Abortion

[Lagboltz]

Actually, it's another human being- a distinct organism unto itself and therefore, by definition, not a part of her own body.

Now, when can foetal brainwaves be detected and why are they significant?

You are replying to a post made 4 years ago.

The neocortex is not formed until early in the third trimester. Fetuses begin to develop a minimal brain stem at 7 weeks, but are not capable of consciousness until the third trimester. That is why terminating a pregnancy during the first trimester is not equivalent to murder, (as some people like to call it) of a sentient person.

 

[James]

First you say they keep abortion clinics in black inner cities...did it ever occur to you that they keep them where there are low incomes...and those areas often happen to be black?

I find it interesting that they basically say that blacks are stupid and easily 'tricked' into killing their babies... and then call everyone else racist for not seeing things the same way...

 

[Openmind]

I find it interesting that they basically say that blacks are stupid and easily 'tricked' into killing their babies... and then call everyone else racist for not seeing things the same way...

They will say ANYTHING to try to push "guilt" on people who prefer to respect other's rights to make such a difficult choice.

This "racial" slant is old story. It just comes back every year or so as propaganda tends to do.

 

[BigRob]

They will say ANYTHING to try to push "guilt" on people who prefer to respect other's rights to make such a difficult choice.

This "racial" slant is old story. It just comes back every year or so as propaganda tends to do.

And pro-abortion types will say ANYTHING to paint the argument as one that does not deny someone the fundamental right to life.

 

[Openmind]

And pro-abortion types will say ANYTHING to paint the argument as one that does not deny someone the fundamental right to life.

I do not believe that is a fair statement.

Pro-choice people do not go into extreme rethoric or try to impose anything on anyone. . .they just want to keep abortion legal, so that women will have the choice (not the obligation!) to terminate a pregnancy, preferably at the earliest possible stage of development, in a safe and legal manner.

You do not see pro-choice people picketing women's clinics, or killing doctors. You don't see pro-choice people threatening women, or trying to impose any hardship on women.

You don't see pro-choice people trying to impose their idea on ANY woman. . .all they ask is that every woman be allowed to be trusted to make her own choice. And that choice can certainly be to carry a pregnancy to term, but not to IMPOSE it.

 

[BigRob]

I do not believe that is a fair statement.

Pro-choice people do not go into extreme rethoric or try to impose anything on anyone. . .they just want to keep abortion legal, so that women will have the choice (not the obligation!) to terminate a pregnancy, preferably at the earliest possible stage of development, in a safe and legal manner.

You do not see pro-choice people picketing women's clinics, or killing doctors. You don't see pro-choice people threatening women, or trying to impose any hardship on women.

There is nothing wrong with peacefully demonstrating somewhere....and as you well know, it is the lunatic fringe that kills doctors...just like it is the lunatic muslim fringe that are terrorists.

You don't see pro-choice people trying to impose their idea on ANY woman. . .all they ask is that every woman be allowed to be trusted to make her own choice. And that choice can certainly be to carry a pregnancy to term, but not to IMPOSE it.

We can all be for allowing someone to make a choice...but what of the father's choice...or the babies? What about the choice to have sex to begin with? Choosing death for someone who has done nothing wrong should not be a viable choice.

 

[Openmind]

There is nothing wrong with peacefully demonstrating somewhere....and as you well know, it is the lunatic fringe that kills doctors...just like it is the lunatic muslim fringe that are terrorists.



We can all be for allowing someone to make a choice...but what of the father's choice...or the babies? What about the choice to have sex to begin with? Choosing death for someone who has done nothing wrong should not be a viable choice.

IF the father is involved and committed, obviously he should have his say also, although the woman's choice should always prevail. However, I would say that most abortions are chosen by single woman who cannot support a child (or another child), and that the sperm donor if involved, would be the first to push for an abortion if he is afraid of commitment or "another mouth to feed."

The "child" is not a "child" in the overwhelming majority of abortions. It is an embryo or a early stage foetus. At that early stage there is no functioning brain. The choice to have sex? Give me a break! don't tell me you never had sex without wanting to procreate!

The best thing for "pro-life" to advocate is easy access to birth control and birth control information and the day after pill. Actually, if birth control was freely available in Central Africa, we probably wouldn't see so much horor with starving children, and children killed.

Embryo and foetus do not "die," Their development is just terminated before they come to life. Their POTENTIAL as a human being is terminated. This may be very sad in some case, and I do not believe the decision is ever made lightly by anyone who is balanced, but comparing the termination of an early stage foetus to the killing of a child is false equivalency.

 

[BigRob]

IF the father is involved and committed, obviously he should have his say also, although the woman's choice should always prevail.

Why?

However, I would say that most abortions are chosen by single woman who cannot support a child (or another child), and that the sperm donor if involved, would be the first to push for an abortion if he is afraid of commitment or "another mouth to feed."

Do you have any stats for that?

The Alan Guttmacher Institute (hardly a Republican group) states that:

Reasons Women have Abortions:

Wants to postpone childbearing: 25.5%
Wants no (more) children: 7.9%
Cannot afford a baby: 21.3%
Having a child will disrupt education or job: 10.8%
Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy: 14.1%
Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy: 12.2%
Risk to maternal health: 2.8%
Risk to fetal health: 3.3%
Other: 2.1%

21.3% is not "most".

The "child" is not a "child" in the overwhelming majority of abortions. It is an embryo or a early stage foetus. At that early stage there is no functioning brain.

I guess the issue is when does life begin then...

The choice to have sex? Give me a break! don't tell me you never had sex without wanting to procreate!

Perhaps people also want to rob a gas station and not go to jail...but actions have consequences, and people need to accept that.

The best thing for "pro-life" to advocate is easy access to birth control and birth control information and the day after pill. Actually, if birth control was freely available in Central Africa, we probably wouldn't see so much horor with starving children, and children killed.

I have no problem with birth control...but once the pregnancy has taken hold, I view it as murder.

Embryo and foetus do not "die," Their development is just terminated before they come to life. Their POTENTIAL as a human being is terminated. This may be very sad in some case, and I do not believe the decision is ever made lightly by anyone who is balanced, but comparing the termination of an early stage foetus to the killing of a child is false equivalency.

A scientific textbook called “Basics of Biology” gives five characteristics of living things; these five criteria are found in all modern elementary scientific textbooks:

1. Living things are highly organized.

2. All living things have an ability to acquire materials and energy.

3. All living things have an ability to respond to their environment.

4. All living things have an ability to reproduce.

5. All living things have an ability to adapt.

What about a "fetus" makes it not a living thing under this scientific definition?

 

[Openmind]

Why?

Do you have any stats for that?

The Alan Guttmacher Institute (hardly a Republican group) states that:

Reasons Women have Abortions:

Wants to postpone childbearing: 25.5%
Wants no (more) children: 7.9%
Cannot afford a baby: 21.3%
Having a child will disrupt education or job: 10.8%
Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy: 14.1%
Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy: 12.2%
Risk to maternal health: 2.8%
Risk to fetal health: 3.3%
Other: 2.1%

21.3% is not "most".

No. . .21.3 % is not most. . .but 21.3% AND 14.1% (partner doesn't want pregnancy) is getting pretty close to half. . .Personally, I believe that all those reason (except MAYBE the "disruption of job or education") are extremly valid. And in anyway, I will not take the responsibility to force a woman who feel unable to carry a child to term and to raise him/her to have that child.

I guess the issue is when does life begin then...

Exactly!

Perhaps people also want to rob a gas station and not go to jail...but actions have consequences, and people need to accept that.

Yes, and when one makes a mistake, one has to decide RESPONSIBLY, within their own ability, what the best solution to resolve that mistake is. Unfortunately, in some case, it is to terminate a pregnancy at the earliest possible stage, rather than bringing another unwanted, maybe unhealthy child in this world.

I have no problem with birth control...but once the pregnancy has taken hold, I view it as murder

.

That is your opinion. It is not mine. And it is not that of the courts of law. You don't want to terminate a pregnancy. . .don't do it. NO ONE forces you to do it.

A scientific textbook called “Basics of Biology” gives five characteristics of living things; these five criteria are found in all modern elementary scientific textbooks:

1. Living things are highly organized.

2. All living things have an ability to acquire materials and energy.

3. All living things have an ability to respond to their environment.

4. All living things have an ability to reproduce.

5. All living things have an ability to adapt.

What about a "fetus" makes it not a living thing under this scientific definition?

What about a leech, or a fern, or a geico, or an ant makes it not a living thing under this scientific definition? What makes it "okay" for you to step on the ant, to cutout that fern, to squash that leech?

I know this is an extreme comment, and obviously I am saying it with a lot of sarcasm. . .

But "LIVING thing" doesn't mean it is a "HUMAN."
An embryo, at least a human embryo, has the POTENTIAL to develop into a human being. IT IS NOT a human being when it is merely a cluster of cells that are still mostly undifferentiated. At that state, its "exceptionalism" among all "living things" is merely due to the value the carrier places on it. . . If a couple has wanted to become pregnant, they have started to love that embryo even before it moves into the uterus. . .it is that desire to create that embryo, to nurture it into a foetus, than a "liveable" foetus, then to give it birth that makes it "special" that gives it its potential and allows that potential to be realized.

It is OUR MIND, and before we have a functioning mind, our parent's mind that gives us our worth. . .until we can actually survive outside the womb.

I know you will disagree with all of this. And that's okay! I am not trying to convince anyone. I am just expressing that there is another point of view (probably many other points of view) in this world. . .and that everyone who disagree with the "pro-choice" views is not necessarely a murderer, just as everyone who agree with the "pro-choice views" is not necessarely "pro-life!"

 

[BigRob]

No. . .21.3 % is not most. . .but 21.3% AND 14.1% (partner doesn't want pregnancy) is getting pretty close to half. . .Personally, I believe that all those reason (except MAYBE the "disruption of job or education") are extremly valid. And in anyway, I will not take the responsibility to force a woman who feel unable to carry a child to term and to raise him/her to have that child.

Yes, and when one makes a mistake, one has to decide RESPONSIBLY, within their own ability, what the best solution to resolve that mistake is. Unfortunately, in some case, it is to terminate a pregnancy at the earliest possible stage, rather than bringing another unwanted, maybe unhealthy child in this world.

I tend to view the whole abortion issue as a larger systemic problem in this country as a whole. No one wants to accept responsibility for their actions anymore. We see it (in my opinion) with the abortion issue...we see in the debt debate. People who want cuts want cuts until a program they like is on the chopping block...people who want higher taxes want them only on someone else.

When did this all begin that people were somehow no longer responsible for themselves?

That is your opinion. It is not mine. And it is not that of the courts of law. You don't want to terminate a pregnancy. . .don't do it. NO ONE forces you to do it.

You are correct, it is the position of the courts. That said as well, I will never terminate a pregnancy because I cannot get pregnant...as I am a male.

What about a leech, or a fern, or a geico, or an ant makes it not a living thing under this scientific definition? What makes it "okay" for you to step on the ant, to cutout that fern, to squash that leech?

I know this is an extreme comment, and obviously I am saying it with a lot of sarcasm. . .

But "LIVING thing" doesn't mean it is a "HUMAN."
An embryo, at least a human embryo, has the POTENTIAL to develop into a human being. IT IS NOT a human being when it is merely a cluster of cells that are still mostly undifferentiated. At that state, its "exceptionalism" among all "living things" is merely due to the value the carrier places on it. . . If a couple has wanted to become pregnant, they have started to love that embryo even before it moves into the uterus. . .it is that desire to create that embryo, to nurture it into a foetus, than a "liveable" foetus, then to give it birth that makes it "special" that gives it its potential and allows that potential to be realized.

It is OUR MIND, and before we have a functioning mind, our parent's mind that gives us our worth. . .until we can actually survive outside the womb.

I know you will disagree with all of this. And that's okay! I am not trying to convince anyone. I am just expressing that there is another point of view (probably many other points of view) in this world. . .and that everyone who disagree with the "pro-choice" views is not necessarely a murderer, just as everyone who agree with the "pro-choice views" is not necessarely "pro-life!"

So if a baby is born premature, nothing should be done to attempt to save it, because it is not really a life?

That said, and obviously we disagree here, but would you support eliminating abortion from 23 weeks and on? That seems to be generally accepted when the baby can survive outside the womb. I know that is not a ton of them, but even banning a few would be good in my view.

 

[Openmind]

I tend to view the whole abortion issue as a larger systemic problem in this country as a whole. No one wants to accept responsibility for their actions anymore. We see it (in my opinion) with the abortion issue...we see in the debt debate. People who want cuts want cuts until a program they like is on the chopping block...people who want higher taxes want them only on someone else.

When did this all begin that people were somehow no longer responsible for themselves?[/QUOTE]

Wrong: I stated several times before that Obama made a mistake by compromising and allowing the Bush tax cuts to continue . . .he should have told the GOP SCREW YOU, and let those tax cuts expire. It would have been much healthier for the whole economy than the current stupid "cuts" that were forced on all of us!

You are correct, it is the position of the courts. That said as well, I will never terminate a pregnancy because I cannot get pregnant...as I am a male.

Cute, and a nice comic relief! But, as you stated earlier, which I agreed with, as a man in a committed relationship with a woman, you have your say in whether or not your partner should terminate a pregnancy. You do have a choice!

So if a baby is born premature, nothing should be done to attempt to save it, because it is not really a life?

It depends. . .If the parents want that baby, obviously they should try everything possible to save it. However, if the premature child is severely disabled, or will never have the potential of leading a "normal" life, I can see why some may choose to let the child go without "heroic" measures.

The fact is that our medical progress have created a whold population of children who will never function as full human being, and many will die after just a few months, or a few years, sometime in horrible death. I think it is wonderful that some premature babies can be saved by staying a few weeks in "artificial wombs" in intensive care... However, we tend to play "apprentice sorcerer" with our advanced technique to keep severely premature newborns alive, as we are with keeping adults in comas alive!

That said, and obviously we disagree here, but would you support eliminating abortion from 23 weeks and on? That seems to be generally accepted when the baby can survive outside the womb. I know that is not a ton of them, but even banning a few would be good in my view

.

I would personaly support eliminating LEGAL abortions after 20 weeks, unless the child is severely damaged and will not lead a "normal" life, or unless the mother's life is in danger. In fact, I believe that even 16 weeks would be enough time for most women to make that decision (unless they learn at a later stage that the child is not "whole.")

But. . .ONLY if no "artificial" barriers are placed by the "well meaning pro-life proponents" to delay abortion. . .A woman should be encouraged to make her decision AS SOON as possible after she becomes pregnant, and should be given every support needed to make that decision, without pressure, without "ultra sounds," without anyone trying to put a guilt trip on her.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Why are abortion clinics in inner cities today? Probably because that is where most abortions are done. Why were abortion clinics first put in inner cities? Because Margaret Sanger (the founder of Planned Parenthood) believed strongly in Eugenics and was a very racist woman who wanted at the very least to keep the black population at a minimum. Some of her quotes on blacks make you think she wanted to exterminate the race all together but that is argued often, its very hard to argue her own quotes about wanting to limit the black population through abortion. She didn't just dislike blacks, she didn;t like the poor, the irish, anyone with disabilities. exc. She wanted a pure race.




They deal with two things, birth control and abortion. Groups who are willing to help a woman pay for her pregnancy, pre natal care, adoption exc. have been denied the ability to put flyers in planned parenthood offices.




At least you are admitting the dems started it, but why do you say Robert Byrd is now a dem? He was always a dem. He was a dem senator and in the KKK all at the same time, only when it became unpopular to be part of the KKK did he leave them. Though he still said racist things every so often. It seems like you think some how republicans became the racists. I think neither party is racist but there are racists in both parties.



You are the one who brought up the KKK not me.

First of all they do alot more then that...I in fact have used them and it had nothing to do with any of those things.

and again the KKK started int he 1860's more or less..if you want to pretend like any party name means anything to todays party's then I can't help you.
the KKK has been against not just blacks and jews, but the Communist, and the civil rights movements...not exactly a liberal view. And the original KKK was formed not from Dems...but solders of the Confederate army after the Civil war.

But ask yourself...would a KKK member who loves the Dixi flag, hates Minority groups, hates Communist, hates Jews, Hates Immigrants, wants a conservative Christian nation....would he vote republican or Democrat....I will give you hint...Democrat...so all this crap about what republicans did in the civil war, or talking about the Southern Democrats as if they are like Dems today...do you know what the Nixon Southern Strategy was? It was when Nixon pushed hard in the democratic south, as many of these Dixiecrats had been voting for GOP members against Northern Democrats who apposed slavery and wanted civil rights...Many of those "democrats" became GOP members then...there ideas did not change...just what party they ID'd with did...Being a member of this Democratic bunch...is akin to being with the conservative wing of the Republicans....so being a Dem then and today...is a huge change in political ideas and values.

and as far as you keep talking about the founder of Planned parenthood...guess what...she is not in charge of it, nor is anyone like her..so talking about her ideas...is pointless to what it actually is. And Yes poor people of any race are going to be more likely to have a abortion...as they are more likely to not be able to afford a kid...thats not going to change and it has nothing to do with race...no matter how much you want it to.

 

[BigRob]

Wrong: I stated several times before that Obama made a mistake by compromising and allowing the Bush tax cuts to continue . . .he should have told the GOP SCREW YOU, and let those tax cuts expire. It would have been much healthier for the whole economy than the current stupid "cuts" that were forced on all of us!

How about this...we let them expire for everyone?

Cute, and a nice comic relief! But, as you stated earlier, which I agreed with, as a man in a committed relationship with a woman, you have your say in whether or not your partner should terminate a pregnancy. You do have a choice!

But you then said my choice didn't carry the same weight as the woman's. Why?

It depends. . .If the parents want that baby, obviously they should try everything possible to save it. However, if the premature child is severely disabled, or will never have the potential of leading a "normal" life, I can see why some may choose to let the child go without "heroic" measures.

The fact is that our medical progress have created a whold population of children who will never function as full human being, and many will die after just a few months, or a few years, sometime in horrible death. I think it is wonderful that some premature babies can be saved by staying a few weeks in "artificial wombs" in intensive care... However, we tend to play "apprentice sorcerer" with our advanced technique to keep severely premature newborns alive, as we are with keeping adults in comas alive!

But you would view that as a human correct?

I would personaly support eliminating LEGAL abortions after 20 weeks, unless the child is severely damaged and will not lead a "normal" life, or unless the mother's life is in danger. In fact, I believe that even 16 weeks would be enough time for most women to make that decision (unless they learn at a later stage that the child is not "whole.")

But. . .ONLY if no "artificial" barriers are placed by the "well meaning pro-life proponents" to delay abortion. . .A woman should be encouraged to make her decision AS SOON as possible after she becomes pregnant, and should be given every support needed to make that decision, without pressure, without "ultra sounds," without anyone trying to put a guilt trip on her.

Well, obviously I disagree with the whole premise of abortion... but I would get behind and support banning it from 20 weeks and on as a start.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

How about this...we let them expire for everyone?



But you then said my choice didn't carry the same weight as the woman's. Why?




But you would view that as a human correct?



Well, obviously I disagree with the whole premise of abortion... but I would get behind and support banning it from 20 weeks and on as a start.

21 weeks later if the womans life is in danger , to bad?

 

[BigRob]

21 weeks later if the womans life is in danger , to bad?

That is going to be about 0.0001% of cases...so not really a game changer.