Abortion discussion

[Lord O' Bones]

If you honestly believe life begins at conception, that a zygote is a full human being, you HAVE to pick the freezer. However no one in their right mind will do this. Why? They're not the same thing. An infant is infinitely more valuable than a fetus.

Damn. Well played. I'm writing this down.

[MinDonner]

Consider the humble ectopic pregnancy. For all you Plan B opponents who consider "conception" to equal "egg meets sperm" (rather than the more medically accurate "egg plus sperm meets uterus lining"), would you oppose the treatment of this condition? OK, so the fertilised egg has implanted in the wrong place, and will never actually succeed in becoming a baby, it'll just cause massive internal bleeding and death in the "mother" if left alone... but who gives a shit about that slut, eh? She should have just kept her legs crossed.

Straw man? Nope. In the Dominican Republic, their abortion laws mandate exactly that.

[The_BlauerDragon]

My mother almost died from just such a pregnancy. When her body rejected it (causing a miscarriage) it was followed by lots and lots of blood loss.

[Lyanna Stark]

Ectopic pregnancy scared the shit out of me. Luckily mine is normal so far *knock on wood*.

Zabzy, I am so sorry to hear about your troubles. My sincerest hope that everything will work out for the best for you and your husband.

I woman I knew miscarried in her ninth month. Yes, they had a funeral. I can't even begin to understand how awful that must have been for her and her husband.

It's interesting to shine a light on the issue of miscarriage and what causes it, and that the hysteria over abortion is really taking over instead of this issue, which I think should be higher up on the list. Shouldn't it be a larger concern to save wanted foetuses than trying to punish teenagers, rape victims and women who cannot cope with another child from removing it?

El-Ahrairah,

How do you suggest we force women to carry to term, if the foetus is unwanted, or threatens the mother's life? Imprisonment? Fines?

[Minaku]

You know, I was reading an interesting editorial on this just yesterday, I'll have to find the link. At any rate, it was various anecdotes from doctors all around the world who would perform abortions on anti-abortionists, in some cases the same women who were picketing their clinics. And even though they would arrive for abortions, sometimes more than one, they would denounce the people in the office as murderers and refuse to acknowledge that the fight for the choice to have an abortion was for the exact purpose of the office visit - to have a clean and sterile environment with a board certified doctor, and to have the choice to come in. I'm going to have to find the link now, but that was just a fascinating case of not-me-itis. "Abortion is murder and it's evil, but not mine, I'm a special case."

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

El-E,

As for that case, I do admit it is hard to condemn it in the circumstances, especially as the twins likely would have died regardless. But in most other such "life of the mother" cases I would have to say it's a poor mother who sacrifices her child's life to save her own.

Oh... my... God.

Dude, please consider the fact that if the Mother of the unborn child dies preterm it is highly unlikely that the child will survive as well. Therefore, choosing to "sacrifice her child's life to save her own" is the best choice of a bad situation as otherwise it's likely both will die.

[DanteGabriel]

But in most other such "life of the mother" cases I would have to say it's a poor mother who sacrifices her child's life to save her own.

I have to wonder if you'd be this cavalier about the life of the mother if it were your wife/sister/cousin/friend/whatever whose life was in danger.

[Lyanna Stark]

I have to wonder if you'd be this cavalier about the life of the mother if it were your wife/sister/cousin/friend/whatever whose life was in danger.

Because women are sub-human beings who are automatically selfish if they don't die for their offspring. Get with the times. :P

[Balefont]

Because women are sub-human beings who are automatically selfish if they don't die for their offspring. Get with the times. :P

I am too slow. This is precisely what I was going to say.

[Stubby]

[MOD]

Please keep this discussion on topic. Posts have already been deleted.

Thanks.

[/MOD]

[Zahir al Daoud]

My two cents...

Seems to me the abortion debate centers around the clear conflict between two sets of political rights we as a civilization have deemed worthy of great value.

One is control of one's own body.

The other is the right to live.

I would also posit, however, that the question itself is meaningless at the earliest stage of pregnancy. While a fertilized egg is indeed alive, so too is an un-fertilized egg and is made up of tissue precisely as human as the fertilized one. For that matter, every single living cell in your body is composed of human DNA. So reducing this argument to its most basic, drinking a martini is murder because imbibing alcohol does destroy cells--i.e. living human beings. Which is absurd.

At the same time, I cannot agree with those who seem to think a foetus is not a human being until the umbilical cord is actually severed. Both POVs seem wrong, not only intuitively but in terms of the coldest and hardest of applications of logic.

On top of all this is the long-held assumption that women's lives are unimportant. The mere fact that people are arguing a woman (or even a nine-year-old rape victim) should willingly die a horrible death and should be morally condemned for trying to save their lives is evidence of a warped set of values. Within my lifetime it was regarded as impossible that a man could rape his wife, and keep in mind that even today a stigma attaches to being the victim of rape. Less than two centuries ago, beating a woman was legal, a woman voting or serving on a jury was illegal, and a married woman was considered legally the property of her husband. Remember the ERA? How much furor went down because someone proposed that women be legally declared the equal of men? And that amendment never passed.

Within the real world context of how women have been treated, methinks we are well advised to be tad more protective of a woman's right to control her own body. Nor should we attach any stigma to the fact a woman is pregnant and wishes she were not. But we do, unfortunately.

Using a loose analogy, the law recognizes that a person in a persistent vegetative state is not really alive and can be terminated, i.e. Terry Sciavo. Methinks if a foetus has not developed a nervous system beyond that of a vegetative state then it cannot be considered a living human being. It doesn't matter whether the foetus is using its potential--we don't consider laziness or stupidity or ignorance a defining characteristic of life--but whether it has the systems necessary to be more than vegetative.

Nor am I claiming that science knows when this level of development happens. Nor that it even happens at the same time in every pregnancy. But I would claim that such a level almost certainly exists sometime in the second trimester. Once this happens, IMHO, then an abortion should require some kind of extraordinary justification--certainly including the life of the woman.

Honestly, I have a hard time thinking of many valid restrictions for abortion in the first trimester, and I cannot see a genuine moral objection to the "morning after" pill. A fertilized ovum simply cannot meet any rational criteria for a human person. It is a "human life" only in the sense that it is alive and made of human tissue--just like sperm, unfertilized ova, my appendix, etc. That is why I dislike the use of that term, and prefer either "human being" or "human person" because that puts it into a more accurate perspective.

But let us not forget that to some, the control of reproductive rights is not about political rights of any kind. For some, it is about control--the naked use of power over women and (by implication) over men. For all too many of those championing the "rights of the unborn" this goes hand-in-hand with opposing sex education, cutting funding for any medical assistance once the kid is actually born, discouraging women from professional careers, etc. This is an agenda about forcing women (and men) into rigid roles that result in them obeying others with fewer and fewer questions asked. Not all Anti-Choice activists fall into this category, but enough do that IMHO the whole issue needs some extra care. The ones who so hate that women get to choose all kinds of things that were once taboo are fighting a losing battle (I hope) but they can and given a chance will do enormous damage before they fade like the Witchfinders of old.

Bitter experience tells me some will totally miscontrue my points so I'm asking anyone who wants to respond to the above to re-read every single word before doing so.

[ZANNI_1276]

Interesting thread so far...I just wanted to share a personal experience that pertains to the subject in point from my view point.

8 months ago my wife and I found out she was pregnant. Before we conceived she was feeling a discomfort on her side - went to the dr. checked it out prior to finding out she was pregnant and really they didn't know what was causing it. During the initial ultra sound they found she had a rather large cyst on one of her ovaries that also was snaked around and on the uterus, it caused major concern with the doctor. The doctor had two main concerns, if she carried to full term the cyst may burst due to the expansion of the uterus and two things may result. One is it would cause a pre-mature labor and more than likely terminate the pregnancy and two, if waiting that long it may damage the ovary and limit but not necessarily rule out future conception. He told us that we could terminate the pregnancy, undergo a procedure and in effect be in a better position medically speaking to conceive in the future. Or we could roll the dice so to speak and continue with the pregnancy. Well, long story short after a pretty emotional discussion we elected to continue on with pregnancy and they would carefully monitor the situation. So in about a month or so - specifically June 29th she will have a caesarian and a procedure to remove the cyst.

The bottom line is 8 months ago my wife and I weighed this decision with a heavy heart and we both agreed that we were both glad that the choice was ours, that we were not dictated by anyone or forced into doing something that we did not think was the best decision for us as a family. In all honesty if someone else was in our situation and they elected to do opposite of what we did, I couldn’t blame them for it one bit if that is what they thought was the best decision for them. I just think that no one should be deciding what is best for you or dictate to you that this is your only choice “because we said soâ€. Granted, it is a different scenario because my wife’s life was not in jeopardy per say but the pregnancy was and future pregnancies might be, but I believe it is some what relevant because in fact we had a choice and not dictated to do something that we did not feel was best for us.

BTW – Zabazy – my thoughts and prayers are with you.

[Balefont]

Excellent post, Zahir. We may not agree on Twilight but on this, we can agree. :thumbsup:

[ljkeane]

My position on abortion is that as far as I can see the current laws on abortion are reasonable and should remain in place.

Having said that I can appreciate the position of those who are opposed to abortion, if you believe that human life starts at conception (which I don't agree with) it's a reasonable step to see abortion as killing a person and be opposed to it. Unfortunately the consequence of this viewpoint if the law agreed with it would be to impose unacceptable situations upon women, consequently while I can respect why people might hold those views I don't think that any attempt to impose anti abortion laws should be allowed.

The oppostion to abortion when the life of the mother is threatened by the pregnancy on the other hand is completely ridiculous, the idea that someone should be forced to risk death for the vague possibility that a baby might be born is fairly offensive.

[El-ahrairah]

Dude, please consider the fact that if the Mother of the unborn child dies preterm it is highly unlikely that the child will survive as well. Therefore, choosing to "sacrifice her child's life to save her own" is the best choice of a bad situation as otherwise it's likely both will die.

I'm not speaking of such cases - and I admit they're much harder to work out. But there is absolutely no justification if the child would have survived.

I have to wonder if you'd be this cavalier about the life of the mother if it were your wife/sister/cousin/friend/whatever whose life was in danger.

Never having been in the situation, I cannot answer honestly. But I do believe, whether one unborn vs. a 30-year-old, or a ten-year-old vs. a fifty-year-old, it isn't right to squash out the younger to prolong the older.

Because women are sub-human beings who are automatically selfish if they don't die for their offspring. Get with the times. :P

Gender has nothing to do with it. A father likewise should hold his own life to be nothing against that of his children.

But let us not forget that to some, the control of reproductive rights is not about political rights of any kind. For some, it is about control--the naked use of power over women and (by implication) over men. For all too many of those championing the "rights of the unborn" this goes hand-in-hand with opposing sex education, cutting funding for any medical assistance once the kid is actually born, discouraging women from professional careers, etc. This is an agenda about forcing women (and men) into rigid roles that result in them obeying others with fewer and fewer questions asked. Not all Anti-Choice activists fall into this category, but enough do that IMHO the whole issue needs some extra care. The ones who so hate that women get to choose all kinds of things that were once taboo are fighting a losing battle (I hope) but they can and given a chance will do enormous damage before they fade like the Witchfinders of old.

I've heard that before - that the real goal of the "pro-life" movement is to reduce women to chattel status. I'm sure some few do have that goal - but that's not the point. Even if every single opponent of abortion was a rabid misogynist, it would not make the practice any less wrong.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

El-a,

If the mother's life is threatened by being pregnant how can she carry the child to term without dieing? If she dies preterm how can the child be saved? It is unfathomable to me that you would condemn a woman for choosing to save her own life.

[S John]

I'm not speaking of such cases - and I admit they're much harder to work out. But there is absolutely no justification if the child would have survived.

'Btw, honey. I expect you to have this baby, even if it fucking kills you!' Haha. I'd like to be a fly on the wall when you have that conversation.

Probably shouldnt tell anyone this upfront either, I would think this little tidbit might seriously damage your chances of being party to a pregnancy in the first place.

[turinturambar]

Never having been in the situation, I cannot answer honestly. But I do believe, whether one unborn vs. a 30-year-old, or a ten-year-old vs. a fifty-year-old, it isn't right to squash out the younger to prolong the older.

In some cases maybe, but I find it difficult to compare a zygote to a full grown woman. Placing priority on a mass of cells over a woman seems like misplaced priority, especially considering the child will likely not be carried full-term anyway.

I've heard that before - that the real goal of the "pro-life" movement is to reduce women to chattel status. I'm sure some few do have that goal - but that's not the point. Even if every single opponent of abortion was a rabid misogynist, it would not make the practice any less wrong.

Anybody that thinks the pro-life movement is a movement to reduce women to chattel status simply does not understand the movement. I'm personally pro-choice(early term), but I know a lot of people who are pro-life, some of whom are even activists, and they definitely are not on any kind of mission to keep women down. Especially considering almost every one of them is a woman.

[CiaranAnnrach]

How eerie. While I'm reading this thread and catching up on all of the discussion, I get an email from the Engineering Program Manager for the project I'm on, letting us know his first grandchild was just born, and included pictures of aforementioned grandchild.

That being said, I wasn't going to post in this discussion, because as a general rule I avoid these discussions. But a comment/opinion was made that I could not ignore, so here goes.

Never having been in the situation, I cannot answer honestly. But I do believe, whether one unborn vs. a 30-year-old, or a ten-year-old vs. a fifty-year-old, it isn't right to squash out the younger to prolong the older.

You know, I used to think like you. Very deep-rooted in my religious beliefs, and the belief that abortion was wrong and that you were killing a living child.

Then my best friend was put in that very situation. Unmarried, had gotten pregnant despite being on the pill, had lots of health complications; the doctors were telling her that if she took the baby to term, there was a very high chance the baby would die. If the baby didn't die, somehow, it would be very likely that it would be born with loads of birth defects. And, giving birth could kill her, and if not, more than likely scar her and her reproductive system for the rest of her life. Her family was also at the time dysfunctional. The doctors were recommending she have an abortion.

I dropped what I was doing to take care of her as best I could, even if it was just coming over after the operation to keep her company while she laid in bed, slightly drugged up and in pain. I don't blame her for her decision, in truth I support it. It's shook her up, too. Today, she sports a tattoo of three stars, representing three people who were important in her life who died, one of them being her baby.

For you to come here and say that these women should have laid down their lives for the chance their baby might have maybe lived and been born without complications...well, let's just say it infuriates and offends me, and I was only peripherally involved. You spit on their choice, which may have been one of the hardest choices they've ever had to make.

And don't even begin to speak about choices you would make if the situation occurs to you. Fact is, you don't know how you will feel about it, you don't know what you will do, and you don't know how hard that choice will be to make. You have no right to say what a woman should or shouldn't do, no more than I did before it happened to someone whom I loved like a sister. (And how wrong I was, if you had asked me my opinion before that happened.) Even now, I feel I'm only somewhat allowed to give an opinion, and that's something I'm not to eager to answer simply because, I know I don't know the best answer. But I know enough to know that your answer isn't it.

[tenalpia]

Great post Ciaran :)