The Abortion Thread

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
341

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Yet, for some reason, even though we are assured that abortion is essentially the equivalent of the aforementioned operations, we here many, many reports of guilt, pain, regret, sadness, depression and anger.
[/quote]

Putting my obvious disagreement on the many cases of guilt, pain, regret, sadness, depression and anger aside, why are you so sure women AREN’T lying when they report these feelings?

You obviously believe many are lying when they report the opposite. Just remember : most women do not share your position on abortion being murder.

342

I couldn’t find the post you were referring to. Please give the page number, or something to narrow down which post you question. I will be happy to find a more recent study though. Privacy laws restrict a lot of the information in how it can be shared. However does it really matter when Roe v Wade was back in '73? Nearly forty years ago!

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
This was from over two decades ago! [/quote]

I am a couple pages back still, but…

You do know you quoted a study that was 16 years old 3 posts up from this right?

Please put your goal posts in one spot as to what is an acceptable source and its age.[/quote]

343

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
However does it really matter when Roe v Wade was back in '73? Nearly forty years ago!

[/quote]

pAGE 9.

I don’t care what data any of you use, you are the one moving the goal posts in the span of 3 posts.

16 year old data was fine, then you used the “it’s over two decaded old” in a weak attempt to refute Raj’s data.

All I ask is there is an agreed upon acceptable time frame, from both sides.

344

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
Fletch,

There is nothing circular about the argument, it is a straight line, while inside the womb the fetus is the responsibility of the woman, her choice, whether you agree or not, is the only one that matters with regards to the fetus.

If you remove the “wrong” or “right” notion from the equation the simple fact is this, a woman and a woman alone should be the final say on matters regarding her health and wellness. Trying to draw a parallel between a zygote and a living breathing child (or disabled adult as this thread seems to be doing) is ridiculous, they are not the same.

On a separate note, I find it fascinating that people that are against “big government”, “high taxes” and the “nanny state” would have a stance that promotes all three. If there are 1.6 million abortions each year you have to make the logical leap that the majority of those would be unwanted, abandoned, abused, neglected or some combination of those.

The amount of children in foster care/institutions/awaiting adoption is roughly the same now as 1970 despite an increase in US population of over 105,000,000, I wonder why that number of unwanted children hasn’t increased by 50%? Probably has nothing to do with abortion though, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_Census[/quote]

So why does the woman get the rights to kill or not kill her baby while inside the womb and not while outside?

345

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Nards wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
A sufficiently developed brain for instance.[/quote]

That’s the thing I don’t get…a fetus will have a fully developed brain if you don’t interfere and just wait.

And I don’t get how people can defend animals (a very worthy cause I think) yet make excuses why fetuses are just not smart enough to be safe from being terminated.[/quote]

The potential of a fetus is not relevant.[/quote]

Either way you look at it, you’re still wrong. Technically, anything can be a potential fetus. A star exploding 2000 light years away is a potential fetus…But in reality, there is no such thing as a potential fetus. You either have a fetus, or you have something else. If you have to make up words to justify an action that action is likely wrong.

346

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Having or not having regrets about something is not criteria for whether something is wrong or right. If you go down that road, than anything a total sociopath does isn’t wrong because they don’t regret it. [/quote]

Huh?

I’m saying that there’s no evidence for a causal link between abortion and mental health. My recents posts have nothing to do with whether abortion is right or wrong.

Based on KD’s comments I’m assuming you were directing this post towards me.[/quote]

I’m just suggesting that argument of having or not having guilt of aborting a child is irrelevant in this discussion.

347

[quote]Makavali wrote:

Not to ignore your post, but I’m rather drunk and will have to pop in tomorrow.

Protip: Alcohol makes you play pool 100x better[/quote]

Darts too…I found chain smoking also helps… Ah the good ol’ days.

348

[quote]therajraj wrote:
So lets see here:

As posted a couple of pages back:

http://www.contraceptionjournal.org/article/S0010-7824(08)00369-7/abstract

Abstract
Claims that women who have elective abortions will experience psychological distress have fueled much of the recent debate on abortion. It has been argued that the emotional sequelae of abortion may not occur until months or years after the event. Despite unclear evidence on such a phenomenon, adverse mental health outcomes of abortion have been used as a rationale for policy-making.

We systematically searched for articles focused on the potential association between abortion and long-term mental health outcomes published between January 1, 1989 and August 1, 2008 and reviewed 21 studies that met the inclusion criteria. We rated the study quality based on methodological factors necessary to appropriately explore the research question. Studies were rated as Excellent (no studies), Very Good (4 studies), Fair (8 studies), Poor (8 studies), or Very Poor (1 study).

A clear trend emerges from this systematic review: the highest quality studies had findings that were mostly neutral, suggesting few, if any, differences between women who had abortions and their respective comparison groups in terms of mental health sequelae. Conversely, studies with the most flawed methodology found negative mental health sequelae of abortion.

Now lets see what the American Psychological Association has to say

http://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/abortion/index.aspx

“None of the literature reviewed adequately addressed the prevalence of mental health problems among women in the United States who have had an abortion. In general, however, the prevalence of mental health problems observed among women in the United States who had a single, legal, first-trimester abortion for nontherapeutic reasons was consistent with normative rates of comparable mental health problems in the general population of women in the United States.
Nonetheless, it is clear that some women do experience sadness, grief, and feelings of loss following termination of a pregnancy, and some experience clinically significant disorders, including depression and anxiety. However, the TFMHA reviewed no evidence sufficient to support the claim that an observed association between abortion history and mental health was caused by the abortion per se, as opposed to other factors.”

[/quote]

Nobody was suggesting that abortion was causing greater instances of psychosis, which is what this study was evaluating. Nor would I think or claim it. It does acknowledge that it is an extremely traumatic event, but does not have statistically significant affects as opposed to other traumatic events.

That’s not the point. The point is this traumatic event is preventable. That not having an abortion is far less traumatic than having one. The fact that it’s no worse mentally than a death in the family or divorce is not a winning argument. The fact that it doesn’t drive people mad isn’t in question.
The question is the preventable trauma and guilt associated with abortion, not how hard it jiggles the coo-coo clock.

349

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
Fletch,

There is nothing circular about the argument, it is a straight line, while inside the womb the fetus is the responsibility of the woman, her choice, whether you agree or not, is the only one that matters with regards to the fetus.

If you remove the “wrong” or “right” notion from the equation the simple fact is this, a woman and a woman alone should be the final say on matters regarding her health and wellness. Trying to draw a parallel between a zygote and a living breathing child (or disabled adult as this thread seems to be doing) is ridiculous, they are not the same.

On a separate note, I find it fascinating that people that are against “big government”, “high taxes” and the “nanny state” would have a stance that promotes all three. If there are 1.6 million abortions each year you have to make the logical leap that the majority of those would be unwanted, abandoned, abused, neglected or some combination of those.

The amount of children in foster care/institutions/awaiting adoption is roughly the same now as 1970 despite an increase in US population of over 105,000,000, I wonder why that number of unwanted children hasn’t increased by 50%? Probably has nothing to do with abortion though, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_Census[/quote]

So why does the woman get the rights to kill or not kill her baby while inside the womb and not while outside? [/quote]

Fletch,

Seriously? If it is inside her body who should have control over her decisions? You? the court system? Cortes? Kneedragger? How about the woman, lets let the woman decide, it is an issue between her and her conscience so let’s see how that plays out. Once the baby is outside it is considered a person, legally, at that point it has the same right to live as you do. Are you going to ask why again?

350

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Death of another human being is acceptable if these conditions are met; ???_ Please enlighten me.

[/quote]

First point is that YOU think its a human being (and those in line with you). I think its a “clump of cells” that will eventually grow into a human being. Although more to the point I dont have a problem with the murder of human beings in certain cases either (say like a pedophile or rapist that has been convicted and faces a death penalty).
But I’ll fill in your if/when box.
if the mother’s life is at danger carrying the child to term, if the emotional scar (like from a rape) is more than the woman wants to bear (there goes that whole her choice thing), if the cells grow into a child that would be severely deformed and co-dependent its whole existence.

351

[quote]kamui wrote:

Maybe.
But personhood is absolutely irrelevant here.

Again :
Personhood may be the basis of our right to sue and be sued in court, but it’s certainly not the basis of our right to life.

Our right to life is unconditionnal per definition.
You’re alive : you have a right to life.

If it was not the case, our right to life would not be a right to life at all, but only a “right to life as…[insert what you want here]”.
A person, for example.

Adding such a criterium only narrow the spectrum of ethics (and the number of beings we have to respect)
Problem is that narrowing the spectrum of ethics is the mean, the end and the very definition of evil.

[/quote]

by your same definition a tumor is alive and has the right to not be cut out

352

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Problem is, both science and logic support my view of the humanity of that “mass of cells.” Don’t forget that you are just a “mass of cells” as well. But let’s examine points;

Take it out of the mother and it dies:

The only reason many children are “viable” from around the 24th week is because of advances in medicine that allow us to care for the premature child from as early as this. As medical science continues to advance, the viable point will become earlier and earlier, and there is no reason to believe this will not reach back even to the “mass of cells” stage of development.

So, when that happens, will the morals of the issue have somehow shifted. Will it then be immoral?

If you want to take away choices then be part of the solution…adopt…and adopt plenty of them

Exactly how many should I adopt? Should I also build my own prison to house and feed criminals because I want to take away their “choice” to do what they do? Would one prison be enough? Certainly, as you have demonstrated, my tax dollars and my say in the electorate are clearly not enough for you. So tell me, in hard numbers, what should I give?

Let’s have it?
[/quote]

Haven’t the morals of the issue already shifted in that we do have current boundaries on the procedure different than the past? Also why it is ok to tinker with nature in this case and keep what would have been a naturally aborted “mass of cells” alive as you put medical science as the ONLY reason they are alive. Why is that not messing with God’s plan?

Prisoner thing is irrelevant and totally different but you knew that. Prisoner is a human that made choices that affected someone else in a negative way. Mother choosing not to carry a zygote until it becomes a human form does not equal the same thing, no affect on you in reality and in fact you could take it down some twisted rabbit hole if you really wanted to. Mother was going to abort, didnt, that zygote grows into a human that eventually rapes and murders your child.
Sorry to even type that and I dont wish any portion of that on anyone, especially you as you seem like a very decent fellow. My point is that why is allowing it to happen equal “making the world a better place” as was intimated in another post. A new life into this world is neither good or bad until they take root as a human and make actions that either positively or negatively affect their fellow beings and this earth.

My “adopt, and adopt plenty” obviously is not something you can make into a finite quantified rule (well maybe in Japan) but the point stands, if you feel every life is sacred and you protest outside of abortion clinics, it would be way more powerful (and Christian) thing to do to instead go to each mother considering the abortion and offer to adopt the child. If every mother knew that she could have a solid family structure to put the child into versus the abortion perhaps the rates would go down?

353

[quote]storey420 wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

Maybe.
But personhood is absolutely irrelevant here.

Again :
Personhood may be the basis of our right to sue and be sued in court, but it’s certainly not the basis of our right to life.

Our right to life is unconditionnal per definition.
You’re alive : you have a right to life.

If it was not the case, our right to life would not be a right to life at all, but only a “right to life as…[insert what you want here]”.
A person, for example.

Adding such a criterium only narrow the spectrum of ethics (and the number of beings we have to respect)
Problem is that narrowing the spectrum of ethics is the mean, the end and the very definition of evil.

[/quote]

by your same definition a tumor is alive and has the right to not be cut out[/quote]

In our universe, Tumors are not organisms.
An organism is a continuous and autonomous system made of biological tissue, “programmed” by an individual, specific DNA.
Moreover, even the simplest of organism are able to respond to some stimuli, and manifest some kind of homeostasis.

A tumor may be made of biological tissue, but it does not fit any of the other criteria.

Contrary to a fetus, a tumor really just a clump of cells.

This argument is even worst than the “if a fetus is an human being then masturbation is genocide” argument. And it says a lot.

354

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
Fletch,

There is nothing circular about the argument, it is a straight line, while inside the womb the fetus is the responsibility of the woman, her choice, whether you agree or not, is the only one that matters with regards to the fetus.

If you remove the “wrong” or “right” notion from the equation the simple fact is this, a woman and a woman alone should be the final say on matters regarding her health and wellness. Trying to draw a parallel between a zygote and a living breathing child (or disabled adult as this thread seems to be doing) is ridiculous, they are not the same.

On a separate note, I find it fascinating that people that are against “big government”, “high taxes” and the “nanny state” would have a stance that promotes all three. If there are 1.6 million abortions each year you have to make the logical leap that the majority of those would be unwanted, abandoned, abused, neglected or some combination of those.

The amount of children in foster care/institutions/awaiting adoption is roughly the same now as 1970 despite an increase in US population of over 105,000,000, I wonder why that number of unwanted children hasn’t increased by 50%? Probably has nothing to do with abortion though, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_Census[/quote]

So why does the woman get the rights to kill or not kill her baby while inside the womb and not while outside? [/quote]

Fletch,

Seriously? If it is inside her body who should have control over her decisions? You? the court system? Cortes? Kneedragger? How about the woman, lets let the woman decide, it is an issue between her and her conscience so let’s see how that plays out. Once the baby is outside it is considered a person, legally, at that point it has the same right to live as you do. Are you going to ask why again?
[/quote]

No, I’m just going recognize that your argument is based on circularity and ‘just because’.

355

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]storey420 wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

Maybe.
But personhood is absolutely irrelevant here.

Again :
Personhood may be the basis of our right to sue and be sued in court, but it’s certainly not the basis of our right to life.

Our right to life is unconditionnal per definition.
You’re alive : you have a right to life.

If it was not the case, our right to life would not be a right to life at all, but only a “right to life as…[insert what you want here]”.
A person, for example.

Adding such a criterium only narrow the spectrum of ethics (and the number of beings we have to respect)
Problem is that narrowing the spectrum of ethics is the mean, the end and the very definition of evil.

[/quote]

by your same definition a tumor is alive and has the right to not be cut out[/quote]

In our universe, Tumors are not organisms.
An organism is a continuous and autonomous system made of biological tissue, “programmed” by an individual, specific DNA.
Moreover, even the simplest of organism are able to respond to some stimuli, and manifest some kind of homeostasis.

A tumor may be made of biological tissue, but it does not fit any of the other criteria.

Contrary to a fetus, a tumor really just a clump of cells.

This argument is even worst than the “if a fetus is an human being then masturbation is genocide” argument. And it says a lot.
[/quote]

Ummm…your original post doesnt mention the word organism in it once so why are you switching which words we are talking about? You only specified that if you are alive you have a right to life. A tumor is alive by just about every acceptable medical/biological definition.
Care to stay on topic?

356

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

In what way?

[/quote]

It is hard to explain without appeal to emotion, but on the topic of the child isn’t guilty for the sins of the father:

I know it is true. I know 100% that is a fact.

I also know I wouldn’t be able to see it that way if it were my wife or daughter that were violated. It is profound because I’m pretty damn sure my rage would blind me from the truth, and I can’t imagine I would be the only one.[/quote]

I see what you’re saying.

357

[quote]pat wrote:

The question is the preventable trauma and guilt associated with abortion, not how hard it jiggles the coo-coo clock.[/quote]

I’m not sure why you’d classify an abortion a traumatic event in the first place.

Again, most women do not share your perspective on abortion.

358

Women are very emotional, why don’t we take some time to discuss other things that could cause women unnecessary trauma and guilt. We should then try to make those things illegal for women only, they will thank us later.

359

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
“Scientists disagree on how early fetuses may feel pain” shrug

[/quote]

Yes, some think it’s closer to 30.

360

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Declaration of Independence.

[/quote]

… I’m going to go back to ignoring you again.