Wait On That Abortion

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Other countries can do what they want - what their citizens decide. But as an American, I want my country to protect life. If people want to go to Brazil to commit a murder, be my guest.

You obviously didn't "brush up." The Brazilian government doesn't allow abortion (or "murder," as you say) and they still have tons of abortions every year.

The "back alley" is not some catchphrase. Outlawing abortion does not stop it. It just makes it more dangerous. So you're not really accomplishing anything by outlawing abortion, unless the accomplishment you're seeking is putting women in a more dangerous situation when they have an unwanted pregnancy. A woman desperate to end a pregnancy she doesn't want will find a way, even if it's illegal and she does so at a much greater risk to herself.

Outlaw abortion and sure, you'll get some extra babies. And you'll also get a bunch of extra dead women. Not a trade-off I'm thrilled about taking, but you might be different.

[somerfrost]

I hesitate to speak to the Dakota bill, I can see the concern from those who are pro-choice, the wording can be taken a couple ways and it's not unreasonable that some nut job will read it as giving him/her open season on abortion providers even though that is clearly not the intent. I am troubled by the suggestion that sterilizing folks is an answer. It takes me back to the 60's and a song written by Phil Ochs, "Here's To The State Of Mississippi" in which he touches on the immorality of forced sterilization. I thought that was an idea who's time had come and (thankfully) gone with the success of the civil rights movement...guess not. There is no question that a lot of folks are simply not ready to be parents due to a variety of reasons (immaturity, drug use, ignorance of basics and a variety of mental health/character issues) but who would make that decision? How can one justify punishing folks for what may happen in the future? No, the answer, as always lies in increased education, greater access to drug treatment/ mental health/ basic health facilities along with certain basic cultural changes...and that won't happen over night. One thing for sure, trying to balance budgets by denying the above to those who need them most won't result in a positive result.

[Mike]

Well, I'll be more careful of my flippant use of language. I'm not really suggesting forced sterilization, though a concerted effort to provide education and encouragement for vasectomies and tubal ligations -that, I'm all for.
And this:
No, the answer, as always lies in increased education, greater access to drug treatment/ mental health/ basic health facilities along with certain basic cultural changes...and that won't happen over night. One thing for sure, trying to balance budgets by denying the above to those who need them most won't result in a positive result.

That, too, I can agree with

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Mike

Well, I'll be more careful of my flippant use of language. I'm not really suggesting forced sterilization, though a concerted effort to provide education and encouragement for vasectomies and tubal ligations -that, I'm all for.
And this:
No, the answer, as always lies in increased education, greater access to drug treatment/ mental health/ basic health facilities along with certain basic cultural changes...and that won't happen over night. One thing for sure, trying to balance budgets by denying the above to those who need them most won't result in a positive result.

That, too, I can agree with

Please don't take my post as a personal attack, I was responding to the general discussion and didn't mean to single anyone out.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

You obviously didn't "brush up." The Brazilian government doesn't allow abortion (or "murder," as you say) and they still have tons of abortions every year.

The "back alley" is not some catchphrase. Outlawing abortion does not stop it. It just makes it more dangerous. So you're not really accomplishing anything by outlawing abortion, unless the accomplishment you're seeking is putting women in a more dangerous situation when they have an unwanted pregnancy. A woman desperate to end a pregnancy she doesn't want will find a way, even if it's illegal and she does so at a much greater risk to herself.

Outlaw abortion and sure, you'll get some extra babies. And you'll also get a bunch of extra dead women. Not a trade-off I'm thrilled about taking, but you might be different.

Outlawing anything does not stop it. What's your point? That without perfect enforcement no law is worth having?

Gun control, for instance, penalizes legal gun owners, makes them defenseless, yet the criminal who buys his guns illegally is unaffected.

We still have drunk drivers despite repeated attempts to lower blood alcohol limits, adding sobriety checkpoints, and presumed guilt if a breathalyzer is refused.

We still have rampant prostitution even though it is illegal everywhere but in a couple places in Nevada.

And you speak of unwanted pregnancy as if it's as inevitable as the law of gravity, yet you credit those having an abortion as having weighed some huge "choice".

So people are too weak or unthinking to avoid getting unwillingly pregnant, yet these same people are so brilliant as to make a perfectly informed decision regarding if or when to kill their offspring?

[jms62]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Outlawing anything does not stop it. What's your point? That without perfect enforcement no law is worth having?

Gun control, for instance, penalizes legal gun owners, makes them defenseless, yet the criminal who buys his guns illegally is unaffected.

We still have drunk drivers despite repeated attempts to lower blood alcohol limits, adding sobriety checkpoints, and presumed guilt if a breathalyzer is refused.

We still have rampant prostitution even though it is illegal everywhere but in a couple places in Nevada.

And you speak of unwanted pregnancy as if it's as inevitable as the law of gravity, yet you credit those having an abortion as having weighed some huge "choice".

So people are too weak or unthinking to avoid getting unwillingly pregnant, yet these same people are so brilliant as to make a perfectly informed decision regarding if or when to kill their offspring?

No one is killing any offspring becuase they are not offspring until they are born.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by jms62

No one is killing any offspring becuase they are not offspring until they are born.

That is the entire issue is it not? Those who believe life begins at conception can never accept legalized abortion while those who see life beginning at birth must in good faith support a woman's right to choose. That is the basis for the debate and until/unless science can provide a absolute answer, the debate will continue.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

That is the entire issue is it not? Those who believe life begins at conception can never accept legalized abortion while those who see life beginning at birth must in good faith support a woman's right to choose. That is the basis for the debate and until/unless science can provide a absolute answer, the debate will continue.

What is omitted from this debate is when, during the pregnancy, abortions are legally permitted to be performed.

Watched another vet "pinch a twin" this morning in a pregnant TB mare. I did not tell him he was "murdering" a horse.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Riot

What is omitted from this debate is when, during the pregnancy, abortions are legally permitted to be performed.

Watched another vet "pinch a twin" this morning in a pregnant TB mare. I did not tell him he was "murdering" a horse.

Yet if you believe life begins at conception you would see that as murder!

[Riot]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Yet if you believe life begins at conception you would see that as murder!

I believe life is a continuum, as sperm and ova are alive, and no, I do NOT see that as murder. Neither do I see 1-2 month human abortions as murder, and I have seen several aborted (spontaneously) 2-month-old fetuses in my life.

The conceptus is an aggregation of rather undifferentiated cells, not yet developed, not yet capable of going forward in development independent of the mother's body.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

That is the entire issue is it not? Those who believe life begins at conception can never accept legalized abortion while those who see life beginning at birth must in good faith support a woman's right to choose. That is the basis for the debate and until/unless science can provide a absolute answer, the debate will continue.

Quite correct.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by jms62

No one is killing any offspring becuase they are not offspring until they are born.

A Latin word for offspring is "fetus".

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Outlawing anything does not stop it. What's your point? That without perfect enforcement no law is worth having?

Gun control, for instance, penalizes legal gun owners, makes them defenseless, yet the criminal who buys his guns illegally is unaffected.

We still have drunk drivers despite repeated attempts to lower blood alcohol limits, adding sobriety checkpoints, and presumed guilt if a breathalyzer is refused.

We still have rampant prostitution even though it is illegal everywhere but in a couple places in Nevada.

And you speak of unwanted pregnancy as if it's as inevitable as the law of gravity, yet you credit those having an abortion as having weighed some huge "choice".

So people are too weak or unthinking to avoid getting unwillingly pregnant, yet these same people are so brilliant as to make a perfectly informed decision regarding if or when to kill their offspring?

All of those things, guns, drunk driving -- those harm real, living people. I just have a very hard time understanding the thinking that values the "rights" of a hypothetical human being with no ability to survive, no functioning (or formed to the point of being productive) organs over the rights of a sentient, living human being not being forced to be an incubator for 9 months against her will.

But I respect a woman's ability to make her own choices about her own body, and would never be so presumptuous as to think I should have any say over what someone else does with their own body. And yes, that includes the choice to be sexually active, potentially resulting in pregnancy if birth control fails, etc, and believing that the choice to be sexually active does not deny you the later choice to not carry to term a pregnancy that could be dangerous, unwanted, a child you can't afford to take good care of, or any of the other numerous reasons a woman might choose abortion.

The argument about abortion, no matter what words are used, is an awful lot more about women than it is about babies, and controlling their bodies and controlling their choices. I don't want anyone telling me what to do with my body, so it only stands to reason that I should shut up and MYOFB about what a woman, going through something I will NEVER go through in my life, should do with her body.

The thing I'm most hopeful about, and still have a good feeling about, is that this fantasy of yours where any woman who feels inclined to use her vagina for anything is then automatically indebted to be an incubator for some ball of DNA against her will, is unlikely to become the law of the land.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

All of those things, guns, drunk driving -- those harm real, living people. I just have a very hard time understanding the thinking that values the "rights" of a hypothetical human being with no ability to survive, no functioning (or formed to the point of being productive) organs over the rights of a sentient, living human being not being forced to be an incubator for 9 months against her will.

But I respect a woman's ability to make her own choices about her own body, and would never be so presumptuous as to think I should have any say over what someone else does with their own body. And yes, that includes the choice to be sexually active, potentially resulting in pregnancy if birth control fails, etc, and believing that the choice to be sexually active does not deny you the later choice to not carry to term a pregnancy that could be dangerous, unwanted, a child you can't afford to take good care of, or any of the other numerous reasons a woman might choose abortion.

The argument about abortion, no matter what words are used, is an awful lot more about women than it is about babies, and controlling their bodies and controlling their choices. I don't want anyone telling me what to do with my body, so it only stands to reason that I should shut up and MYOFB about what a woman, going through something I will NEVER go through in my life, should do with her body.

The thing I'm most hopeful about, and still have a good feeling about, is that this fantasy of yours where any woman who feels inclined to use her vagina for anything is then automatically indebted to be an incubator for some ball of DNA against her will, is unlikely to become the law of the land.

The whole problem is: it's not just her body. Her body is all the cells having her DNA. The cells having different DNA is another person. Yes, dependent and growing, but another person nonetheless.

Many of us think it is much more about the baby. That's the whole point of this butchery, is it not? We're not talking about plastic surgery here.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

The whole problem is: it's not just her body. Her body is all the cells having her DNA. The cells having different DNA is another person. Yes, dependent and growing, but another person nonetheless.

Many of us think it is much more about the baby. That's the whole point of this butchery, is it not? We're not talking about plastic surgery here.

You are deliberately using inflammatory false equivalency terms - "a person" "butchery" "murder".

Try making your argument using more realistic descriptors.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

You are deliberately using inflammatory false equivalency terms - "a person" "butchery" "murder".

Try making your argument using more realistic descriptors.

That's a difference of opinion.

Those who believe life begins at conception also believe abortion is a murderous act.

The uniqueness of the DNA indicates the presence of a unique individual at whatever state of development. That does not depend on any one organ or biological structure, as many of us also don't believe in euthanasia for the elderly. The functioning or non-functioning of any one organ does not grant or deprive one of "person" status. The first artificial heart recipient, Barney Clark, did not cease to be a human being when his heart was removed and replaced with the Jarvik-7. People with brain damage or special mental challenges are not less of a person. Nor are people who have lost limbs. With the case of a developing human being there is also the fact that, left alone, they will grow and enhance into having all those parts and ablilties, and that's really what the pro-abortion people want to prevent: the responsibility of caring for and raising their child.

And I am familiar with what the procedures are, especially the "partial birth" variety, and if that's not butchery, I don't know what would qualify.

[Riot]

That's a difference of opinion.

Nonsense. Medicine doesn't use those terms, those words are inappropriate to the subject matter. Those words murder butchery baby (when discussing an aggregate of 8 dividing cells, calling it a "baby"? ) are used only by those trying to inflame passions against abortion.

Those who believe life begins at conception also believe abortion is a murderous act.

Many do, but not everyone does. I don't.

The uniqueness of the DNA indicates the presence of a unique individual at whatever state of development.

Then why are you not calling in-vitro fertilization clinics murder centers? At least be consistent with that argument.

With the case of a developing human being there is also the fact that, left alone, they will grow and enhance into having all those parts and ablilties, and that's really what the pro-abortion people want to prevent: the responsibility of caring for and raising their child.

Many people who choose to terminate a pregnancy think long and hard about the lifetime commitment to raising a child. Which is why they choose abortion.

If those words regarding care and raising were true, the anti-abortion crowd would be eagerly financing the care and raising of those children they forced into birth, offering classes on child rearing help, etc. They most certainly do not. In fact, the majority actively support defunding of those programs.

And I am familiar with what the procedures are, especially the "partial birth" variety, and if that's not butchery, I don't know what would qualify.

Then you realize that "partial birth abortions" are indeed extremely rare, most certainly not what we are talking about when we talk about elective abortion, and not permitted in most jurisdictions.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

The argument about abortion, no matter what words are used, is an awful lot more about women than it is about babies, and controlling their bodies and controlling their choices

Precisely. It is literally government forcing women to have babies. It is government overreach in it's most terrible form.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

Precisely. It is literally government forcing women to have babies they became pregnant with. It is government staying out of people's bedrooms in it's most simple form.

Fixed that for you.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Fixed that for you.

See Brian's posts.