The Upside of Abortion

[derek]

[quote]pookie wrote:
derek wrote:
No. I’m not “ok” with those abortions. Was that a serious question? That assumes that you ARE ok with those abortion?

I’m not saying I want to overturn Roe vs Wade but am I “ok” with those abortions? Not at all.

Well which is it? You don’t want to overturn Roe v. Wade, so you support the choice option; but you’re against abortions even when they are the results of rape/incest?
[/quote]

Well I’m kind of a Libertarian in some ways. I don’t like very many laws out there. I don’t really bring up Roe vs. Wade or discus it much because I focus more on the right vs. wrong, life vs. murder arguement. I think the legality/illegality of the issue sometimes takes away from the morality/immorality of it.

When I said I don’t want to overturn the decision, I really should’ve said “There’s more to it than that one decision.” Like what I wrote above.

Sorry for my errors and confusion.

[Zap_Branigan]

[quote]pat36 wrote:
derek wrote:
I’m not saying I want to overturn Roe vs Wade but am I “ok” with those abortions? Not at all.

I do. I’ve met Jane Roe, actually I sat and had a couple of smokes with her (back when I smoked). Norma McCorvey, I believe was her name. Anyway, she’s, made a total 180 and she is trying to undo the Roe v. Wade decision. Ironically, she has never had an abortion, but she has worked at abortion clinics. She explained her deep regret for her past. She’s hung with all the heavy hitters: Patricia Ireland, Gloria Steinam, etc.

I am against them all, except where the life of the mother or child is in danger. I am not going to force one to die so that the other may live.
[/quote]

Did you truly meet her? I do know she is against abortion.

[MrRezister]

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Cunnivore wrote:

Does a woman’s right to NOT have a child end anywhere, and if so, where?

I don’t believe that right ever ends.

Yes, the farther along in a pregnancy she is, the more strongly I would recommend her giving birth, and I see nothing wrong with people suggesting that women not get abortions or speaking out against abortion, however, I draw the line at those same people trying to take away that right. [/quote]

For a while now I’ve been trying to wrap my head around this idea. I’m hoping you can help me, because I’m almost too disgusted to form rational sentences at this point. If I’m hearing correctly, you and a few others who have posted in this thread are arguing that until a fetus is physically separated from it’s mother and breathing on it’s own, it has no right to life whatsoever.

So basically, the act of cutting the umbilical cord, or that first breath if you prefer, somehow magically transforms this thing into a human being whereas seconds before it was merely a growth, like a mole or some benign tumor, is that it?

I had always assumed that this was a rhetorical position that some people chose to defend out of political expediency, but apparently I was wrong, and some people really believe this to be true. Can someone please explain to me the process by which this lump of cells changes into a person?

[derek]

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Or you could take the stance that all human life is equally precious, but that would be going back on your stance that unborn babies are more precious than those of us who have been born.[/quote]

I find I put a bit more emphasis on standing up to protect those that cannot in any way defend themselves.

A baby in the womb is totally helpless and unable to protect it’s own life.

Whatever my stand here makes me to you, I can live with it.

[Zap_Branigan]

[quote]pookie wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Are they trying to minimize abortions while keeping them legal or are they just trying to make them easy to get and thus maximize them?

Who the hell would want to maximize them?
[/quote]

People that make money off of the 1.3 million that are done annually in the US.

I think abortions should be a last resort, used only when all other available options have been considered and rejected.

I agree 100%. NARAL and groups like them work to streamline the abortion option and minimize the others. When they are in favor of underage girls having abortions without parental consent they are not considering the other options.

Personally, I can’t imagine any situation where I’d want to abort a pregnancy, but still, I’d prefer to have the choice to do so if for some reason the case arose. And that’s pretty much the gist of the issue: I think the parents should be the ones to make the choice for themselves and not have it imposed on them by society or, worse, religion.

I tend to agree.

There is a lot of weird reasoning from the anti-choice side, where not only would they make abortion illegal, but they would also remove methods of birth control. They even oppose HPV vaccines that could prevent future cancer one the idiotic premise that it might make someone “more promiscuous.” If the goal is to reduce abortions, shouldn’t birth control be encouraged?

I agree. The main anti-abortion groups have their head up their ass when it comes to birth control and other things.

The debate is dominated by nuts on both sides. It is no wonder the situation is a mess.

[pat]

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:

I do. I’ve met Jane Roe, actually I sat and had a couple of smokes with her (back when I smoked). Norma McCorvey, I believe was her name. Anyway, she’s, made a total 180 and she is trying to undo the Roe v. Wade decision. Ironically, she has never had an abortion, but she has worked at abortion clinics. She explained her deep regret for her past. She’s hung with all the heavy hitters: Patricia Ireland, Gloria Steinam, etc.

I am against them all, except where the life of the mother or child is in danger. I am not going to force one to die so that the other may live.

Did you truly meet her? I do know she is against abortion.[/quote]

Yup, I surely did. She was giving an anti-abortion talk. I hung around for a while a talked and smoked.

[pat]

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
derek wrote:
And let’s get technical here;

What is the fetus as it “crowns” at the vagina?

What is the fetus when he/she emerges from the mother and the cord is still attached?

See the folly in your “not a life” arguement?

Yes, excellent points–all of them; however, technically it is still attached to the mother and thus not an independent life form and in all reality hasn’t taken its first real live breath. Way to use emotive arguments, though. On some people that works.[/quote]

So what if the kid is born and the placenta is pushed out but still attached? By your line of reasoning, not a person.

[pat]

[quote]Cunnivore wrote:
For a while now I’ve been trying to wrap my head around this idea. I’m hoping you can help me, because I’m almost too disgusted to form rational sentences at this point. If I’m hearing correctly, you and a few others who have posted in this thread are arguing that until a fetus is physically separated from it’s mother and breathing on it’s own, it has no right to life whatsoever.

So basically, the act of cutting the umbilical cord, or that first breath if you prefer, somehow magically transforms this thing into a human being whereas seconds before it was merely a growth, like a mole or some benign tumor, is that it?

I had always assumed that this was a rhetorical position that some people chose to defend out of political expediency, but apparently I was wrong, and some people really believe this to be true. Can someone please explain to me the process by which this lump of cells changes into a person?

[/quote]

You cannot wrap your head around it because the logic is flawed. There is no way to conclusivly say that a person was not a person, moments before they became a person. There’s no decernable difference between the “tissue” moments before birth and after birth. As well as a month before birth, or a month before that. The only time it is clear that this tissue is not an independent living being is prior to conception. It really doesn’t matter what it looks like, a “fetus” has all the properties it’s ever going to have moments after conception. Further, more nobody can conclusivly say it does. They may think it, but proving conclusivly is not possible.
I think if you are going to allow for this taking of life you should have to prove it conclusivly.

[pookie]

[quote]Cunnivore wrote:
Can someone please explain to me the process by which this lump of cells changes into a person?[/quote]

Actually, the whole problem stems from needing a place to draw the line. Birth is simply the most evident place where to put that line, but of course, since we know the fetus can live on its own, unassisted, outside the womb starting at around the 7th month, it’s not necessarily the best place to put the line.

A lot of people put the line at the very moment of conception, when the sperm enters the ovum. Of course, most of them ignore the fact that more than 50% of those fertilizations will eventually be ejected naturally by the body. Nature’s quality control at work, if you want. You could even ask why they put their line there, since the sperm and the ovum are themselves living cells. They just happen to be haploid cells who, upon meeting, will merge and form a diploid cell that will, about 40% of the time, eventually attach to the womb and begin the process of making another human being. Life does not “begin” at conception, it simply continues from previous life. Living tissue produced living cells that combine into another living cell. It’s all life.

Similarly, people trying to have children will, statistically, eject about 1 out of every 2 embryos they manage to conceive. So if you have 3 kids, you (or your mate, if you’re a man) most likely “passed” 3 unborn embryos while you were trying to get pregnant. It’s not good or bad or moral/immoral… it’s simply how nature works.

Most of the pro-choice people place their imaginary line after the first or second semester, but again, those are completely arbitrary. No matter where you put it, nothing particularly special happens from the previous day to the next that would simplify the choice of where to place the “no more abortions beyond this point” line.

Various other “lines” have been suggested, based on various conditions, such as when does the nervous system form; when can the fetus feel pain; when does it become “a person” (ie, when does the baby develop a personality. That line is hugely unpopular, since it’s well after birth.)

So, after all the various options have been discussed, the line has to be placed somewhere between when the woman learns she is pregnant (so usually well after the zygote and embryo stage) and before birth. No answer satisfies everybody; and no one could, since they’re all entirely arbitrary.

[pookie]

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
People that make money off of the 1.3 million that are done annually in the US.[/quote]

There’s a difference between providing the service as part of your work and actively encouraging it. Are you suggesting that some people are actually pushing for more abortions as a way to increase revenue? That’s sick.

[quote]I agree. The main anti-abortion groups have their head up their ass when it comes to birth control and other things.

The debate is dominated by nuts on both sides. It is no wonder the situation is a mess.[/quote]

There shouldn’t even be “sides” to this debate. Everyone is basically in favor of life and in favor of choice and freedom. I mean, really, all things being equal, who would terminate a pregnancy on a whim, or who would take away freedom to choose on issues? Polarizing this debate does nothing to help settle it.

[Juan_Blanco]

[quote]
If you’re more concerned with the baby/zygote/fetus/whatever-word-we’re-using-today’s right to life, why not put focus on finding a way to protect that right without infringing on a womans reproductive rights?[/quote]

Why not use the word slave to dehumanize the victims? Slaves aren’t really humans. Why should their welfare be considered?

http://www.pregnantpause.org/racism/buchpers.htm

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

[quote]pat36 wrote:
So what if the kid is born and the placenta is pushed out but still attached? By your line of reasoning, not a person.
[/quote]

Usually they have to physically wipe that stuff away, clear out the mouth, and cut the umbilical cord. At this point I would call it living. I would also not consider it living if it needs incubation–thechnically, in my mind, that is a womb.

[pat]

[quote]pookie wrote:
Cunnivore wrote:
Can someone please explain to me the process by which this lump of cells changes into a person?

Actually, the whole problem stems from needing a place to draw the line. Birth is simply the most evident place where to put that line, but of course, since we know the fetus can live on its own, unassisted, outside the womb starting at around the 7th month, it’s not necessarily the best place to put the line.

A lot of people put the line at the very moment of conception, when the sperm enters the ovum. Of course, most of them ignore the fact that more than 50% of those fertilizations will eventually be ejected naturally by the body. Nature’s quality control at work, if you want. You could even ask why they put their line there, since the sperm and the ovum are themselves living cells. They just happen to be haploid cells who, upon meeting, will merge and form a diploid cell that will, about 40% of the time, eventually attach to the womb and begin the process of making another human being. Life does not “begin” at conception, it simply continues from previous life. Living tissue produced living cells that combine into another living cell. It’s all life.

Similarly, people trying to have children will, statistically, eject about 1 out of every 2 embryos they manage to conceive. So if you have 3 kids, you (or your mate, if you’re a man) most likely “passed” 3 unborn embryos while you were trying to get pregnant. It’s not good or bad or moral/immoral… it’s simply how nature works.

Most of the pro-choice people place their imaginary line after the first or second semester, but again, those are completely arbitrary. No matter where you put it, nothing particularly special happens from the previous day to the next that would simplify the choice of where to place the “no more abortions beyond this point” line.

Various other “lines” have been suggested, based on various conditions, such as when does the nervous system form; when can the fetus feel pain; when does it become “a person” (ie, when does the baby develop a personality. That line is hugely unpopular, since it’s well after birth.)

So, after all the various options have been discussed, the line has to be placed somewhere between when the woman learns she is pregnant (so usually well after the zygote and embryo stage) and before birth. No answer satisfies everybody; and no one could, since they’re all entirely arbitrary.

[/quote]

Hey, very well reasoned even for a french Canuck fucker…Yes, where to draw that line is the whole issue.
I error on the side of caution and draw it at conception, until it can be proven conclusivly that it occurs at some other point between conception and birth.
BTW… I am pretty sure I got the first embryo, I sure as hell wasn’t trying. But I am glad for it nonetheless.

[pookie]

[quote]pat36 wrote:
The only time it is clear that this tissue is not an independent living being is prior to conception.[/quote]

Even then… sperms are quite alive and are not attached to their host; you can look at them under a microscope and they live for a good while even outside the body.

Similarly the ovum is also a living cell that can do quite well on its own. In vitro fertilization would be impossible if the cells where unable to live outside a human body for a short period.

The merging of the two cells is simply life continuing into life… no life “begins” at conception; it’s all alive even before.

[Juan_Blanco]

[quote]pookie wrote:
There is a lot of weird reasoning from the anti-choice side.[/quote]
Is there a Trader Joe’s in Quebec?

Oops! I forgot that you’re a LIAR. It’s no surprise that as a liar, you have no problems with the slaughter of children.

http://www.pregnantpause.org/racism/buchpers.htm

[pat]

[quote]pookie wrote:
pat36 wrote:
The only time it is clear that this tissue is not an independent living being is prior to conception.

Even then… sperms are quite alive and are not attached to their host; you can look at them under a microscope and they live for a good while even outside the body.

Similarly the ovum is also a living cell that can do quite well on its own. In vitro fertilization would be impossible if the cells where unable to live outside a human body for a short period.

The merging of the two cells is simply life continuing into life… no life “begins” at conception; it’s all alive even before.[/quote]

But the collective pool of genes contained with in do not make a human gene set until they join with the egg. Ironically, the sperm itself dies either way.
That is where I am drawing the line. no earlier, though I do get your point.

[CappedAndPlanIt]

[quote]derek wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Or you could take the stance that all human life is equally precious, but that would be going back on your stance that unborn babies are more precious than those of us who have been born.

I find I put a bit more emphasis on standing up to protect those that cannot in any way defend themselves.

A baby in the womb is totally helpless and unable to protect it’s own life.

Whatever my stand here makes me to you, I can live with it.
[/quote]

Of many of the previous “stupid” examples I listed, many of the people in those situations couldnt defend themselves. Certainly a person on life support is as helpless as a baby, and, within the context of being shot or blown up, every human being is helpless (unless you can possibly argue that innocent Iraqi civilians arent helpless if an American soldier points a gun at them and pulls the trigger?

No, I’m not suggesting that American soldiers are bad or murderers or other nonsense, so if anyone is going to jump down my throat about that, just stfu, dude. The same logic can apply to any war, I’m just using the current one for context

[CappedAndPlanIt]

[quote]Cunnivore wrote:
For a while now I’ve been trying to wrap my head around this idea. I’m hoping you can help me, because I’m almost too disgusted to form rational sentences at this point. If I’m hearing correctly, you and a few others who have posted in this thread are arguing that until a fetus is physically separated from it’s mother and breathing on it’s own, it has no right to life whatsoever.

[/quote]

Strawman.

I never said the child does not have a right to life.

I said the childs right to life does not supercede the mothers right to decide if she will get, be, or remain pregnant, a right which she always has.

Is that any clearer?

[John_S1]

So what your saying is the mothers right to chose is worth more then a baby’s life? What kind of monster are you. If your going to have sex you better be ready for the chance that a kid will be made. If a woman is raped, its sad it happened but if she doesn’t want the kid there’s adoption.

[CappedAndPlanIt]

[quote]John S. wrote:
So what your saying is the mothers right to chose is worth more then a baby’s life? What kind of monster are you. If your going to have sex you better be ready for the chance that a kid will be made. If a woman is raped, its sad it happened but if she doesn’t want the kid there’s adoption.[/quote]

If you took the time to read this whole thread, you’d see that I already addressed all of those points.

Yes, I side with a womans reproductive rights, even if her exercising those rights does result in the death of another human being.

Having sex does not mean consenting to getting, being, or remaining pregnant any more than driving a car means consenting to a car accident or eating food means consenting to choking.

Lastly, adoption is a fine option of a woman does not want to keep and raise a child. It does nothing to affect the issue of a woman not wanting to carry a pregnancy to term. Learn the difference.