Abortion

[V.I.]

One reason to be pro-life:



Two reasons to be pro-choice:

[wicked]

child pron!!!!

But seriously, that your kid VI or you?

[wicked]

It would suck to have your genitals bleed every month...

LMAO. The cramps are worse actually. I'd hate to be one of those who still had her period during the entire pregnancy. Shit that's supposed to be a break!

[nmhunate]

I think that the only way to make abortion acceptable for the general public is to mandate that the first pregnancy is aborted for every woman... When every one has to get an abortion, no one can say anything bad about it.

[Bertros Bertros]

Here in the UK amendments to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 are currently being dicussed by parliament. At the moment the upper limit for abortion in the UK is 24 weeks but the act seeks (amongst many other things) to reduce this to 20 weeks. After 15 weeks drugs are used to induce a miscarriage ie. the fetus is delivered rather than being able to use aspiration (Nappy's more accurately if somewhat insensitively monikored vacuum is irrelevent in the context of this discussion) or non-surgical procedures such as Mifegyne.

As players points out, medical science has reached the point where we can keep alive babys born as early as 22 weeks, but is this a miracle? These babys should not have survived if the 'decision' was left to nature/God rather than man intervening. Is this any more or less 'sinful' than terminating a pregnancy? Its all still messing with the will of God is it not? I heard an interesting interview with a UK doctor who was discussing the conflict experienced in hospitals now where a doctor can be in one room inducing a miscarriage and leaving a fetus at 23 weeks to die and then running down the corridor to another room to save an premature baby born at 23 weeks. Shit, I can appreciate the conflict and see why that is hard to reconcile, but from a philosophical (not a human emotional) viewpoint is either action any more or less unnatural than the other?

[MR. Nate]

And to act preemptively here: I really doubt abortions at a late stage of the pregnancy are ever "convenience abortions" where the parents-to-be decide they don't want a child after all, as some people would like to describe all abortions that take place. If an abortion takes place then I suppose there are good reasons for it, like the life or health of the woman being at danger, or the fetus having an irreparable physical defect that would cause it to be stillborn or unable to survive for more than a few hours or days after birth. In the second case an abortion can save the parents from a lot of emotional stress.

It seems that if you're going to deliver it anyway, it's not going to impact the health of the mother much if you kill it or not. Physical defect or no, ability to survive or no, a lot of states have "No mercy killing" laws (Washington, I believe, is an exception) so it's still considered murder if they inject the recently born child with poison, no?

[Dancing Mustard]

some women actually can menstruate for most, if not all their pregnancy!

Is that considered a special ability...or is it a drag and pain in the ass?

Actually it's listed as a lvl-7 Endurance Feat. As such you can only use it once per encounter and you have to make a succesful roll against your base endurance stat.

[tzor]

3. Medical science has gotten to the point where many premature infants who would normally have died now live. This IS a miracle. Yet, if you have experience with these kids, these families, you know that, while there are many who are celebrating, there are also many who wonder if the life their child is living,( not just "not being like us" but in real pain, suffering every day) really is better than the alternative. I would never tell someone else what to do if faced with choosing between letting a SEVERELY injured child live or letting nature (some might say "God") take its course. I would never say "no", but I would never say "yes", either. It is just too personal a choice.

I'm going to have to call your bluff player, can you show us some evidence to back up your claims? The closest thing I can find is from the New York Times but this only talks about smaller brain sizes not pain and suffering.

[MeDeFe]

And to act preemptively here: I really doubt abortions at a late stage of the pregnancy are ever "convenience abortions" where the parents-to-be decide they don't want a child after all, as some people would like to describe all abortions that take place. If an abortion takes place then I suppose there are good reasons for it, like the life or health of the woman being at danger, or the fetus having an irreparable physical defect that would cause it to be stillborn or unable to survive for more than a few hours or days after birth. In the second case an abortion can save the parents from a lot of emotional stress.

It seems that if you're going to deliver it anyway, it's not going to impact the health of the mother much if you kill it or not. Physical defect or no, ability to survive or no, a lot of states have "No mercy killing" laws (Washington, I believe, is an exception) so it's still considered murder if they inject the recently born child with poison, no?

An additional 2 or 3 months of pregnancy do have some physical impact, I don't think you can deny that. And you ignored the actual essence of my second point: 2 or 3 months of pregnancy during which you know that you will give birth to a child that will die soon after being born will have a huge impact on one's psyche, is that really something you'd want anyone to experience?

[tzor]

An additional 2 or 3 months of pregnancy do have some physical impact, I don't think you can deny that. And you ignored the actual essence of my second point: 2 or 3 months of pregnancy during which you know that you will give birth to a child that will die soon after being born will have a huge impact on one's psyche, is that really something you'd want anyone to experience?

Even though I am strongly pro-life I think we need to consider three seperate situations, those who are clearly viable, those who are pre-viable (that is those who, barring some accident will become viable) and those who are clearly non-viable. Given the latter situation of a pre-born who is clearly non-viable and who cannot survive long without significant medical assistance if at all, then the needs of the mother should take precident.

First and foremost having a non-viable child is a "huge impact on one's psyche" in and of itself. In some cases bring the non-viable child to birth can cause additiona trauma, in other cases not doing so could cause additional trauma but in any case that is a decision for the patient and her doctors not for legislators.

[PLAYER57832]

3. Medical science has gotten to the point where many premature infants who would normally have died now live. This IS a miracle. Yet, if you have experience with these kids, these families, you know that, while there are many who are celebrating, there are also many who wonder if the life their child is living,( not just "not being like us" but in real pain, suffering every day) really is better than the alternative. I would never tell someone else what to do if faced with choosing between letting a SEVERELY injured child live or letting nature (some might say "God") take its course. I would never say "no", but I would never say "yes", either. It is just too personal a choice.

I'm going to have to call your bluff player, can you show us some evidence to back up your claims? The closest thing I can find is from the New York Times but this only talks about smaller brain sizes not pain and suffering.

NO references, it is PERSONNAL EXPERIENCE!!!
No, not me (thank heavans!) .. but look, moms talk to other moms.

Truthfully, virtually every mom goes through some time when they think "why?" and "what if" ,,, (think Brooke Shields/Marie Osmond, just not as severe) that is with entirely HEALTHY kids born to moms who truly WANT THEM! Having a child, particularly and infant is HARD WORK. If you are nursing ... well, imagine you have this spigot siphoning off your energy, your nutrients. We eat, eat and EAT ... and, there is an adjustment period where we are almost always very, very tired. AGaING, I am talking 100% healthy children.

Now all you have to do is add in any multitude of other complications. Take Spina Bifida. I know full well that there is a good chance a number of CC folks have this, are even wheelchair bound. Perhaps even among those who need advanced tools to speak and so forth. That is the picture folks tend to have when they think "severely disabled". But, those are actually the LUCKY ones. The ones I am talking about cannot speak in any fashion (no eye blinks) or communicate in any way. They will have no quality of life. They must undergo surgery after sugery just to survive. The endure pain almost every day. There was a movie starring Jodie Foster where a young girl, who is terminally ill, tells her father "go ahead and spank me ... they don't even hurt anymore. That movie was fiction, but that IS reality. I mentioned spina bifida (and understand, I am talking about the most severe cases), but you can name any number of other problems. Most of these issues you will never hear of unless you or a family member experience them, so even if I could list them all, it is pointless.

Truthfully, Tzor I am quite surprised that you would even question this. The only explanation I can give is that you just have not met many parents with highly and severely injured or disabled children. You live in NY ... take a peruse to the neonatal units some time. OR, head down a few levels to where the older kids are. That is where you will get your answer.

AGAIN, I am NOT advocating termination of ANY pregnancy. I am saying that there comes a time when we legitimately have to ask what REALLY IS best. Sometimes God plain and simply does answer "no". Sometimes it is human arrogance to intervene. It is not for me to decide. But, it is also not for you or I to stand in the way of loving, thoughtful parents who have to make the most heart-rending decision of their lives.

[jonesthecurl]

Even though I am strongly pro-life I think we need to consider three seperate situations, those who are clearly viable, those who are pre-viable (that is those who, barring some accident will become viable) and those who are clearly non-viable. Given the latter situation of a pre-born who is clearly non-viable and who cannot survive long without significant medical assistance if at all, then the needs of the mother should take precident.

This is a point that is often ignored by anti-abortionists.
I speak as a proud and happy father, who always wanted to be one.

But my wife's first pregnancy resulted in a case of prune-belly. This is a very rare condition (something like one in 40,000 pregnancies - rare enough that the hospital asked to keep the ultrascans for the purpose of training ) where there is an obstruction in the fetus's waterworks, and as a result the bladder grows to enormous size, squashing all the other internal organs. There was almost zero chance of survival to birth and none that the child if born he would have lived more than hours.

We opted for an abortion, the most heartbreaking decision I have ever made. We left it several weeks to make absolutely sure that the situation did not and could not improve. You may imagine that you can understand how we felt during that time - but I assure you, unless you've been there you cannot.

On medical advice, rather than cutting or vacuuming, we opted for a hormone-assisted early "birth". I was there throughout, it took hours, and it hurt far more than the kids themselves did later. I remember holding my wife's hand several hours into the procedure. Her eyes were rolling in panic and suffering like a wounded beast.

The physical trauma left her weak for a long while, and the emotional trauma, for both of us, was enormous - it was the blackest period of my life.

If anyone thinks we committed a sin, or that we made an easy decision, then I will simply say this: f*ck YOU. Wait till it happens to you, and see if you want to walk around for months with a dead baby inside you.

[PLAYER57832]

And to act preemptively here: I really doubt abortions at a late stage of the pregnancy are ever "convenience abortions" where the parents-to-be decide they don't want a child after all, as some people would like to describe all abortions that take place. If an abortion takes place then I suppose there are good reasons for it, like the life or health of the woman being at danger, or the fetus having an irreparable physical defect that would cause it to be stillborn or unable to survive for more than a few hours or days after birth. In the second case an abortion can save the parents from a lot of emotional stress.

It seems that if you're going to deliver it anyway, it's not going to impact the health of the mother much if you kill it or not.

OKay, woman here speaking.

You are SERIOUSLY mistaken.

Even the earliest of miscarriages has risk and danger. It is not a nice, neat process. It involves pain and a lot of mess, a lot of bleeding and there certainly CAN be many complications.

The further along the pregnancy, the greater the risk. The greater the risk to the mother's life and to her ability to have children in the future. No graphic details, but things tear, bleeding ... etc.

There is a HUGE difference between someone having an "elective" abortion in the first trimester and someone who has one later. To have a later term abortion, there HAS to be an OVERRIDING MEDICAL reason. Usually, this will be a non-viable child. If potentially viable, then it is a child that could ONLY live with huge amounts of medical assistance and who, even then will NOT have a "reasonable quality of life" (we are thinking well beyond the wheel chair bound person who can use a computer to communicate, they CAN think and DO have a quality of life-- albiet with assistance). The woman's life and her ability to have future children are in danger. Surgical removeal, or even such things as this so-called "partial birth" abortions are the methods the DOCTOR feels best to secure the woman's health.

[PLAYER57832]

I speak as a proud and happy father, who always wanted to be one.

But my wife's first pregnancy resulted in a case of prune-belly... [remainder deleted for reply]

My heart goes out to you and your wife. I don't care how long it has been, you NEVER get over such pain. Thank you for sharing. It is most definitely something that needs to be heard.

[jonesthecurl]

I speak as a proud and happy father, who always wanted to be one.

But my wife's first pregnancy resulted in a case of prune-belly... [remainder deleted for reply]

My heart goes out to you and your wife. I don't care how long it has been, you NEVER get over such pain. Thank you for sharing. It is most definitely something that needs to be heard.

Thank you.
I'm not sure on the question of "convenient" abortions, I can never make up my mind whether the girl should be allowed a choice or not. I can understand both points of view, and find them both convincing. But the never-abortions-ever nazis are unspeakable.

[tzor]

Truthfully, Tzor I am quite surprised that you would even question this. The only explanation I can give is that you just have not met many parents with highly and severely injured or disabled children. You live in NY ... take a peruse to the neonatal units some time. OR, head down a few levels to where the older kids are. That is where you will get your answer.

AGAIN, I am NOT advocating termination of ANY pregnancy. I am saying that there comes a time when we legitimately have to ask what REALLY IS best. Sometimes God plain and simply does answer "no". Sometimes it is human arrogance to intervene. It is not for me to decide. But, it is also not for you or I to stand in the way of loving, thoughtful parents who have to make the most heart-rending decision of their lives.

The simple reason is that I mis-read your original statement.

3. Medical science has gotten to the point where many premature infants who would normally have died now live. This IS a miracle.

The point simply refers to "premature infants" but your point really is about those with severe defects that premature or not will cause tremendous pain and suffering for the life of the child. I really have no argument with your point if it concerns those who are suffering severe perpetually painful defects with little hope of a life outside the hospital.

As I said the original statement seemed to indicate that simply being born pre-mature would result in a life of pain and suffering. While pre-mature infants do have obstacles to overcome it is nothing compared to a life of perpetual pain and suffering you are describing.

[Napoleon Ier]

Word. After less than 4 weeks the girl probably knows she's pregnant, due to her not having her period and stuff like that.

As ever, the shining beacons of Dutch medicine enlighten the lesser advanced with precise, scientific language and in-depth analysis of symptoms.

Oh, I bet there are tons of girls who only notice something is amiss after missing fucking 6 periods, but we're not talking about utter retards here.

Ofcourse, after realising they're pregnant it takes some time for a girl to decide. But to think that late-term abortions are mostly a convenience-abortion is just silly.

* 71% Woman didn't recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation
* 48% Woman found it hard to make arrangements for abortion
* 33% Woman was afraid to tell her partner or parents
* 24% Woman took time to decide to have an abortion
* 8% Woman waited for her relationship to change
* 8% Someone pressured woman not to have abortion
* 6% Something changed after woman became pregnant
* 6% Woman didn't know timing is important
* 5% Woman didn't know she could get an abortion
* 2% A fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy
* 11% Other

Not according to the stats, it isn't.

Those stats are more than 20 years old Naps. In case you didn't check the date of them on Wikipedia.

And yours are non-existant. At least we have some form of statistical evidence which probably provides an accurate picture of what reasons for late-term abortions might be. So until you're able to prove to me that over 20 years, it all suddenly changed so drastically that late-term abortions were reduced by 90-odd% in number, you can't really dismiss me for holding the notion that effective murder is tolerated for the sake of convenience as "retarded", a snorri yelped earlier.

[PLAYER57832]

3. Medical science has gotten to the point where many premature infants who would normally have died now live. This IS a miracle.

The point simply refers to "premature infants" but your point really is about those with severe defects that premature or not will cause tremendous pain and suffering for the life of the child. I really have no argument with your point if it concerns those who are suffering severe perpetually painful defects with little hope of a life outside the hospital.

As I said the original statement seemed to indicate that simply being born pre-mature would result in a life of pain and suffering. While pre-mature infants do have obstacles to overcome it is nothing compared to a life of perpetual pain and suffering you are describing.

The thing that gets missed so often are the percentages. After 7 months, the fetus is considered "viable". BUT that doesn't mean 100% healthy, certainly not all the time. There are risks of injury in any birth, but the earlier, the more the risks. For example, it was common for premature infants to be blind, due to exposure orf their eyes to oxeygen. Now they are routinely given drops that largely prevent this injury. A child at 7 months is (even now) more likely to experience developmental delays (physical and mental) and to suffer health complications, but the odds are pretty good that that child will thrive.

Go down to 6 months, though and the odds get much, much worse. Even if the child survives, the chance that they will survive without injury gets pretty slim. Still, many do seem to be coming to have wonderful lives.

Below that ... and the odds get so steep that the question of whether it really and truly IS best to "do everything" to ensure that child survives... becomes a real and serious question.

I am not going to quote you the exact statistics. I remember the rough outline from my obstetrician, when I was pregnant with my last child (now 18 months). Believe me.. mothers think about these things a LOT when pregnant! I fyou really want the exact statistics, try the March of Dimes website or just Google premature infant survival.

Sometimes, it isn't God who chooses life... sometimes it is people. God gave us both life... and death ... and suffering... and joy.

[bedub1]

God answers all prayers. Sometimes the answer is no.

[got tonkaed]

And yours are non-existant. At least we have some form of statistical evidence which probably provides an accurate picture of what reasons for late-term abortions might be. So until you're able to prove to me that over 20 years, it all suddenly changed so drastically that late-term abortions were reduced by 90-odd% in number, you can't really dismiss me for holding the notion that effective murder is tolerated for the sake of convenience as "retarded", a snorri yelped earlier.

admittedly i havent looked for the stats (maybe i will later) but your clearly more in the wrong here if you think about it. Good sports dont use stats that likely arent in play still. You say, but its twenty years, and i didnt find anything or wikipedia told me so. Well in some cases id be more tempted to follow, but in the case of abortion, where you have a relatively short time period in which legalized cases occur, twenty years is quite a large time period. I think this is one of the issues in which it seems rather poor form to use those statistics and then fire back as if you arent the one out of line.

*this has been a public service announcement, as i dont actually make posts anymore, because i am no longer able to do so without being mean*

[khazalid]

man, this thread is making me hungry

[Neoteny]

And yours are non-existant. At least we have some form of statistical evidence which probably provides an accurate picture of what reasons for late-term abortions might be. So until you're able to prove to me that over 20 years, it all suddenly changed so drastically that late-term abortions were reduced by 90-odd% in number, you can't really dismiss me for holding the notion that effective murder is tolerated for the sake of convenience as "retarded", a snorri yelped earlier.

admittedly i havent looked for the stats (maybe i will later) but your clearly more in the wrong here if you think about it. Good sports dont use stats that likely arent in play still. You say, but its twenty years, and i didnt find anything or wikipedia told me so. Well in some cases id be more tempted to follow, but in the case of abortion, where you have a relatively short time period in which legalized cases occur, twenty years is quite a large time period. I think this is one of the issues in which it seems rather poor form to use those statistics and then fire back as if you arent the one out of line.

*this has been a public service announcement, as i dont actually make posts anymore, because i am no longer able to do so without being mean*

God, you're such a dick.

[got tonkaed]

its probably been thought a lot more often than its been said, but it is what it is i suppose. I dont usually try to be a jerk, but i have my moments.

[Napoleon Ier]

its probably been thought a lot more often than its been said, but it is what it is i suppose. I dont usually try to be a jerk, but i have my moments.

Yeah, but all I'm trying to show is that their un-empirically based evidence which uses an a priori line of reasoning to arrive at a (meticulously pre-conceived) conclusion is invalid, since their line of reasoning did not pre-suppose that it occured in the year 2008, and yet was demonstrably wrong for an instance in time, and hence must rejected as a frame of argument entirely.

Now, they must either provide up-to-date data, or accept that really, their reasoning holds no water.

My position? Clearly, over 20 years, nothing is going to have changed late-term abortion reasons so drastically, so unless concrete and revised statistics come to light, which support their view of these not being "convenience" abortions, we must really assume that even if there will be some variation, it certainly cannot conceivaly be so great as to attack he integrity of my argument.

[Bertros Bertros]

The British Medical Association statistics on abortion. Towards the bottom is a section "factors affecting the timing of abortion".

http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/Ab ... ound~Stats

The reasons given are the much the same as the US study which is also quoted there. The very simple factors given in the US study make things sound a lot worse than the reasoned factors from Pro+Choice forum above so as with everything its how you represent your data.