Abortion

[palerider]

This case has been decided and not only will it not be overturned... hasn't been overturned in 4 decades under both Liberal & Conservative administrations but there's the final trump card always available to women.

I encourage you to go on believing that. When roe is overturned, your outrage will be that much more enjoyable. Or will you simply accept that abortion on demand has ended because the court said so?

A Constitutional Amendment. This is exactly why the Republicants talk about abortion for the benefit of their extremists but really do nothing. They fully know that the second anyone touched Roe that would be the death-nail for supporting politicians to not get re-elected. The other side would rally on the basis of they are taking away your reproductive rights and an Amendment would quickly be brought forward and passed. At the longest overturning Roe could only last until the end of whatever current election cycle was at hand.

In case you haven't noticed, members of the court are appointed for life. They are not dependent upon politics. Your belief that this topic has something to do with politics is just one more red herring on your part in an attempt to get the conversation as far away from the fact that human beings are being killed as possible.

Well Mr. clinic creeper let me tell ya I have family that has to deal with your ilk. My wife's niece would much rather be anywhere else but she volunteers simply because you guys are DOCTOR MURDERING, CLINIC VANDALIZING & BOMBING DOMESTIC TERRORISTS.

Again, name calling is not a substitue for rational argument. I am not sure whether I have ever even driven by a women's clinic. I have no idea where they might be located in my town and have no interest where they may be. I do my part in ending abortion on demand through my checkbook in my assistance to legal teams that focus on overturning roe.

Perhaps you haven't noticed that the last abortion case that came before the court resulted in a ban on partial birth abortion being upheld. Had I asked the week before that decision was announced, any pro choicer out there would have gleefuly said that there was no way any sort of abortion would ever be banned.

And if having to go out in groups to shelter some poor and distrested young lady or woman from you nutbags sometimes having to push them away as they try and block legal access is "violence" being committed by women's clinic protection volunteers... yes please, sign me up! [/COLOR]

So you are likely to resort to violence. I am not surprised as you are a knee jerk emotionalist as opposed to a rational thinking individual who looks at the broad picture and determines the most effective way to get a thing done. You are exactly the kind of person you rail against; that being one who is willing to take the law into your own hands. In and of itself, that is completely unsurprising. What is surprising is that you were so easily manipulated into admitting it.

 

[Bob the Builder]

I am surprised that no one has corrected poor Bob on this...

Bob, Bob, Bob, RU-486 is the abortion pill. A D&C terminates a pregnancy.

If conception (pregnancy) has not occurred, there would be no reason to take that pill or have a D&C. They are both abortions.

d, d, d,....(long sigh)...

In rape cases, RU-486, AKA the "morning after" pill, is used to prevent the egg from attaching itself to the uterine wall thereby preventing the pregnancy.

A D&C procedure is used to literally scrape the uterine wall removing any and all "foreign" matter.

Now that YOU'VE been corrected, perhaps you'll do some research next time so that you won't be embarassed so badly in public.

 

[Bob the Builder]

Not only that but even today's safe and effective REGULAR Birth Control Pill often causes abortions. The egg is already fertilized but the Pill contaminates the womb so it cannot implant hence flushing (aborting) it.

Not entirely correct. While what you stated does happen in extremely rare cases, when it does it is not called an "abortion", it is called a miscarriage. The term "abortion" is used to describe a MEDICAL procedure, a "miscarriage" is the UNINTENTIONAL termination of a pregnancy.

But this would be the next illogical next step for the Anti-Choice crowd.

Criminalize women first and dictate by law what someone else tells them they must carry inside their body and then go back to microscopic 2 cell events and try to outlaw the Birth Control Pill.

The lack of logic is entirely on your side of the discussion. In fact, the entire "it's my body, I can do what I want to with it" argument is nothing but pure obfuscation for avoiding personal responsibility. Nobody is talking about outlawing birth control pills as they are one of the RESPONSIBLE ways of preventing pregnancy, along with an IUD, diaphram, condoms, or any of the myriad foams and gells available.

Please, do try to engage your brain before you write things like that, it indicates an utter lack of reasoning ability on your part.

 

[palerider]

d, d, d,....(long sigh)...

In rape cases, RU-486, AKA the "morning after" pill, is used to prevent the egg from attaching itself to the uterine wall thereby preventing the pregnancy.

Sorry guy, but if you are going to hold a position, then face the truth of that position. Your information is outdated and obsolete. In the old days, it was accepted that pregnancy didn't begin until the embryo attached itself to the uterine wall. That was accepted because the hormonal changes that signal pregnancy didn't become detectable until that point.

Molecular biochemistry has changed that. Pregnancy begins when the woman's body acknowledges the presence of the child and begins making the required changes to facilitate gestation. Molecular biochemistry has shown us that the child begins chemical communications with it's mother's body within an hour or so after fertilzation is complete. The woman's body responds and acknowledges its state of pregnancy by not sending her immune system to destroy the child as an invading pathogen.

The race is on among producers of early pregnancy tests to develop a test sensitive enough to detect the hormonal changes that indicate pregnancy even before implantation. It can be done, but at this point, requires very extensive, and expensive testing.

Any device or drug that prevents an embryo from implanting in the uterus causes the death of a child and is therefore an abortion.

Support the use of the abortion pill if you like, but don't dodge the truth of it and become the very sort of pro choice supporter you rail against.

A D&C procedure is used to literally scrape the uterine wall removing any and all "foreign" matter.

D&C isn't the only abortion procedure.

Now that YOU'VE been corrected, perhaps you'll do some research next time so that you won't be embarassed so badly in public.

I suggest that it is you who needs to research a bit. If the woman's body had not accepted the presence of the zygote and therefore accepted the fact of pregnancy, the child would be dead in minutes as it would be attacked by her immune system. A very large number of zygotes die for exactly that reason. The chemical comminication fails and mom's body does not accept the pregnancy and the child is killed by her immune system. It is thought that perhaps the communication fails because there is a serious genetic problem with the child and as a result, it sends a chemical communication that is different from the specific message the woman's body expects to recieve in order to acknowledge the pregnancy.

 

[palerider]

Not entirely correct. While what you stated does happen in extremely rare cases, when it does it is not called an "abortion", it is called a miscarriage. The term "abortion" is used to describe a MEDICAL procedure, a "miscarriage" is the UNINTENTIONAL termination of a pregnancy.

Miscarriage is a natural death. If the uterus is hostile to the child by design, it is an abortion. Word games fail the pro choice side of the argument at every turn. What makes you believe they would work for you?

The lack of logic is entirely on your side of the discussion. In fact, the entire "it's my body, I can do what I want to with it" argument is nothing but pure obfuscation for avoiding personal responsibility. Nobody is talking about outlawing birth control pills as they are one of the RESPONSIBLE ways of preventing pregnancy, along with an IUD, diaphram, condoms, or any of the myriad foams and gells available.

And yet, you stand there supporting the woman making her uterus an inhospitable environment for her child and thus bringing about its death.

I am talking about outlawing anything with abortifacient effects as they are causing abortions. It is entirely possible to formulate a pill that stops ovulation but does not create a hostile environment within the uterus that causes the death of a child if fertilization does happen.

Please, do try to engage your brain before you write things like that, it indicates an utter lack of reasoning ability on your part.

I might suggest that you consider at least the first order consequences of your own arguments if not the second or third before you chide someone else. I appreciate that you hold an anti abortion position, but one that rejects some abortions but not others if the woman's life is not in danger is either hypocritical or uninformed. I won't make a judgement as to which it is.

 

[Bob the Builder]

Just curious; can you (or pandora who seems to be of the same mind) offer up a rational argument in support of killing a child for the crime of its father? I mean, a child of rape is no less human, and no less deserving of having its inherent human rights protected than any other child.

I always ask whenever an anti abortion sort makes an exception for rape. To date, I have not heard a rational argument in support of killing a child for the crime of its father.

Firstly, I would point out that in cases of rape, as I pointed out earlier, when the victim is taken to the hospital, at least in this area, the normal procedure has been for decades to administer RU-486, Plan B, or some other medication to prevent the attachment of the egg to the uterine wall, thereby preventing pregnancy in the first place. While there are cases where the woman will, for reasons that totally escape me, fail to notify LEOs of the rape, in some cases for many days, or even weeks, these cases are the extreme exception, in which case your question then becomes valid, and should therefore be addressed.

The exception for rape is, at least in my mind, grounded in our oldest laws. Assume for a moment that someone gets your credit card number and uses it to charge up tens of thousands of dollars on your account; have you not been violated, and do we not allow for those debts to be wiped out, or should you still be liable for those charges even though they were made against your will? If you are physically attacked, do we not, as a society, do everything in our power to restore you to your previous condition, to include the County or State footing the bill for your medical services, or would you suggest that we simply compel you to "suck it up" and deal with your injuries as best you can?

In the case of rape, the woman has been violated, and therefore we should provide for her to be "restored" to her previous condition (as much as is possible considering the psychological trauma). Even when we look to the Mosaic Law (which is based on many much older laws), in every case where someone is violated, it calls for the victim to be "restored", as much as possible, to their previous condition and the perpetrator to be punished.

If we do not allow for her to be restored to her previous condition, then we as a society are punishing her for someone else's crime, and this concept is anathema in our society.

 

[palerider]

Firstly, I would point out that in cases of rape, as I pointed out earlier, when the victim is taken to the hospital, at least in this area, the normal procedure has been for decades to administer RU-486, Plan B, or some other medication to prevent the attachment of the egg to the uterine wall, thereby preventing pregnancy in the first place.

As I have pointed out, pregnancy begins when the woman's body acknowledges the presence of the child and begins the hormonal changes necessary for gestation. The first of those changes is not attacking the child and killing it via her immune system as a foriegn pathogen.

Refer to Stedman's or Mosby's Medical Encyclopedias. Steadmans, then Mosbys are the "go to" volumes for medical professionals.

Mosby’s Medical dictionary, 7th Edition, (c) 2006

Conception (l, concipere, to take together): 1. The beginning of pregnancy, usually taken to be the instant that a spermatozoon enters an ovum and forms a viable zygote. 2. the act or process of fertilization

Stedman’s Medical Dictionary, 28th Edition, (c) 2006
(not to be confused with the Online Dictionary at Stedmans.com)

Conception: 3. Fertilization of oocyte by a sperm (Latin conception; see concept)

Pregnancy: The state of the female after conception and until the termination of the gestation.

Webster's New World Medical Dictionary, Second Edition, (c) 2003

Conception: The union of a sperm and an egg to create the first cell of a new organism. The term Conception has also been used to imply implantation of the blastocyst, the formation of a viable zygote, and the onset of pregnancy.

Pregnancy: The state of carrying a developing embryo or fetus within the female body.

Embryo: An organism in the early stages of growth and differentiation from fertilization to the beginning of the third month in humans.


Only contraception which prevents fertilization, or the woman's own immune response by attacking the child can "prevent" pregnancy.

The exception for rape is, at least in my mind, grounded in our oldest laws. Assume for a moment that someone gets your credit card number and uses it to charge up tens of thousands of dollars on your account; have you not been violated, and do we not allow for those debts to be wiped out, or should you still be liable for those charges even though they were made against your will?

That is not analogous to killing a child for the crime of its father.

If you are physically attacked, do we not, as a society, do everything in our power to restore you to your previous condition, to include the County or State footing the bill for your medical services, or would you suggest that we simply compel you to "suck it up" and deal with your injuries as best you can?

Again, not analogous to killing a child for the crime of its father.

In the case of rape, the woman has been violated, and therefore we should provide for her to be "restored" to her previous condition (as much as is possible considering the psychological trauma). Even when we look to the Mosaic Law (which is based on many much older laws), in every case where someone is violated, it calls for the victim to be "restored", as much as possible, to their previous condition and the perpetrator to be punished.

Not an argument supporting killing a child for the crime of its father.

If we do not allow for her to be restored to her previous condition, then we as a society are punishing her for someone else's crime, and this concept is anathema in our society.

So we punish a child by killing it for the crime of its father. The very thing you rail against in the case of the woman. There exists between a child and its mother a clash of rights. The same clash exists whether the child is one of rape or of casual sex. Whenever a clash of rights exists between individuals, the rights of the one must give way to the more fundamental right of the other. Is there a more fundamental right than the very right to live?

 

[dahermit]

d, d, d,....(long sigh)...

In rape cases, RU-486, AKA the "morning after" pill, is used to prevent the egg from attaching itself to the uterine wall thereby preventing the pregnancy.

A D&C procedure is used to literally scrape the uterine wall removing any and all "foreign" matter.

Now that YOU'VE been corrected, perhaps you'll do some research next time so that you won't be embarassed so badly in public.

Bob, Bob, Bob,...longer sigh... If you had stayed awake in biology class, or had not quit school, you would know that the egg is fertilized before it is attached to the uterus. Ergo, human embryo, ergo, pregnant. Never heard of "tubal" pregnancy either huh? Two "r's" in embarrassed (that is English and biology).

 

[Bob the Builder]

Sorry guy, but if you are going to hold a position, then face the truth of that position. Your information is outdated and obsolete. In the old days, it was accepted that pregnancy didn't begin until the embryo attached itself to the uterine wall. That was accepted because the hormonal changes that signal pregnancy didn't become detectable until that point.

Molecular biochemistry has changed that. Pregnancy begins when the woman's body acknowledges the presence of the child and begins making the required changes to facilitate gestation. Molecular biochemistry has shown us that the child begins chemical communications with it's mother's body within an hour or so after fertilzation is complete. The woman's body responds and acknowledges its state of pregnancy by not sending her immune system to destroy the child as an invading pathogen.

The race is on among producers of early pregnancy tests to develop a test sensitive enough to detect the hormonal changes that indicate pregnancy even before implantation. It can be done, but at this point, requires very extensive, and expensive testing.

Any device or drug that prevents an embryo from implanting in the uterus causes the death of a child and is therefore an abortion.

Support the use of the abortion pill if you like, but don't dodge the truth of it and become the very sort of pro choice supporter you rail against.



D&C isn't the only abortion procedure.



I suggest that it is you who needs to research a bit. If the woman's body had not accepted the presence of the zygote and therefore accepted the fact of pregnancy, the child would be dead in minutes as it would be attacked by her immune system. A very large number of zygotes die for exactly that reason. The chemical comminication fails and mom's body does not accept the pregnancy and the child is killed by her immune system. It is thought that perhaps the communication fails because there is a serious genetic problem with the child and as a result, it sends a chemical communication that is different from the specific message the woman's body expects to recieve in order to acknowledge the pregnancy.

I appreciate the update on the latest in medical science, however that does not alter the fact that unless or until the egg attaches itself to the uterine wall, pregnancy cannot happen as the egg will be flushed out of the body at the onset of the menstrual cycle. The use of RU-486, Plan B, and other hormonal based medications prevent the egg from attaching in the first place, allowing it to be naturally evacuated from the body and preventing pregnancy.

I am aware that D&C isn't the only procedure, and it is possible that I may be using the "old" terminology, but it (or a similar procedure) is used in cases of rape where aside from the normal coital aspects, foreign objects were utilized in the assault, in order to ensure that nothing has been left in the woman that could cause an infection and possibly kill her.

As far as my research, what I know about it comes from nearly 2 decades serving as an Aux. Sheriffs Deputy and dealing with rape cases, from being the first "on scene", and in many cases being the one to transport the victim to the hospital when an ambulance would take too long to arrive on scene, taking statements, collecting evidence from hospital staff to ensure a proper chain of custody, and collecting statements of the victims treatment for use by the courts.

I make no claim to being a Doctor, nor have I ever played one on television, but my experience comes from dealing with the victims, and going after the perpetrators, so if there are areas where my medical knowledge is lacking, I ask for your indulgence.

 

[Bob the Builder]

Bob, Bob, Bob,...longer sigh... If you had stayed awake in biology class, or had not quit school, you would know that the egg is fertilized before it is attached to the uterus. Ergo, human embryo, ergo, pregnant. Never heard of "tubal" pregnancy either huh? Two "r's" in embarrassed (that is English and biology).

d, d, d, (an even longer sigh, and a shake of the head)

Would you care to show me where I intimated, suggested, or stated that the egg is fertilized AFTER it is attached to the uterine wall??

Yes, I have heard of a "tubal" pregnancy, but those are so incredibly rare that I didn't feel it necessary to comment on. The fact that you did indicates that you're losing, that you KNOW that you're losing, and that you had to try to come up with something to try to "save face". Truly sad.

If you're going to try to debate, don't resort to 'putting words in someone else's mouth', it only makes you look dumb, and proves that you really don't have a decent rebuttal.

Oh, and playing English teacher is a dangerous position to take, because it leave you open for the same criticism in the future, besides further amplifying the fact that you've got nothing.

 

[palerider]

I appreciate the update on the latest in medical science, however that does not alter the fact that unless or until the egg attaches itself to the uterine wall, pregnancy cannot happen as the egg will be flushed out of the body at the onset of the menstrual cycle.

Sorry guy, but playing with words does not represent rational argument. If the communication between the zygote and the mother's body has happened, and her body has responded by not sending her immune system to kill the child as a pathogen, there will be no menstral cycle. At the point at which her body accepts the child and does not kill it, she is pregnant. See the references I have provided above to Mosby's, Stedmans, and Webster's medical.

The use of RU-486, Plan B, and other hormonal based medications prevent the egg from attaching in the first place, allowing it to be naturally evacuated from the body and preventing pregnancy.

If the embryo is still alive by the time it reaches the uterus then the woman's body has not rejected it and killed it via her immune system. That being the case, there is nothing "natural" about the child being flushed out of her system. It is flushed out because a hostile environment has been created to cause its death.

Again, word games don't work for the pro choice crowd, what makes you believe it will work for you? Support the use of the morning after pill if you like, but don't try and BS someone into believing that it can not cause an abortion.

so if there are areas where my medical knowledge is lacking, I ask for your indulgence.

No problem with not knowing. Once you have been informed, however, continuing to hold to information that is shown to be flawed places you in the same realm as the average pro choicer.

 

[palerider]

Yes, I have heard of a "tubal" pregnancy, but those are so incredibly rare that I didn't feel it necessary to comment on. The fact that you did indicates that you're losing, that you KNOW that you're losing, and that you had to try to come up with something to try to "save face". Truly sad.

Again, he is not losing. Pregnancy begins when the woman's body acknowledges the presence of the child. That happens an hour or so after the zygote comes into existence. From that point on, any deliberate measure that results in the death of the living child is, by defninition, an abortion.

 

[Bob the Builder]

As I have pointed out, pregnancy begins when the woman's body acknowledges the presence of the child and begins the hormonal changes necessary for gestation. The first of those changes is not attacking the child and killing it via her immune system as a foriegn pathogen.

Refer to Stedman's or Mosby's Medical Encyclopedias. Steadmans, then Mosbys are the "go to" volumes for medical professionals.<snip for brevity>

Pale, while I appreciate your extensive medical knowledge, as well as your willingness to share it with us, what you have failed to account for is the time interval. What I'm talking about is rape, where the victim either goes herself, or is taken to the hospital immediately following the crime, and medications and treatment are administered as quickly as possible to prevent pregnancy from occurring in the first place. Given that it can take anywhere from hours, to days, (and yes, I have heard that it can take as little as 30 minutes, but this is subjective to so many factors as to be the rare exception rather than the rule in rape cases) before the sperm can "swim" into the fallopian tubes and find an egg to fertilize, the point about exactly when "pregnancy" occurs (fertilization v attachment) is for the purposes of the discussion of rape therefore rendered moot.

You have also failed to take into account that, for the moment, we are discussing rape rather than casual sex, and therefore there is the criminal aspect to account for, which automatically alters the normal bounds of the discussion.

So as not to make any "assumptions" I would like to ask you a question directly; Is it your position that the death penalty should be abandoned? The reason I ask is that if your position is that all life should be preserved, then we will simply have to agree to disagree on this particular aspect of the discussion (care for victims of rape), and resolve ourselves to the fact that we agree on 95% of the subject, and not allow the other 5% to come between us.

 

[GenSeneca]

Is it your position that the death penalty should be abandoned? The reason I ask is that if your position is that all life should be preserved, then we will simply have to agree to disagree on this particular aspect of the discussion (care for victims of rape), and resolve ourselves to the fact that we agree on 95% of the subject, and not allow the other 5% to come between us.

I'm certainly not answering for Palerider but I think you have left out an important aspect of the issue: Innocence. We should protect innocent life, to what degree can be a matter of discussion but there should be protection available. Those found guilty in a court of law and by subsequent appeals courts, are not innocent and therefore not deserving of the protections we extend to the innocent.

There are laws against the abuse of a corpse and tampering with a corpse... I don't see it as being unreasonable to have those laws apply to partial birth abortions. The doctor is killing the child inside the womb and its lifeless corpse is what is removed. Sorry that's a tangent but I had been thinking about the fact that we extend more rights to the dead than we do to the unborn living.

 

[Bob the Builder]

Sorry guy, but playing with words does not represent rational argument. If the communication between the zygote and the mother's body has happened, and her body has responded by not sending her immune system to kill the child as a pathogen, there will be no menstral cycle. At the point at which her body accepts the child and does not kill it, she is pregnant. See the references I have provided above to Mosby's, Stedmans, and Webster's medical.

I'm not "playing with words" pale, or is it your contention that a viable pregnancy can occur without the egg being attached to the uterine wall? If the egg does NOT attach itself to the uterine wall, it will fail to continue to grow as it will not receive the nourishment from the mothers body, and therefore die. It is no different than any seed that has been germinated lying on a concrete sidewalk instead of in soil, without the nourishment from the soil, it will continue only so long as the starches within the seed last, but once those have been exhausted it will wither and die. The same applies to human reporduction, for without the nourishment from the mother, even though the egg is fertilized, it will eventually wither and die once it's own sources of energy are exhausted.

If the embryo is still alive by the time it reaches the uterus then the woman's body has not rejected it and killed it via her immune system. That being the case, there is nothing "natural" about the child being flushed out of her system. It is flushed out because a hostile environment has been created to cause its death.

Again, word games don't work for the pro choice crowd, what makes you believe it will work for you? Support the use of the morning after pill if you like, but don't try and BS someone into believing that it can not cause an abortion.

pale, I would strongly urge you to put your "hostility" in check. We're on the same side here, with only a minor point of questionable biology separating us, and it does your cause no good to deride your teammates for a difference of opinion that, in the grand scheme of things, matters not a bit.

No problem with not knowing. Once you have been informed, however, continuing to hold to information that is shown to be flawed places you in the same realm as the average pro choicer.

Just because YOU claim that it is flawed doesn't make it any more true than when ASPCA claims that someone is "angry". You have consistantly neglected to take into account the criminal aspect of rape, and therefore hold the opinion that the victim of a crime should be liable for the damage done to them through no fault of their own, and I would charge you to demonstrate any civilized society in the Western world where this is the case.

Perhaps it is because I've seen entirely too many victims of rape over the years, but condemning them to being further victimized by their attacker (which is exactly what you are advocating) is something that I cannot condone.