Abortion under attack again?

[SMOGZINN]

Personally, I dont like either term "pro choice" or "pro life". Both are oversimplified buzzwords for what is to me, a very complex issue.

They are not buzzwords, they are camps. In politics we often have to live with uncomfortable bedfellows to accomplish anything. So, the two sides in this issue are basically those that believe that it is a woman's body and her choice what to do with it, and those that believe that it is a life and killing it is murder and should not be a choice. I fully understand that there is a lot of grey area between them, and that most people fall somewhere between the two, but for the most part there is a demarcation that puts us on one side or the other of the issue. Since it would be basically impossible for each of us to get our own agenda passed that would fit perfectly with our personally beliefs on the subject we have to compromise with those that see things similar to us, and so join together with others that believe more similar to the way we do to try to get something done. Pro-Life and Pro-Choice are pretty good descriptors for those two basic camps.

 

[dank69]

They are not buzzwords, they are camps. In politics we often have to live with uncomfortable bedfellows to accomplish anything. So, the two sides in this issue are basically those that believe that it is a woman's body and her choice what to do with it, and those that believe that it is a life and killing it is murder and should not be a choice. I fully understand that there is a lot of grey area between them, and that most people fall somewhere between the two, but for the most part there is a demarcation that puts us on one side or the other of the issue. Since it would be basically impossible for each of us to get our own agenda passed that would fit perfectly with our personally beliefs on the subject we have to compromise with those that see things similar to us, and so join together with others that believe more similar to the way we do to try to get something done. Pro-Life and Pro-Choice are pretty good descriptors for those two basic camps.

Nah, pro-life is still a horribly inaccurate description. Maybe pro-fetal-life, at best.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Nah, pro-life is still a horribly inaccurate description. Maybe pro-fetal-life, at best.

I disagree, the position is that it is a human life so killing it is murder, so as a single term description 'Pro-Life' is fitting. It gives a concise idea of their position.
You don't have to feed the homeless to be against them being murdered. The same is true here. It is what they believe. Most people are just really poor at following those beliefs when it inconveniences them.

 

[dank69]

I disagree, the position is that it is a human life so killing it is murder, so as a single term description 'Pro-Life' is fitting. It gives a concise idea of their position.
You don't have to feed the homeless to be against them being murdered. The same is true here. It is what they believe. Most people are just really poor at following those beliefs when it inconveniences them.

And when most of them overlap with pro-death penalty? Or any number of other policies that contribute to higher death rates? No, pro-life is still not accurate. They are only pro-life when it comes to one specific subset of life.

 

[SMOGZINN]

And when most of them overlap with pro-death penalty? Or any number of other policies that contribute to higher death rates? No, pro-life is still not accurate. They are only pro-life when it comes to one specific subset of life.

As I said there is a lot of grey area in there. The camps are big tents, that hold a lot of people that have a lot of different reasons for being in that tent. 'Pro-Life' is the position, even if it is for a very specific subset of life.

There are certainly a lot of people in the 'Pro-Choice' tent that do not believe that those same women should have the choice if they want to put tobacco or THC into their bodies, or display it in public, or any number of other issues that can be viewed as a personal choice over one's body.

The tents are not intended to be all encompassing.

 

[dank69]

As I said there is a lot of grey area in there. The camps are big tents, that hold a lot of people that have a lot of different reasons for being in that tent. 'Pro-Life' is the position, even if it is for a very specific subset of life.

There are certainly a lot of people in the 'Pro-Choice' tent that do not believe that those same women should have the choice if they want to put tobacco or THC into their bodies, or display it in public, or any number of other issues that can be viewed as a personal choice over one's body.

The tents are not intended to be all encompassing.

I hear what you are saying but anti-choice is more accurate IMO.

 

[ivwshane]

I hear what you are saying but anti-choice is more accurate IMO.

Most anti choice people support abortion in certain circumstances which completely negates their pro life argument.

If you believe abortion is murder then you can’t say, well some murders of babies are ok. They also fail when talking about the penalties for murdering babies, should it be first degree, 2nd degree murder? Should doctors also face murder charges?

That’s why anti choice is the better descriptor. They want people to follow their moral beliefs and not allow others to follow their own moral beliefs.

 

[ondma]

As I said there is a lot of grey area in there. The camps are big tents, that hold a lot of people that have a lot of different reasons for being in that tent. 'Pro-Life' is the position, even if it is for a very specific subset of life.

There are certainly a lot of people in the 'Pro-Choice' tent that do not believe that those same women should have the choice if they want to put tobacco or THC into their bodies, or display it in public, or any number of other issues that can be viewed as a personal choice over one's body.

The tents are not intended to be all encompassing.

Seeing "gray areas" doesn't seem to the in that poster's wheelhouse, based on an exchange I had with him in another thread.

 

[ondma]

Most anti choice people support abortion in certain circumstances which completely negates their pro life argument.

If you believe abortion is murder then you can’t say, well some murders of babies are ok. They also fail when talking about the penalties for murdering babies, should it be first degree, 2nd degree murder? Should doctors also face murder charges?

That’s why anti choice is the better descriptor. They want people to follow their moral beliefs and not allow others to follow their own moral beliefs.

Not speaking of abortion, but society in general, isnt it the duty of society to set a rule of law that all have to follow, whether they agree or not?
I mean what if it is my "moral belief" that since I need money, or maybe somehow life has been unfair to me, it is OK to rob a bank? Does that mean it should not be illegal? All I am saying is that there are limits to how much freedom one has to follow their own "moral beliefs". So being against abortion is not always so simple as you make it sound.

 

[ivwshane]

Not speaking of abortion, but society in general, isnt it the duty of society to set a rule of law that all have to follow, whether they agree or not?
I mean what if it is my "moral belief" that since I need money, or maybe somehow life has been unfair to me, it is OK to rob a bank? Does that mean it should not be illegal? All I am saying is that there are limits to how much freedom one has to follow their own "moral beliefs". So being against abortion is not always so simple as you make it sound.

Yeah, those limits are set by the constitution and laws we've created.

Your morals and beliefs shouldn't violate the rights guaranteed to everyone that were set forth by laws and the constitution. Telling women what they can and can't do with their bodies is a violation of those rights.

If you are against abortion I will defend and do everything I can to make sure you or no man or woman ever has to have an abortion if they don't want to. Can those who are anti choice say the same and defend those who want to have an abortion? Of course they won't because they think their morals override everyone else's. Do you see how fucked up that is?

 

[GodisanAtheist]

I know it's a tired joke at this point, but the best thing Dems can do now is be anti-abortion and watch the right completely flip on the topic.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Most anti choice people support abortion in certain circumstances which completely negates their pro life argument.

If you believe abortion is murder then you can’t say, well some murders of babies are ok. They also fail when talking about the penalties for murdering babies, should it be first degree, 2nd degree murder? Should doctors also face murder charges?

That’s why anti choice is the better descriptor. They want people to follow their moral beliefs and not allow others to follow their own moral beliefs.

That's not been my experience. I know very few anti abortion people that support it under any circumstance, and the few that did at one point no longer do. They also went from not feeling that it was murder, to now feeling that all persons that enable it should be able to be charged. They also want cruel, torturous punishments for the women.

I have encountered quite a lot of pro-choice people that don't support abortion, even for others in certain circumstances, but because they see what anti-abortion people are actually seeking to achieve, they're fine with it (although perhaps they're more fine with the status quo or know how rare late term abortions are and that they're basically always for medical reasons and not because the woman just doesn't want the baby).

I know it's a tired joke at this point, but the best thing Dems can do now is be anti-abortion and watch the right completely flip on the topic.

Yeah and they should call women sluts and whores and then just start spouting the n-word every chance they get. Hahahahahaha, soooooooo funnnnnnnaaaaay. I bet that will get right wingers to change! Hilarious. I'm gonna be slapping my knee for weeks! Thanks for the ab workout!

They are not buzzwords, they are camps. In politics we often have to live with uncomfortable bedfellows to accomplish anything. So, the two sides in this issue are basically those that believe that it is a woman's body and her choice what to do with it, and those that believe that it is a life and killing it is murder and should not be a choice. I fully understand that there is a lot of grey area between them, and that most people fall somewhere between the two, but for the most part there is a demarcation that puts us on one side or the other of the issue. Since it would be basically impossible for each of us to get our own agenda passed that would fit perfectly with our personally beliefs on the subject we have to compromise with those that see things similar to us, and so join together with others that believe more similar to the way we do to try to get something done. Pro-Life and Pro-Choice are pretty good descriptors for those two basic camps.

I disagree. Pro-life is very much a misnomer. For starters, it inherently and intentionally distorts the situation, as an embryo is not an actual life. And most of the "pro-life" people regularly reveal very anti-life ideals that they have with regards to other issues.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

Yeah and they should call women sluts and whores and then just start spouting the n-word every chance they get. Hahahahahaha, soooooooo funnnnnnnaaaaay. I bet that will get right wingers to change! Hilarious. I'm gonna be slapping my knee for weeks! Thanks for the ab workout!

-Ironically the last time Democrats (southern) did that, the Republicans were the liberal party, so you might be on to something...

 

[ondma]

Yeah, those limits are set by the constitution and laws we've created.

Your morals and beliefs shouldn't violate the rights guaranteed to everyone that were set forth by laws and the constitution. Telling women what they can and can't do with their bodies is a violation of those rights.

If you are against abortion I will defend and do everything I can to make sure you or no man or woman ever has to have an abortion if they don't want to. Can those who are anti choice say the same and defend those who want to have an abortion? Of course they won't because they think their morals override everyone else's. Do you see how fucked up that is?

So, in your opinion, when does a fetus become more than simply part of a woman's body? Does it magically transform from a disposable part of a woman's body to a human only when it is born? Should there be no restrictions on abortion all the way until delivery?

For what it is worth, although it makes me uncomfortable, I am willing to accept the current abortion laws as determined by Roe v Wade. It seems an acceptable compromise. I just dont feel a fetus, especially in the later stages of pregnancy, should simply be treated as a meaningless part of a woman's body to be discarded like an infected appendix.

Edit: In the above, I am talking about simple abortion when the pregnancy is not wanted. I certainly think there should be exceptions for rape, incest, genetic abnormalities, and when the health of the mother is endangered.

 

[ivwshane]

So, in your opinion, when does a fetus become more than simply part of a woman's body? Does it magically transform from a disposable part of a woman's body to a human only when it is born? Should there be no restrictions on abortion all the way until delivery?

For what it is worth, although it makes me uncomfortable, I am willing to accept the current abortion laws as determined by Roe v Wade. It seems an acceptable compromise. I just dont feel a fetus, especially in the later stages of pregnancy, should simply be treated as a meaningless part of a woman's body to be discarded like an infected appendix.

Edit: In the above, I am talking about simple abortion when the pregnancy is not wanted. I certainly think there should be exceptions for rape, incest, genetic abnormalities, and when the health of the mother is endangered.

It's completely irrelevant. Her body her choice. Your concern, I'm guessing, is that you think women have abortions just for the hell of it and you don't think that's right.

Well, if a woman thinks of abortion as a form of birth control (a ridiculous notion backed up by zero evidence but let's go with it), then do you think that sort of person should be forced to raise a child? I certainly don't think so.

As for your exceptions, those are ridiculous exceptions as you've now wondered into the gray area where you think some murders of babies are ok. I'm glad you think your morals should rule over others, what morals shall I have that will rule over you that you will find acceptable? Of course it doesn't matter what you find acceptable, right? Just like it doesn't matter what women find acceptable because your feels trump theirs, right?

 

[NWRMidnight]

So, in your opinion, when does a fetus become more than simply part of a woman's body? Does it magically transform from a disposable part of a woman's body to a human only when it is born? Should there be no restrictions on abortion all the way until delivery?

For what it is worth, although it makes me uncomfortable, I am willing to accept the current abortion laws as determined by Roe v Wade. It seems an acceptable compromise. I just dont feel a fetus, especially in the later stages of pregnancy, should simply be treated as a meaningless part of a woman's body to be discarded like an infected appendix.

Edit: In the above, I am talking about simple abortion when the pregnancy is not wanted. I certainly think there should be exceptions for rape, incest, genetic abnormalities, and when the health of the mother is endangered.

Would it be safe to say, that it is no longer a part of her body when the fetus can sustain normal body functions (breathing, blood circulation, etc) without being reliant on the mother to sustain it's own life? (we are not talking about feeding and raising a child here) Even the bible indicates that life, as well as the infants soul, starts with it's first breath.

Abortion only has two participants in the decision, god and the woman. Nobody else has the right to dictate that choice for them, not the government, and not other people. I personally would not chose abortions, except in certain situation, but it's not my choice, as I am not a woman. I have no right to tell any woman what they can and can't do, regardless of my personal opinion on abortion.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Would it be safe to say, that it is no longer a part of her body when the fetus can sustain normal body functions (breathing, blood circulation, etc) without being reliant on the mother to sustain it's own life? (we are not talking about feeding and raising a child here) Even the bible indicates that life, as well as the infants soul, starts with it's first breath.

Abortion only has two participants in the decision, god and the woman. Nobody else has the right to dictate that choice for them, not the government, and not other people. I personally would not chose abortions, except in certain situation, but it's not my choice, as I am not a woman. I have no right to tell any woman what they can and can't do, regardless of my personal opinion on abortion.

I was going to address a bunch of points, but since you ended on the bolded, all I'll say is 100% to the bolded

 

[Paratus]

So, in your opinion, when does a fetus become more than simply part of a woman's body? Does it magically transform from a disposable part of a woman's body to a human only when it is born? Should there be no restrictions on abortion all the way until delivery?

For what it is worth, although it makes me uncomfortable, I am willing to accept the current abortion laws as determined by Roe v Wade. It seems an acceptable compromise. I just dont feel a fetus, especially in the later stages of pregnancy, should simply be treated as a meaningless part of a woman's body to be discarded like an infected appendix.

Edit: In the above, I am talking about simple abortion when the pregnancy is not wanted. I certainly think there should be exceptions for rape, incest, genetic abnormalities, and when the health of the mother is endangered.

Simple question for you. If you and your partner decide to procreate, have sex and get pregnant are you responsible for choosing to have sex?

I have another question but before answering let’s take a look at these risk percentages for some life and death decisions:


Here are the chances of being shot in the head playing Russian Roulette with a six shot revolver loaded with:

• 1 Bullet: 16.7%
• 2 Bullets: 33.3%
• 3 Bullets: 50%
• 4 Bullets: 66.7%
• 5 Bullets: 83.3%
• 6 Bullets: 100%

If some maniac tried to play RR with a newborn at an orphanage, regardless of the number of bullets used or even if the gun didn’t go off that person would be held accountable.

Now onto abortion

• The abortion pill (RU486 mifepristone) when taken alone has a chance of terminating the pregnancy equal to: 64%-85% ~ 4-5 bullets
• When taken with misoprostol the chance rises to : 92%-98% ~ 5-6 bullets

Would you hold a woman who took RU486 with or without misoprostol accountable for her decision?


Now compare that to the chance of a woman losing a pregnancy at various ages of the mother :

• 15-25 ~ 16% or 1 bullet
• 40 ~ 33.3% or 2 bullets
• 45 ~ 50% or 3 bullets
• 47 ~ 85% or 5 bullet or RU486

Should a couple who decides to procreate be held accountable? The risk is equivalent to playing RR with multiple bullets or even equivalent to taking an abortion pill?

So back to the original question. If you answered yes are you still responsible for the pregnancy if the fertilized egg miscarries?

If you say you aren’t responsible why is it ok to keep pulling that trigger until the gun doesn’t fire or in simpler words why is it ok to naturally abort as many “kids” as you care to until one is actually born?

 

[ondma]

Simple question for you. If you and your partner decide to procreate, have sex and get pregnant are you responsible for choosing to have sex?

I have another question but before answering let’s take a look at these risk percentages for some life and death decisions:


Here are the chances of being shot in the head playing Russian Roulette with a six shot revolver loaded with:

• 1 Bullet: 16.7%
• 2 Bullets: 33.3%
• 3 Bullets: 50%
• 4 Bullets: 66.7%
• 5 Bullets: 83.3%
• 6 Bullets: 100%

If some maniac tried to play RR with a newborn at an orphanage, regardless of the number of bullets used or even if the gun didn’t go off that person would be held accountable.

Now onto abortion

• The abortion pill (RU486 mifepristone) when taken alone has a chance of terminating the pregnancy equal to: 64%-85% ~ 4-5 bullets
• When taken with misoprostol the chance rises to : 92%-98% ~ 5-6 bullets

Would you hold a woman who took RU486 with or without misoprostol accountable for her decision?


Now compare that to the chance of a woman losing a pregnancy at various ages of the mother :

• 15-25 ~ 16% or 1 bullet
• 40 ~ 33.3% or 2 bullets
• 45 ~ 50% or 3 bullets
• 47 ~ 85% or 5 bullet or RU486

Should a couple who decides to procreate be held accountable? The risk is equivalent to playing RR with multiple bullets or even equivalent to taking an abortion pill?

So back to the original question. If you answered yes are you still responsible for the pregnancy if the fertilized egg miscarries?

If you say you aren’t responsible why is it ok to keep pulling that trigger until the gun doesn’t fire or in simpler words why is it ok to naturally abort as many “kids” as you care to until one is actually born?

Are you seriously trying to equate a miscarriage to an abortion??

 

[Paratus]

Are you seriously trying to equate a miscarriage to an abortion??

Yes.

If you believe a fertilized egg is the same as a child (it’s not but I’ll allow the pro-life position for the sake of argument), then an abortion and ALL miscarriages kill a child..

An abortion doesn’t happen if the woman doesn’t decide to have one and no children die

A miscarriage doesn’t happen if either parent decides not to have unprotected sex and no children die.

Both end up having about the same chance of happening as the prospective parents age and the decision is made to have an abortion or try and have a kid.

I’ve never had a pro-lifer explain adequately. You seem pretty reasonable for a pro-lifer. So help a brother out and explain why it’s ok to have dead kids in the one case and not the other. Because I’ve got 3 kids and it seems like the pro-life position means my wife and I had at least a few other kids who died in the months we were trying to conceive. That’s very disturbing to me

 

[Pohemi]

Should there be no restrictions on abortion all the way until delivery?...
...I just dont feel a fetus, especially in the later stages of pregnancy, should simply be treated as a meaningless part of a woman's body to be discarded like an infected appendix.

And do you believe that they ever occur like this, now? That there are no limitations? That pregnant women could choose to abort at 35 weeks?
If so, you're a fucking idiot.

If it wasn't an "active" choice, then it's all kosher and you can miscarry and kill all the kids you want! At least you're trying, right?!?

Choose to abort once though, and you are a goddamned murderer and are going to hell to burn in damnation for eternity.

You cannot see any similarity between the two, due to the involvement and actions of the adult host in one circumstance...even though they control both circumstances and make active choices in each.

 

[SMOGZINN]

So, in your opinion, when does a fetus become more than simply part of a woman's body?
Does it magically transform from a disposable part of a woman's body to a human only when it is born? Should there be no restrictions on abortion all the way until delivery?

Logically when it has it's own independent circulatory and respiratory system. As long as it is dependent on hers it is indistinguishable from any other organ. But almost no one sees it that way, because emotionally we connect with it as a human long before that. But that is the key here, we are being emotional not logical. Once we agree that we are making emotional decisions the logic no longer matters. Emotions are not logical.

That is why those tents have to be so big. You and I can agree that it is not always a human, at some point it is just a few cells in a woman's body. So, sometimes abortion is okay. Agreeing on that is enough to put us in the same camp. We then have to compromise with each other on when it is human. Remember we already agreed that we are making emotional decisions here, not logical ones. That allows us to make compromises that is logically inconsistent with our goals. Because emotions don't have to make sense.

 

[ondma]

Yes.

If you believe a fertilized egg is the same as a child (it’s not but I’ll allow the pro-life position for the sake of argument), then an abortion and ALL miscarriages kill a child..

An abortion doesn’t happen if the woman doesn’t decide to have one and no children die

A miscarriage doesn’t happen if either parent decides not to have unprotected sex and no children die.

Both end up having about the same chance of happening as the prospective parents age and the decision is made to have an abortion or try and have a kid.

I’ve never had a pro-lifer explain adequately. You seem pretty reasonable for a pro-lifer. So help a brother out and explain why it’s ok to have dead kids in the one case and not the other. Because I’ve got 3 kids and it seems like the pro-life position means my wife and I had at least a few other kids who died in the months we were trying to conceive. That’s very disturbing to me

Obviously, because the intent is different. Trying to equate the tragedy of a miscarriage for someone who is trying to have a child with a deliberate decision to end a pregnancy is one of the most cruel attitudes I have ever seen.

 

[Paratus]

Obviously, because the intent is different. Trying to equate the tragedy of a miscarriage for someone who is trying to have a child with a deliberate decision to end a pregnancy is one of the most cruel attitudes I have ever seen.

Am I understanding your position correctly? Deciding to risk a miscarriage, (a dead child if we take the prolife positiion that a fetus is a child) is ok because someone wanted a child? The immoral part to you is taking a deliberate decision to end a pregnancy vs taking the same amount of risk over and over to have a child which is ok? So one dead fetus is wrong but multiple dead fetuses is ok because intent? Have I got your position right?

This is why I a struggle with the pro-life position.

You see to me the immoral part would be making a decision that has a high risk of killing of my child because causing dead children is immoral. You wouldn't do something that has that kind of risk to your own born child I'm sure, nor would most pro-lifers. So I don't see pro-lifers actually treating fetuses the same as children.


Now lucky for me the science says the fetus is not yet a child. In fact a fertilized egg may become anywhere from 0-6 children, another example of a fertilized egg not being the same as a child. Once the fetus has grown enough to have a functioning brain (REM sleep is probably a good line) then it's basically a child. That occurs between 20-30 weeks. The chance of miscarriage also drops precipitously as weeks go by. By week 20 it's less than 1% on average. A much more acceptable risk.

 

[abj13]

Now lucky for me the science says the fetus is not yet a child. In fact a fertilized egg may become anywhere from 0-6 children, another example of a fertilized egg not being the same as a child. Once the fetus has grown enough to have a functioning brain (REM sleep is probably a good line) then it's basically a child. That occurs between 20-30 weeks. The chance of miscarriage also drops precipitously as weeks go by. By week 20 it's less than 1% on average. A much more acceptable risk.

To add to this line of thought, fertilized eggs can also become molar or ectopic pregnancies. The treatment for both is termination. Trying to define conception as some special moment for personhood runs into so many of these inconvenient facts.