you, would you slow down just in case, or would you lay on the gas and bet it was a shadow? If you saw someone lying motionless on a riverbank, would you assume they were alive and see if you could help, or assume they were already dead and leave them lying there?

Where it's not clear if life actually exists, you must give the benefit of doubt to life. To do otherwise is inhumane.

it seems unreasonable to force a completely empowered women, against her wishes, to continue with an unwanted pregnancy

But it seems reasonable to force an unborn child, against her wishes, to die?

the child will definately be subject to either abandonment or neglect through its life as we have withnessed again and again and again.

Abortion is not the answer to these problems. Since it was legalised, the problems of poverty and child abuse have remained or grown. Therefore, the argument that abortion solves social ills, or can help prevent social ills, is proven wrong.

Edward Lenoski of SoCal University discovered that 91% of abused children were, in fact, planned pregnancies. When abortion was legalised in the US in 1973, there were 167,000 reported cases of child abuse. In 1982, that number had climbed to 929,000 and in 1991, to 2.5 million. Furthermore, it could be argued that killing a child by burning her to death in saline solution, tearing her limb from limb with forceps, or stabbing her in the back of the skull and suctioning out her brain was in and of itself "child abuse".

so i think that when you take into account the most fundamental right that we must all possess to control our own person that must be granted to women

Abortion falls under a woman's right to control her own person? So you believe that for nine months a pregnant woman has two blood groups, two different genetic structures, and in 50% of cases, is a hermaphrodite?

women must be able to prevent an unwanted life from developing... unless they can provide a high quality of life that any unwanted child would deserve

So, like Hitler, you advocate selective murder based on arbitrary conditions you have set for "worthy" life?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am in total agreement with SirRiff. It is the decision of the mother and not us. If the mother really wants to destroy her own child, it probably means she can't support it anyway.

When killing the fetus, its just like killing a fly, with the difference that one might become sentinent and in the distant future actually relize what life and death are. But hey, its not for me to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is the decision of the mother and not us.

We've been over this already. Please read the thread before jumping in.

Collateral damage. There, does that make you right-wingers feel better about abortion?

Explain how abortion = collateral damage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't all right wingers know what collateral damage is?

Again I ask, explain how abortion = collateral damage. If you are just trolling, don't bother, we're not interested. If not, you will have to argue a point rather than just make unjustified comments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether or not a mother aborts her own child is solely her own choice. Nobody, not even the government should have the right to interfere. Free citizens should have the right to abort their own children or not. I don't understand why you right wingers think that you can interfere with what a woman wishes to do with her child.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even though many of us tolerate the laws regarding abortion, there's a dissonant ring for me when I read "Free citizens should have the right to abort their own children or not. I don't understand why you right wingers think that you can interfere with what a woman wishes to do with her child. "

Too many conflicting images and a bit too Orwellian for my taste. Examples:

Is one of the perks for living in a democracy getting the freedom to abort life at will?

Does society bear no responsibilty, no obligation to protect children, albeit, even from parents?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You forget that the United States government cares for the United States and not Bob, Fred, or Mary. According to your last assertion, society has an obligation to protect children from even their parents. Well I say this. First society should start "protecting" people from other issues such as murder, rape, and kidnapping and then focus on abortion. In other words, restricting abortion is really pointless because society hasn't done even a decent job in protecting people in every other aspect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you are basically saying, Farrius, is that because we cannot prevent all loss of life, we should not try to prevent any loss of life? That the fact that some avoidable deaths happen is justification for doing nothing to prevent other avoidable deaths?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. What I'm saying is, let the government show that they can adequately prevent loss of life in other areas and then concentrate on abortion rights. It's a credibility issue. Otherwise, the legislation to restrict abortion is pointless. It would just lead to women aborting their children illegally in other ways. The government probably won't do much about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would just lead to women aborting their children illegally in other ways.

72% of women who procured an abortion would not have done so had it been illegal, according to David C. Reardon in Aborted Women: Silent No More.

But even if that were not true, the fact is that "it will happen anyway" is no justification. Murders still happen - should we legalise murder?

What I'm saying is, let the government show that they can adequately prevent loss of life in other areas and then concentrate on abortion rights. It's a credibility issue.

Why is it a credibility issue? You have not explained this point.

This is a ridiculous argument - it's akin to arguing that we should take absolutely no action to prevent the sale and abuse of hard drugs while people die from smoking. Basically, because our action cannot be 100% effective, we should make it 0% effective by doing nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the more pro-abortion fans press their case with self-righteous rhetoric about women's "rights" to killing children, thereby putting an innocent sad face on the snuffee and a gleeful face on the snuffer wearing a "women rule" T-shirt...it's all going to have a blow-back effect.

People like me, who have been fence-sitters on this issue because we didn't want to think about it too much, are suddenly having their faces pushed into some very ugly, ugly imagery that is being justified by platitudes about "rights" and then fence sitting is not so easy anymore.

Also, not to be tacky or anything, but since part of the"abortion rights" schtick involves relating "privacy" to the "right" to abort, then why don't these very same private people pay for their private elective medical procedures? Why is a taxpayer like myself expected to pick up the tab for other peoples' immoral decisions if this is so private and personal? If people want freedom and privacy then they should pay for the consequences on their own dime.

Right now, the partial birth abortion issue is getting a lot of press in the USA. Abortion advocates are cheering and hugging themselves gleefully that they have managed to get judges across the nation to put a ban on the new law Bush and Congress just passed, saying this means it will be bumped up to the Supreme Court again.

What is the celebration about? Up until 6 months ago, a person like me with 2 college degrees did not have a clue about what the process involved. Now with all this press courtesy of abortion advocates, I am oh-so much wiser about the barbaric procedure called partial birth abortion. I do not think I am the only rube who has received this terrific enlightenment.

Because the abortion advocates have made such a grand old fuss about a new law, that has zero effect on existing early trimester abortions, more people like me are getting quite an education and the enhanced big picture view of abortion is not flattering to the pro-abortion movement.

Also, consider that some of the Supreme Court justices have admitted they are very "sensitive" to social attitudinal changes. So as American society gets more outraged about this partial birth abortion thing, it may affect what the Supreme Court outcome is, keeping in mind that Roe vs Wade was decided on very tenous legal grounds in the first place.

P. S. What does wiping out rape, murder, and kidnapping have to do with a very basic truism that society has an obligation to protect its young? I don't get your point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's to stop a woman from aborting her baby if she really wants to do so?

Nothing.

What's to stop me going to your house with a loaded shotgun and blowing your head off?

Nothing.

What's to stop me going to an elementary school and giving away crack to the students?

Nothing.

What's to stop me grabbing a woman as she walks to her car late at night, raping her and slitting her throat?

Nothing.

Does that mean it should be legal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Farrius,

As I said before I'm a middle of the roader on abortion, probably like the majority of folks are.

Many of us would say that therapeutic abortion for reasons of rape, incest, health complications of fetus or mother are arguably "acceptable" grounds for this procedure to be done and paid for by private insurance or universal health care coverage.

I must say though I am troubled by increasingly loud, abrasive, almost a vulgar sort of boastful posturing about "constitutional privacy rights"[with no consequences or accountability, of course]to abortion on demand and to partial birth abortion.

Though the above mentioned is legal, many people like me don't think it's right, and we certainly don't like the "legality" being shoved in our faces.

This ugly rhetoric is not complimentary to the pro-abortion movement. To see abortion in terms of "bragging rights" or as a measure of how women have "progressed" is sick. Abortion is a necessary social evil. It's not a positive value to be celebrated and flaunted.

Recently, an associate at work brought in an article about new super sensitive ultrasound technology that shows smiles and other expressions on a fetus's face at an early stage of development.

At first the picture piqued everyone's interest and there were oohs and ahs from women followed by heavy silence. Fence sitters like myself were made uncomfortable by modern medicine putting a FACE on "it", and now it wasn't possible to avoid admitting that 2 human beings are affected by an abortion, not just a woman and an "it".

And to tell you the truth, now when I look at the sleezy Britanny Spears look alikes cruising down the streets, hear about oral sex being done in a middle school classroom in the US, and see pictures on a newspaper front page of punk haired teenagers claiming their rights to smoking weed are being compromised by current laws, I say to myself which life has more value? The burned out, vapid breeder or the uncorrupted unborn person? How easy it was to assign the "it" position to the decadent grown up and for sympathy to be extended to the smiley faced baby with potential.

So all I'm suggesting is that pro-abortion folks should just muzzle up and let sleeping dogs lie and feel happy with the current laws on the books, not be combative about partial birth abortion bans as they may come up in the press, because there is more to be lost than won.

Sophisticated ultrasound technology will be coming to our community hospitals soon, and it will challenge the moral legitimacy of abortion in the minds of many who previously were content to be obliging fence-sitters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well i don’t think women premeditate abortion thinking it is fun, easy to do, another way to waste tax dollars and perhaps it is enjoyable.

decisions to abort are simply based on honorable choices. a then single parent, when i first learnt about my unplanned pregnancy, my doctor was the first one to mentioned those choices and has gained my respect ever since. choices are very personal and some choices require much more than a great deal thinking post aftermath.

i have no quarries about others trying to influence those choices by suasion and with your scientific time of when the fetus can survive out of the womb but a final decision should rest solely on the conscious of the women.

women have fought and have become liberated: in mind, spirit, and body and you still keep trying to take them steps backwards.

You want to create laws surrounding women to continue the species existence, perhaps enforce a law of origin for example:

1) birth control – like use this law of a choice of birth control until you are ready for children

2) concentrate on developing some similar birth control for men so that the women are prevented from having kids until they are ready

most of this anti choice, anti abortion issue is arising out of a want to enforce personal believe, ethics, and religious believe onto law

I wanted to ask morgan regarding

Also, not to be tacky or anything, but since part of the"abortion rights" schtick involves relating "privacy" to the "right" to abort, then why don't these very same private people pay for their private elective medical procedures? Why is a taxpayer like myself expected to pick up the tab for other peoples' immoral decisions if this is so private and personal? If people want freedom and privacy then they should pay for the consequences on their own dime.

if diseases such as HIV were contracted from these "immoral decisions" is justifiable then that the taxpayer be expected pick up the tabs thereafter for how many years and how is it differing from a shared experience resulting in the tabs for a perhaps a one time abort

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I believe we have reached a cusp, a decision that we can not allow what we consider to be murder to continue.

With that decision comes a responsibility to those unwillingly pregnant. And to those who don't wish to become pregnant.

We must make certain that every woman who is fertile knows and has freely available 'morning after' pills. You do all know that certain birth control pills if taken for three or four days after unprotected sex prevent conception, correct? I doubt it as this seems to be rather restricted information, and it shouldn't be!  If there is no conception, there is no abortion necessary.

I am not sure whether you were making these remarks tongue-in-cheek, but here are some useful things to know when suggesting the morning-after pill (Emergency Contraceptive Pill) as an alternative to abortion:

How do hormonal ECPs work?

According to the FDA, "EC pills ... act by delaying or inhibiting ovulation, and/or altering tubal transport of sperm and/or ova (thereby inhibiting fertilization), and/or altering the endometrium (thereby inhibiting implantation)." (FDA, Federal Register Notice, Vol. 62, No. 37, Feb. 25, 1997). These properties of OCs have long been acknowledged, but it is impossible to determine which mode of action is responsible in any given cycle for a woman's failure to conceive or maintain pregnancy after "unprotected" intercourse. It is important to note that "ovulation is not always stopped, ... cervical mucus is not always made impenetrable, ... the lining of the womb is not always rendered unreceptive to a fertilized ovum every cycle, ... and Fallopian tube activity does not always inhibit sperm and ovum unification. ..." (Wilks, J., A Consumer's Guide to the Pill and Other Drugs, 2d edition. Stafford, VA: ALL, Inc., 1997. Numerous citations omitted.) Breakthrough ovulation and pregnancy occur even with "perfect" use of OCs. (Ibid., pp. 3-10).

Depending on where a woman is in her monthly cycle when intercourse occurs, and depending on the timing of the doses of ECPs, one might expect different modes of action to predominate. For example, for as many as 21 days of the average 28-day cycle a woman is normally infertile. Intercourse is not likely to produce a child, because there is no egg or imminent egg available to be fertilized. All modes of action may be present, including disruption of the next ovulatory cycle, but none is necessary to prevent conception, fertilization or implantation.

Once the fertile phase has begun, however, "taking a high level of estrogen via ECPs within 72 hours of intercourse ... may, in fact, precipitate ovulation. This would make it more likely, rather than less, that fertilization will occur," according to Dr. Klaus. In such a case, the risk of a potentially fatal ectopic pregnancy has also been shown to increase. (Morris, J.M. and G. Van Wagenen, "Interception: the use of postovulatory estrogens to prevent implantation," Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol., 115:101-6 (1973); Diana Rabone, M.D., "Postcoital contraception—coping with the Morning After," Current Therapeutics, p.46 (1990), cited in Wilks, op.cit., p.156)

Beginning four days before ovulation, the average likelihood of conception from intercourse jumps from 0% to 11%. It rises to 30% on the day preceding, and day of, ovulation, before dropping to 9%, 5% and 0% on the three subsequent days. ECPs taken promptly could fail to prevent fertilization and thus result in the death of an embryo who is unable to implant successfully due to ECP-induced changes in the endometrium.

If an ovum is in the Fallopian tube, the process of fertilization may begin within 15 to 30 minutes after intercourse. The "morning after" is already too late for any contraceptive effect to intervene. Thus some researchers conclude that "post-coital drugs act principally to terminate a viable pregnancy by interfering with the endometrium: ... ‘this mode of action could explain the majority of cases where pregnancies are prevented by the morning-after pill.'" (Wilks, op. cit., p. 154, citing Grou, F. and I. Rodriges. "The morning-after pill; How long after?" Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 171:1529-34 (1994).)

How Effective are ECPs at Preventing or Interrupting Pregnancy?

The oft-cited 74% effectiveness rate for ECPs comes from a 1996 meta-analysis of ten clinical trials by Trussel et al. This percentage is the average of a range of effectiveness from 55.3% to 94.2%...

More here: http://www.nccbuscc.org/prolife/publicat/l...ight/sept98.htm

So, not only are ECPs not 100% effective, they may actually precipitate ovulation. Given the timing of their ingestion, they are likely to operate as a form of chemical abortion.

An information campaign on the Billings Ovulation Method may be a more needful and appropriate suggestion:

http://www.woomb.org/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...