Abortion - My own thoughts - such as they are

[patches70]

I have no problem with the baby being killed at any point during pregnancy or even after birth. It's just a question of working out at what point after birth it becomes a 'bad thing' for parents to be killing their kids.

In most developed countries that point would probably be almost immediately after birth, because at that point the government has started paying to help raise the child and by killing it you are therefore destroying a government investment in the future workforce which, by bearing the pregnancy through to completion, you have implicitly contracted yourself to support.

It is possible that this logic also applies pre-birth in some countries as well (if the government provides pre-natal care and so forth). So then it's a question of at which point you need to draw the line in order to properly balance the right to choose with proper use of public funds.

- Can I bring this back to attention for the public that might have missed this?? Also, this comes from the same person that in another topic on Homosexuality he/she states that "It should be ok for adults to have sex with children, as long as Parent and child consent"????? Can we seriously get an uprising against these beliefs people. Go to the topic in here on homosexuality, and read through all mrswdk wrote, Very disturbing stuff!!! What's being talked about here back and forth with all conceptions and beliefs does not compare with what mrswdk is believing and making public???

- Refresh people, go investigate the read

MGM

Umm, why worry about it? Its not like mrswdk has the power to do anything and a very tiny percentage would actually agree with him. Its good when crazy beliefs like that are made public after all, now you know when before you might not have. Thus, you know that mrswdk is a scumbag (in your eyes so to speak) and know to avoid him.
Without people being free to state their opinion then such people merely scurry around unseen and unknown. For instance, wouldn't you rather know who the convicted child molesters are in your neighborhood rather than have that knowledge hidden from you or worse, not wanting to know?

So now you know. Its a good thing to know what people are about even if what people are about is disgusting and contrary to your own views.

[tzor]

For Christians, the ultimate question is "what does God intend". That, to me, not a scientific point, is the real question.

One of the reasons why I generally have been avoiding the "Christian" argument is that for the majority of people who aren't Christian, the oversimplified version flat out sucks. When your leader was flogged, beaten, striped naked, and nailed to a long term asphyxiation device, you aren't going to see a lot of motivations for personal self preservation. To lay down ones life for another is considered a noble cause. He literally told his number one follower that he should be so humble that he should wash people's dirty feet.

I have no idea what God intends. I do know what God intended. Beethoven was an example, who was very close to being killed by chemical abortion.

Do you really want a world in which a woman can be imprisoned for battery, neglect or intentional harm if they do something that might possibly result in a miscarriage that happens before they even really know they are pregnant?

Do I? No. But it is already happening. Woman Who Is Just 12 Weeks Pregnant Charged With Child Endangerment

A woman in Montana has been charged with criminally endangering a child, which is a felony, after testing positive for illegal drugs. According to court records, she is in her first trimester of pregnancy. The case clearly illustrates how an increasing number of states are using fetal harm laws to criminalize pregnant women’s behavior and blur the lines about exactly when personhood begins in the eyes of the law.

We live in a country where if a woman looses visual sight with her four year old child even though she knows that the location the child is in is perfectly safe, she can be charged with Child Endangerment.

Women already feel enough guilt when they have a miscarriage. And, it is far, far, FAR more common that you likely think.

I think it is fairly common, but that's beside the point. The general lack of support groups is. Good thing there is this.

show

The Roman Catholic church does draw some lines. In vitro fertilization and the like are not allowed. However, the church has not taken a consistent stand on operations and interventions on very sick children in womb.

I wasn't aware that such stands were needed. Such operations are becoming commonplace these days.

Many folks in the anti-abortion movement, however, parade around with slogans like "all life is precious" and so forth. From the outset, just think of the impact of those words on someone facing a true tragedy -- a child in the womb with very, very, very serious problems, such that they are unlikely to survive or that they will have a very limited life, even a highly pain-filled life. Add in insurance issues and the fact that if such a child is born, then the parents are legally obligated to not just give up their lives tending to that child, but also to give up most of their financial resources for that one child.

One of the reasons why I was trying to avoid mentioning the "Christian" angle. What part of lay down your life don't you understand? SHIT HAPPENS. It can happen before birth and it can happen after birth. My next door neighbor married a beautiful woman. After three children the course of her disease was discovered. Her children are growing up and are teenagers. They have been forced to "grow up" really early and take care of her who at this point requires a significant amount of support (she can no longer stand, and her speech is significantly degraded).

I can spot the Scrooge / Sanger argument a mile away. I side with Tiny Tim.

...

[tzor]

Actually, let me take your own argument back. See, someone in need of a heart transplant to live is in no way, shape or form required to get that transplant! Nor is the medical establishment required, in truth, to treat that person in the same way they would a healthy person. There are many examples.

I am starting to smell that nice fresh "Affordable Care Act" sent. But instead of arguing the utilitarian argument for life (as opposed to the quality of life argument for not always doing the surgical option) for a majority of pre-viable pre-born humans, they naturally become viable in a couple of months. A couple of months later they become BORN. Thus "viability" is a red herring as far as I am concerned. If TIME cures the problem, termination is the anti-solution.

When talking about the unborn, there are a couple of issues here. The first is the very real LEGAL distinction in our system. Up until 3 months, a woman can abort for basically any reason. Is that "too lose"? Maybe. But, saying that this is wrong because all life is precious and other pablum put out by the anti-abortion groups is very, very misguided. See, turn that around. You can say that every child has a right to live.. or you can say that every child has a right to a healthy and reasonably healthy life. Which is it that God really intends?

First of all, a right does not mean a guarantee. So the "right to a healthy life" is illogical. Is it even possible to arrest germs and genetic disorders? Even the right to life does not mean that you can charge that bolt of lightning which just struck the tree which fell down on you. The right to life means that WE don't have the right to arbitrarily decide for others.

What does God intend? I don't know. There are many "saints" who never lived a "healthy and reasonably healthy life." Just one example Saint Thérèse of Lisieux.

Is it more harmful to a child to die before birth or to have them endure years of suffering and lack of love?

Having never not existed, I am in no opinion to judge.

Beyond three months, despite claims to the contrary, there does have to be serious reason to have an abortion. Folks can (and do) disagree on whether the "serious reasons" are all equally legitimate, but an honest debate acknowledges that this distinction is real and does legally exist.

I think we can agree on this.

The biggest issue is probably "mental capacity" of the mother. It is easy to say that a woman who is going through a variety of issues, ranging from depression to other illnesses is giving birth to a healthy child and then just "decides" to have an abortion because "its easy". This shows a big lack of understanding about both mental illness AND what happens to children born to mothers with mental illness.

OK, let's look at this argument. Post three months and a known "mental capacity" problem. Aside from a case in 2012 there isn't much on the web to go on. Can you provide some solid links to give meat to your argument here?

At that point, the issue of "viability" becomes critical. Your argument is that once a woman is impregnated, then she no longer has the right to decide about her own body.

I think I mentioned earlier Mom faces child endangerment charges for allowing 4-year-old son to play outside alone. Life changes things. I wouldn't go to the point where I say she as "no right" but it does come to a case of conflicting rights. You don't, for example, have the right to blow yourself up via a nuclear device (just think of the neighborhood in that large radius; I think all those living might somewhat object to that).

Once again, since YOU were the one to bring up Christian (and by extension Catholic) arguments; the right to private property is not an absolute one. The Christian perceptive is even less because you technically don't "own" your own body; it belongs to "Christ." But since not everyone is "Christian" or living the full extent of the Christian life, who am I to force others to be saints?

[/]

May I assume that you don't attempt to address my questions, because the worth of a human life hinges on the assumption of a soul?

If so, why assume that God, in infinite power, wisdom, and foresight, would choose to place a soul at the exact moment of conception? If a soul can be placed at any moment, even in shaped clay, a transformed rib, or the dead, at which point said matter immediately becomes animate, wouldn't it be logical to assume shape comes before life?

Therefor is it not a logical conclusion that a soul is most likely not placed in a trapped, immobile, blind, and deaf zygote, but rather upon a measurable occurrence of life such as brain activation or movement?

[mrswdk]

No idea. I've never spoken to my family or friends about abortion. It's really not a big deal in either the UK or China.

You would be mistaken about that. Just because something is not talked about doesn't mean its not a big deal. In fact, I would argue its often the opposite. Things that are very big deals indeed are often not discussed, precisely because they are too emotional. In China, there is an absolute suppression of free expression of ideas as well as a cultural reluctance to discuss anything that might offend. In the UK, there is a cultural aversion to discussing many emotional things.

You - an American who as far as I am aware has never lived in either China or the UK
Me - a citizen of the world who has spent the majority of their life living in either China or the UK

I would suggest that I am much more likely than you to have a clear idea of whether or not abortion is a big issue in either China or the UK.

LOL. I might not be as misinformed as you think. But, let's take your point... you seem to feel you are an expert in US opinion and culture. Have you lived here?

When did I claim to be an expert in US opinion and culture? All I said was that I don't know what my family or friends think about this, because abortion is a fairly minor issue in the UK and China and so people don't tend to talk about it much.

Right now people in the UK are all just ranting about ISIS.

[mrswdk]

I have no problem with the baby being killed at any point during pregnancy or even after birth. It's just a question of working out at what point after birth it becomes a 'bad thing' for parents to be killing their kids.

In most developed countries that point would probably be almost immediately after birth, because at that point the government has started paying to help raise the child and by killing it you are therefore destroying a government investment in the future workforce which, by bearing the pregnancy through to completion, you have implicitly contracted yourself to support.

It is possible that this logic also applies pre-birth in some countries as well (if the government provides pre-natal care and so forth). So then it's a question of at which point you need to draw the line in order to properly balance the right to choose with proper use of public funds.

- Can I bring this back to attention for the public that might have missed this?? Also, this comes from the same person that in another topic on Homosexuality he/she states that "It should be ok for adults to have sex with children, as long as Parent and child consent"????? Can we seriously get an uprising against these beliefs people. Go to the topic in here on homosexuality, and read through all mrswdk wrote, Very disturbing stuff!!! What's being talked about here back and forth with all conceptions and beliefs does not compare with what mrswdk is believing and making public???

- Refresh people, go investigate the read

MGM

Still waiting for your reasoned rebuttal of anything I've said.

[tzor]

When it comes to human beings, you seem to claim that because there are nerve cells initially, that means that pain is experienced early on. This is just not a factually based position. It might be your religious belief, but it is not what science shows. Sorry, but no, and claiming otherwise is not honest.

Pain does come a lot earlier than most pro-choice people want to admit. We are talking about 18 weeks. That's in the second trimester. SOURCE

1.Giuntini, 2007, “It has also been shown that fetuses feel pain from week 18. This has given rise to the practice of using fetal anesthesia for surgery or invasive diagnostic procedures in utero.”

3. Myers, 2004, p.236, para.3, “The anaesthesiologist is required to provide both maternal and fetal anaesthesia and analgesia while ensuring both maternal and fetal haemodynamic stability…Since substantial evidence exists demonstrating the ability of the second trimester fetus to mount a neuroendrocrine response to noxious stimuli…fetal pain management must be considered in every case.”

p.240, col.5, “A substantial amount of both animal and human research demonstrated that the fetus is able to mount a substantial neuroendocrine response to noxious stimuli as early as the second trimester of pregnancy. Fetal neuroanatomical development further substantiates this research. Evidence also exists that suggests that these responses to noxious stimuli may, in fact, alter the response to subsequent noxious stimuli long after the initial insult. This is the rationale behind providing fetal anaesthesia and analgesia whenever surgical intervention is thought to potentially provide a noxious insult to the fetus.”

1. Fisk, 2001, p.834, col.2, para.3, “This study provides the first evidence that direct fetal analgesia reduces stress responses to intervention in utero.”

Abstract, “The authors investigated whether fentanyl ablates the fetal stress response to needling using the model of delayed interval sampling during intrahepatic vein blood sampling and transfusion in alloimmunized fetuses undergoing intravascular transfusion between 20 and 35 weeks.

“Fentanyl reduced the β endorphin (mean difference in changes, -70.3 pg/ml; 95% confidence interval, -121 to -19.2;P = 0.02) and middle cerebral artery pulsatility index response (mean difference, 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.26-1.04;P = 0.03), but not the cortisol response (mean difference, -10.9 ng/ml, 95% confidence interval, -24.7 to 2.9;P = 0.11) in fetuses who had paired intrahepatic vein transfusions with and without fentanyl. Comparison with control fetuses transfused without fentanyl indicated that the β endorphin and cerebral Doppler response to intrahepatic vein transfusion with fentanyl approached that of nonstressful placental cord transfusions.

“Conclusions: The authors conclude that intravenous fentanyl attenuates the fetal stress response to intrahepatic vein needling.”

Abortion is not, however, a non invasive procedure, and given the fact that she has already suffered enough physical trauma the notion of having a doctor do even more in order to open the cervix doesn't seem like a good idea for the woman.

I pulled this out because it is pretty fundamental, and the type of comments that engendered my initial posts.

Are you seriously suggesting that you have a better idea of what is right for these women than they themselves do? How do you claim either the knowledge or right?

Not me, but certainly not Planned Parenthood or anyone who gets paid per procedure. At this point I would like to invoke the same argument used for people who suddenly loose a loved one; don't make major financial decisions until at least one year after the funeral. That's the problem with anyone who suffers from a traumatic event. I would rather see our funds go to treating the potential emotional problems of these women first and have those people who don't have dogs in the fight council them on the right course of action; then if it is, the decision is really for the best interest of the woman.

[tzor]

May I assume that you don't attempt to address my questions, because the worth of a human life hinges on the assumption of a soul?

I'm sorry I missed your questions. I know I haven't mentioned a "soul" and my arguments are not based on it. My arguments are always based on potential.

Therefor is it not a logical conclusion that a soul is most likely not placed in a trapped, immobile, blind, and deaf zygote, but rather upon a measurable occurrence of life such as brain activation or movement?

I don't know when the soul is placed and you don't either. This is why I don't make such arguments.

[/]

May I assume that you don't attempt to address my questions, because the worth of a human life hinges on the assumption of a soul?

I'm sorry I missed your questions. I know I haven't mentioned a "soul" and my arguments are not based on it. My arguments are always based on potential.

Therefor is it not a logical conclusion that a soul is most likely not placed in a trapped, immobile, blind, and deaf zygote, but rather upon a measurable occurrence of life such as brain activation or movement?

I don't know when the soul is placed and you don't either. This is why I don't make such arguments.

Fair enough, just checking to see if that's where the conversation needed to go to get a debate.

[jimboston]

By your logic people on welfare become "gov't property", because the gov't pays for their maintenance and upkeep. So the gov't should be able to dictate the lives of those "on the dole". This would then make their offspring gov't property. You could even (use your logic) to argue that the gov't should be able to determine if/when those "on the dole" could even conceive.

That's not what I said. I said that if the government has already started paying into the production of the child, based on tacit/explicit agreement with the parent that the government will pay for said child's conception and/or birth, then killing the child is akin to destroying any other publicly-funded good or service. You have taken public money to spend on something which you have then decided to destroy at a later date. It's not beneficial for the government to be collecting money and then spending it in this way.

Of course, one option is to remove all public funding from the childbirth and pre-school process and allow people to produce children as they see fit, without any burden on taxpayers that necessitates the child becoming a public consideration.

You are changing "what you said".

You are equating life with a "gov't investment", akin to a bridge or a road. These are simply not equivalent.

You also put the words tacit/explicit next to each other, trying to equate these terms. However these words have two completely different meanings. Putting them next to each other to bolster your argument is ridiculous.

tacit - understood or implied without being stated.
explicit - stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt.

*NO ONE (except you) would ever suggest that accepting welfare immediately creates a "tacit" agreement of servitude between citizen and gov't.
*There's definitely no explicit agreement stating as much anywhere.

This is what you did say...

... almost immediately after birth, because at that point the government has started paying to help raise the child and by killing it you are therefore destroying a government investment in the future workforce which, by bearing the pregnancy through to completion, you have implicitly contracted yourself to support. It is possible that this logic also applies pre-birth in some countries as well (if the government provides pre-natal care and so forth).

You have implicitly contract yourself to support the child. Yes.

You have not implicitly contracted yourself to gov't servitude... nor have you contracted your child to such.

If the gov't has the right to prevent an abortion because it has a "financial stake" in the unborn child... what other rights does the gov't assume when it provides support to a person, child, family, adult, whoever?

In what f**king universe is a

[PLAYER57832]

For Christians, the ultimate question is "what does God intend". That, to me, not a scientific point, is the real question.

I have no idea what God intends. I do know what God intended. Beethoven was an example, who was very close to being killed by chemical abortion.
While no one can know for certain, to be Christian means seeking that out and attempting to follow God's plan. How we do that differs, but I believe that is a fundamental goal.

The second.. is just an irrelevant point of trivia, if even true. It has no more bearing than the fact that arsenic and leeches were used frequently in that time.

Do you really want a world in which a woman can be imprisoned for battery, neglect or intentional harm if they do something that might possibly result in a miscarriage that happens before they even really know they are pregnant?

Do I? No. But it is already happening. Woman Who Is Just 12 Weeks Pregnant Charged With Child Endangerment

A woman in Montana has been charged with criminally endangering a child, which is a felony, after testing positive for illegal drugs. According to court records, she is in her first trimester of pregnancy. The case clearly illustrates how an increasing number of states are using fetal harm laws to criminalize pregnant women’s behavior and blur the lines about exactly when personhood begins in the eyes of the law.

We live in a country where if a woman looses visual sight with her four year old child even though she knows that the location the child is in is perfectly safe, she can be charged with Child Endangerment.

Sadly true, though we are not quite yet at the point where a woman who does not know she is pregnant and who miscarries can be charged. At any rate, are you saying this is OK?

Women already feel enough guilt when they have a miscarriage. And, it is far, far, FAR more common that you likely think.

I think it is fairly common, but that's beside the point. The general lack of support groups is.

No, it is EXACTLY the point. And sorry, but support groups are not a fix to being accused of having an abortion, to women who have miscarried being treated like they are having or have had an abortion.

Even that a woman who has had a D & C or similar procedure might have to explain why.. and of course be questioned if they were 'really telling the truth". These are utter obnoxiousnesses that no male has to undergo and that all too many women do, in large part because so many men (and women) feel they don't need to get all the details before making judgements or restricting women's access to medical care.

Well, thank you for the prayer. Personally, my faith teaches more individual prayer, but it is not God with whom I have an issue, it is with people. God's prayers can help us endure people's irrationality, but it is still up to us to challenge and debate, particularly debate that engenders false witness as so much of the general abortion debate does (not making a back-handed accusation at you. Mostly, I think you are an honest debater, though you of course get things wrong as do I. I will most definitely point out any areas I think are in error -- and expect no less from you. )

The Roman Catholic church does draw some lines. In vitro fertilization and the like are not allowed. However, the church has not taken a consistent stand on operations and interventions on very sick children in womb.

I wasn't aware that such stands were needed. Such operations are becoming commonplace these days.

Exactly. Unfortunately, our ability to keep children alive does not also mean an ability to give those children happy, healthy lives. And, this means that now not only are folks to feel guilty over miscarriages, but if they do decide, for whatever reason, to not go through with a full lifetime of very significant, almost continuous surgeries and therapies.. or, worse, if they want to have that, are even effectively promised that these things will be provided, only to have the cut out during the latest budget crunch (as is happening right now in PA)...

The anti-abortion groups want that decision to be made in isolation, as if how it impacts the family, society, as if medical care available, etc, etc, (never mind how to pay for the medical care.. that is the "elephant in the room", along with education costs) as if all of that were not a part of these decisions. They are, and I argue that the church has a role in guiding individuals that MUST go beyond "do whatever you can". If, for no other reason than it is not the church, but society that winds up paying for these kids. The truth is that insurance companies and the government medicaid offices are making these decisions all the time. Does it really make sense that we pay millions to keep one child alive and then turn around and say we cannot afford to fund homeless shelters, vaccination programs, school and out-of school meal programs for kids? Add in job training, college education...

The truth is that pretending these are not real choices is to allow those with no religious, no faith, often even without any kind of ethical thought to make these decisions. I am not saying that The Roman Catholic church should do turn-arounds and say 'abortion is OK, don't do anything for premie kids". That would, of course be repugnant. I am saying that we are approaching some serious "grey territory" in all these issues and the simple "just support life" is no longer enough, is no longer OK. Even if we have not already reached the point at which the church, (any church) should say "no -- stop here, beyond this point it is not OK" -- then we are fast approaching that point. Without discussion, those choices will be forced upon us by the worst of society, instead of the best.

Many folks in the anti-abortion movement, however, parade around with slogans like "all life is precious" and so forth. From the outset, just think of the impact of those words on someone facing a true tragedy -- a child in the womb with very, very, very serious problems, such that they are unlikely to survive or that they will have a very limited life, even a highly pain-filled life. Add in insurance issues and the fact that if such a child is born, then the parents are legally obligated to not just give up their lives tending to that child, but also to give up most of their financial resources for that one child.

One of the reasons why I was trying to avoid mentioning the "Christian" angle. What part of lay down your life don't you understand?

The part where you don't get the right, where Christ does not give us the right, to demand that of others.

I can spot the Scrooge / Sanger argument a mile away. I side with Tiny Tim.

...

Wrong character. Its "Sophie's choice", multiplied many times

[mrswdk]

By your logic people on welfare become "gov't property", because the gov't pays for their maintenance and upkeep. So the gov't should be able to dictate the lives of those "on the dole". This would then make their offspring gov't property. You could even (use your logic) to argue that the gov't should be able to determine if/when those "on the dole" could even conceive.

That's not what I said. I said that if the government has already started paying into the production of the child, based on tacit/explicit agreement with the parent that the government will pay for said child's conception and/or birth, then killing the child is akin to destroying any other publicly-funded good or service. You have taken public money to spend on something which you have then decided to destroy at a later date. It's not beneficial for the government to be collecting money and then spending it in this way.

Of course, one option is to remove all public funding from the childbirth and pre-school process and allow people to produce children as they see fit, without any burden on taxpayers that necessitates the child becoming a public consideration.

You are changing "what you said".

You are equating life with a "gov't investment", akin to a bridge or a road. These are simply not equivalent.

Why is a government investment in a human resource any different to a government investment in a non-human resource?

You also put the words tacit/explicit next to each other, trying to equate these terms. However these words have two completely different meanings. Putting them next to each other to bolster your argument is ridiculous.

I know they have different meanings. Do not aworry, foreigner man! I can speaking the English! I am a just make the point that the Agreement can be either the explicit or the tacit, you know la?

... almost immediately after birth, because at that point the government has started paying to help raise the child and by killing it you are therefore destroying a government investment in the future workforce which, by bearing the pregnancy through to completion, you have implicitly contracted yourself to support. It is possible that this logic also applies pre-birth in some countries as well (if the government provides pre-natal care and so forth).

You have implicitly contract yourself to support the child. Yes.

You have not implicitly contracted yourself to gov't servitude... nor have you contracted your child to such.

Thanks, Mr Paraphrase. I never said one contracts themselves to government servitude by accepting state funds. They have, however, entered into an exchange contract with the government.

If the gov't has the right to prevent an abortion because it has a "financial stake" in the unborn child... what other rights does the gov't assume when it provides support to a person, child, family, adult, whoever?

The right to conscript them into its army, the right to incarcerate them, prevent them leaving the country or execute them for breaking its rules, the right to take taxes from their income, etc.. You live there, you ought to know.

[PLAYER57832]

When it comes to human beings, you seem to claim that because there are nerve cells initially, that means that pain is experienced early on. This is just not a factually based position. It might be your religious belief, but it is not what science shows. Sorry, but no, and claiming otherwise is not honest.

Pain does come a lot earlier than most pro-choice people want to admit. We are talking about 18 weeks. That's in the second trimester.

see...except I believe I said the first trimester, at least 6 weeks prior to that point???

In other words, you agree with what I said above....

Abortion is not, however, a non invasive procedure, and given the fact that she has already suffered enough physical trauma the notion of having a doctor do even more in order to open the cervix doesn't seem like a good idea for the woman.

I pulled this out because it is pretty fundamental, and the type of comments that engendered my initial posts.

Are you seriously suggesting that you have a better idea of what is right for these women than they themselves do? How do you claim either the knowledge or right?

Not me, but certainly not Planned Parenthood or anyone who gets paid per procedure.

How about you define what "not for profit" means.


I earlier asked you to provide data that shows evidence of this vast conspiracy of folks making money off abortions. My research shows it is a very difficult industry, that those still performing legitimate abortions work very, very long hours for little pay. (NOTE -- skip any and all references to illegal and unsafe procedures, they are what we are trying to do away with through keeping abortion legal!!!!!!)

At this point I would like to invoke the same argument used for people who suddenly loose a loved one; don't make major financial decisions until at least one year after the funeral. That's the problem with anyone who suffers from a traumatic event. I would rather see our funds go to treating the potential emotional problems of these women first and have those people who don't have dogs in the fight council them on the right course of action; then if it is, the decision is really for the best interest of the woman.

I see, well I would argue that folks who have been through this have a tad more knowledge than you.
I mean seriously, Tzor. Are you honestly and truly arguing that women are too emotional to know what they are doing when they have an abortion and therefore need you to step in to intervene?



No offense tzor, but I had really hoped to see more substance here. You came up with a series of references that don't dispute what I said at all, did not back up your claim of abortions being a big money-making enterprise and pretty much dismissed the idea that women might actually be thoughtful individuals who really do know what is involved in pregnancy, abortion, child rearing and the like.

I realize my post was pretty long. Maybe you just need more time? Feel free to take it.

[tzor]

I can spot the Scrooge / Sanger argument a mile away. I side with Tiny Tim.
...

Wrong character. Its "Sophie's choice", multiplied many times

Well let's throw out some Sanger quotes then and see ...

Such parents swell the pathetic ranks of the unemployed. Feeble-mindedness perpetuates itself from the ranks of those who are blandly indifferent to their racial responsibilities. And it is largely this type of humanity we are now drawing upon to populate our world for the generations to come. In this orgy of multiplying and replenishing the earth, this type is pari passu multiplying and perpetuating those direst evils in which we must, if civilization is to survive, extirpate by the very roots.

The most serious evil of our times is that of encouraging the bringing into the world of large families. The most immoral practice of the day is breeding too many children.

The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.

I think the greatest sin in the world is bringing children into the world – that have disease from their parents, that have no chance in the world to be a human being practically. Delinquents, prisoners, all sorts of things just marked when they’re born. That to me is the greatest sin – that people can – can commit.

Birth control itself, often denounced as a violation of natural law, is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives.

Organized charity itself is the symptom of a malignant social disease…Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks [of people] that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant.

It encourages the healthier and more normal sections of the world to shoulder the burden of unthinking and indiscriminate fecundity of others; which brings with it, as I think the reader must agree, a dead weight of human waste.

In a home where there are too many children in proportion to the living space, the air and sunlight, the children are usually overcrowded and underfed. They are a constant burden on their mother's overtaxed strength and the father's earning capacity. Such homes cannot be gardens in any sense of the word.

[PLAYER57832]

The right to life means that WE don't have the right to arbitrarily decide for others.

The problem is, we do.

See, if you decide that we can force a woman to have a child she does not want to bear, then it is, indeed we who have decided that this child is born and that means we are therefore (should be anyway) responsible for the care and support of that child. Except.. we are not. In fact, the current political rhetoric, is to say we cannot afford to support their kids.

The biggest issue is probably "mental capacity" of the mother. It is easy to say that a woman who is going through a variety of issues, ranging from depression to other illnesses is giving birth to a healthy child and then just "decides" to have an abortion because "its easy". This shows a big lack of understanding about both mental illness AND what happens to children born to mothers with mental illness.

OK, let's look at this argument. Post three months and a known "mental capacity" problem. Aside from a case in 2012 there isn't much on the web to go on. Can you provide some solid links to give meat to your argument here?

No, apparently I was not clear. I was using "mental capacity" as a catch all to include women who are highly depressed, even to the point of wanting to commit suicide and similar types of issues. This is sometimes considered as legitimate reason for a late term abortion. HOWEVER, let me be clear, the biggest (by a very wide margin) reason women elect to have a later term abortion are physical medical issues, either with the child or herself, not mental illnesses.

At that point, the issue of "viability" becomes critical. Your argument is that once a woman is impregnated, then she no longer has the right to decide about her own body.

I think I mentioned earlier Mom faces child endangerment charges for allowing 4-year-old son to play outside alone. Life changes things. I wouldn't go to the point where I say she as "no right" but it does come to a case of conflicting rights. You don't, for example, have the right to blow yourself up via a nuclear device (just think of the neighborhood in that large radius; I think all those living might somewhat object to that).

That some judge somewhere ruled this hardly makes it a right or OK. I can cite a family that was brought up to children and youth repeatedly for allowing their 10 year old to play in a park alone. This is not a case of legitimate justice, it is idiocy.

Comparing a woman having an abortion for her own reason to a nuclear device is not the kind of argument I expect from you.

Once again, since YOU were the one to bring up Christian (and by extension Catholic) arguments; the right to private property is not an absolute one. The Christian perceptive is even less because you technically don't "own" your own body; it belongs to "Christ." But since not everyone is "Christian" or living the full extent of the Christian life, who am I to force others to be saints?

I don't consider humans to be "private property". And because we are the property of Christ, it is only Christ and not other humans who have the right to guide us fully on this.. but then, I guess I am showing my Protestantism in that part.

The real point is that we have 2 discussions that cannot be confused. The first is what is proper for a Christian woman. The second is what is our Christian response to be to non-Christian women/families facing these choices. The answer there is quite clear. If someone comes to us, seeks our counsel.. we should help. However, there is no part of Christianity that gives us the right to go into private doctor's offices and tell those individuals how to act, other than for good medical cause.

[PLAYER57832]

I can spot the Scrooge / Sanger argument a mile away. I side with Tiny Tim.
...

Wrong character. Its "Sophie's choice", multiplied many times

Well let's throw out some Sanger quotes then and see ...

No, try again. Those might be a reason for some people, but the choice here is not about what is best for society. The choice/issue to which I was referring is whether an individual woman can decide whether to do all she can for the healthy children she has or even will have, versus having to spend all of her energy and far more beyond (because taking care of the most seriously disabled children REQUIRES more help than a single family can provide) caring for one child.

Sanger... we can debate her, but also put that in the context of the time and place.

[PLAYER57832]

Thank you for your post.

You're welcome. Your responses are quite large, so I'll try to break up my reply. If I miss any points, let me know and I'll address them.

I am going to begin with a couple of your more gruesome arguments first. The key error in most of your stories is "perfectly healthy". Your scissor example seems to be referring to a partial birth abortion. Set aside that this procedure is already illegal in most places, it was not something performed on "perfectly healthy children". I realize that this accusation is thrown about, but it is just not true.

The real question is whether there was a major profit motive in late term abortions precisely because of tissue harvesting that might have taken place in a small (or larger) minority of the abortion providers?

No, actually it is not a question at all. It actually has far less validity than the idea that allowing transplants (of adult tissue) encourages mass murderers. It is the stuff of thrillers. Does it happen. Well, very insane people exist.

Gossnell was an insane lunatic. PERIOD. His "motivation" was insanity.

You keep citing this "for profit" motive, but seem to have utterly missed the fact that fetal tissue cannot be sold. There is no profit motive. There is an issue created by abortion foes who apparently think its OK to slander if its for a good cause. Sorry that you fell for it.

Folks who want to talk about high rates of early term abortions, in particular, tend be either misunderstanding or outright lying about the data. Anything labeled as an "abortion" in that stage is going to include miscarriages, because, as I stated above, there just is no legal distinction. There is no "box" on the medical form saying "this child was alive" or "this child was dead" prior to removal. And yes, Tzor.. I DO know of what I speak on this!

First and foremost, I haven't really addressed early term abortion.

Strange, because that IS what legal abortion debate is mostly about, though yes, the pictures tend to show full term healthy infants.

See, that is part of what I mean by dishonesty in the debate (not you specifically, I put that down to misunderstanding). While the overwhelming majority of abortions and virtually all "at will" abortions (after the first trimester a woman must show cause), are during the first trimester, the arguments often center on later term abortions. These issues are not at all the same.

Later term abortions, those after the first trimester, must have a reason. I still do think they need to be legal. Should there be more restrictions? On that, I am not sure. I feel that is mostly a medical issue and should be. That is, when a later term abortion should be allowed is up to the individual doctor and family.

I am well aware that miscarriages do happen. I don't think they happen at the volume you are insisting that requires surgical medical procedures, but they do happen.

Uh, let me correct a couple of points here. The numbers I cited were for miscarriages. I never gave a number of any sort for those requiring a D & C. Estimates I have read say that roughly 1 in 5 women have a D & C at some point in their life. That includes miscarriages and abortions .

Second, it is true most miscarriages do probably pass naturally. We really don't know how many, in fact, because an early miscarriage is plain hard to distinguish from normal monthly cycles. Usually, most women suspect, but then there is also some "healthy denial". (as in "did I.. no,.. I don't want to think about it, so just "no"). HOWEVER:

I think the majority of these abortions you are talking about is the surgical procedure after a failure of a medical abortion. Most natural miscarriages pass naturally.

Uh.. no.
A D & C is actually among the most common medical procedures provided. Having a "natural" miscarriage might sound nice, but nothing to do with childbirth, including this is "nice and neat". Some women, such as myself, have them because of various medical issues post miscarriage. Anyone with Rh negative blood (that's me), for example, risks building up antibodies if they are exposed to R + blood, such as happens in birth and can happen in a miscarriage, even a pretty early one. These antibodies will prevent a child from being born alive. In the old days these women might (if lucky) have one child, but find the rest are all born "still".

There are many, many issues that might mean a D & C is medically required. Sometimes it is emotionally advisable. Just think about this a moment. You have lost a child you want dearly. Think about what a "natural miscarriage" really means. The thought of that matter winding up in, well.. a toilet, is plain repugnant to a lot of women. A D & C can also be a matter of serious convenience. But let me clarify... when a woman has a bunch of kids running around, the idea of having them possibly see what happens in a miscarriage is worrisome. Similarly, if a woman is working .. etc, etc. So, in today's world, a D & C, planned and neat, is chosen more often than is necessary, but remember.. we ARE talking about a child who is already dead.

This idea you have linking problems to failed abortions is just, plain wrong. I really wish you would do some more research before repeating such things.

[jimboston]

Why is a government investment in a human resource any different to a government investment in a non-human resource?

... I would answer this Troll, but you'd ignore it.

The answer is obvious to everyone else. I'll answer in a way maybe you will understand.

"why any difference between human and non-human resource"?

Because humans are f**king different than bridges. We just are.
I'm sorry if you can't except this obvious fact.

You also put the words tacit/explicit next to each other, trying to equate these terms. However these words have two completely different meanings. Putting them next to each other to bolster your argument is ridiculous.

I know they have different meanings. Do not aworry, foreigner man! I can speaking the English! I am a just make the point that the Agreement can be either the explicit or the tacit, you know la?

No. I don't "you know la". Because these word have different meanings. In your original post you stated the agreement was "implicit"... later you state it can be "tacit/explicit". I'm pretty sure that (in USA anyway) you cannot legally contract yourself into slavery... so (at least as the law stands now) it couldn't be "explicit". If it was explicit, it wouldn't need to be "tacit".

Please be explicit in explaining how the gov't might legally assume control over individual rights again.

!!!HYPOCRITE ALERT!!!

In all your other posts you are so carefree with the rights of people. You want Pedophiles to have the right to f*ck babies. You want demonstrators to have the right to demonstrate, even when they interfere with other people's rights. Now in this thread you are happy to take away a woman's right to choose. Ha!

!!!HYPOCRITE ALERT!!!

I never said one contracts themselves to government servitude by accepting state funds. They have, however, entered into an exchange contract with the government.

The Gov't has provided welfare in First World countries for decades. Nearly a century maybe. Never has the Gov't tried to imply that people are forfeiting any of their rights in order to accept these services. So why would there now be an "implicit" contract? Where is the precedent.

The right to conscript them into its army, the right to incarcerate them, prevent them leaving the country or execute them for breaking its rules, the right to take taxes from their income, etc.. You live there, you ought to know.

These are duties every citizen has regardless of whether or not that citizen has taken any welfare. These apply to all equally under the law. So your argument FAILS! What additional controls does the Gov't place on those receiving welfare. Controls that extend beyond ensuring that otherwise illegal activities are not involved? There have been none. So no precedent.

[riskllama]

just start talking about the dalai lama, jim. she'll slink away...

[mrswdk]

Why is a government investment in a human resource any different to a government investment in a non-human resource?

... I would answer this Troll, but you'd ignore it.

The answer is obvious to everyone else. I'll answer in a way maybe you will understand.

"why any difference between human and non-human resource"?

Because humans are f**king different than bridges. We just are.
I'm sorry if you can't except this obvious fact.

Because I said so, nyer nyer, case closed!

Please be explicit in explaining how the gov't might legally assume control over individual rights again.

The police, the courts, and so on. I already addressed this point, I suggest you go back and read my previous post.

In all your other posts you are so carefree with the rights of people. You want Pedophiles to have the right to f*ck babies. You want demonstrators to have the right to demonstrate, even when they interfere with other people's rights. Now in this thread you are happy to take away a woman's right to choose.

Thanks for once again pulling your pants down and confirming that you don't actually read anything I say before blowing up on me. I never said I want demonstrators to have the right to demonstrate even when it obstructs other people, I never said I support the right to pork babies, and I'm pretty sure I said I was cool with babies being terminated all the way up to the point of birth, and even after depending on how our cost-benefit analysis weighs up.

Once again, your 4th grade English teacher is weeping.

I never said one contracts themselves to government servitude by accepting state funds. They have, however, entered into an exchange contract with the government.

The Gov't has provided welfare in First World countries for decades. Nearly a century maybe. Never has the Gov't tried to imply that people are forfeiting any of their rights in order to accept these services. So why would there now be an "implicit" contract? Where is the precedent.

I suggest you go back and re-read my last post. The government provides welfare and in return people must pay taxes, follow laws and so on. You can read all of this in my last post.

The right to conscript them into its army, the right to incarcerate them, prevent them leaving the country or execute them for breaking its rules, the right to take taxes from their income, etc.. You live there, you ought to know.

These are duties every citizen has regardless of whether or not that citizen has taken any welfare.

Great point. Except that, as we already established, pretty much everyone is benefiting from government provision to some extent.

[mrswdk]

If you feel like answering the point I actually made in relation to government spending in this thread, rather than chewing on a bunch of strawmen like a psycho, then it was this:

If the government has already invested in a pregnancy, and the mother/parents have already accepted that investment, then there is now an implicit contract between the two parties that a baby is going to be created and then join society. The government is investing in the future baby, the parents are accepting the investment on the understanding that they are planning to have a baby.

The questions are:
1 - at what point does the loss of public funding entailed by terminations outweigh the benefits of allowing terminations?
2 - How much money is it acceptable to risk on pregnancies that might later be terminated? At what point is it worth the government starting to invest in the life?

As far as I'm concerned, if they government has not yet invested then there is no reason why a termination shouldn't happen.

[MagnusGreeol]

[quote="mrswdk"]I have no problem with the baby being killed at any point during pregnancy or even after birth. It's just a question of working out at what point after birth it becomes a 'bad thing' for parents to be killing their kids.

In most developed countries that point would probably be almost immediately after birth, because at that point the government has started paying to help raise the child and by killing it you are therefore destroying a government investment in the future workforce which, by bearing the pregnancy through to completion, you have implicitly contracted yourself to support.

It is possible that this logic also applies pre-birth in some countries as well (if the government provides pre-natal care and so forth). So then it's a question of at which point you need to draw the line in order to properly balance the right to choose with proper use of public funds.pregnancy
- Here are your words YOU typed and submitted, You have NO PROBLEM with a baby being KILLED at any point of pregnancy OR AFTER BIRTH????? Try to manipulate that into sounding reasonable or sane???? The rest of what you said is equally insane but I just can't get past the killing a baby at ANY point of pregnancy (which also means up to 9 months) OR killing a baby AFTER BIRTH which you have no problem with?? It's right there, YOUR WORDS!!??

Is anyone reading this? Does anyone care? Or should this be ignored /overlooked and just keep the normal debate going?????

\MGM/♎

[MagnusGreeol]

- I've had issues trying to quote people on tablet, but what I just quoted from mrswdk is on page two, his/her words.

[mrswdk]

I have no problem with the baby being killed at any point during pregnancy or even after birth. It's just a question of working out at what point after birth it becomes a 'bad thing' for parents to be killing their kids.

In most developed countries that point would probably be almost immediately after birth, because at that point the government has started paying to help raise the child and by killing it you are therefore destroying a government investment in the future workforce which, by bearing the pregnancy through to completion, you have implicitly contracted yourself to support.

It is possible that this logic also applies pre-birth in some countries as well (if the government provides pre-natal care and so forth). So then it's a question of at which point you need to draw the line in order to properly balance the right to choose with proper use of public funds.pregnancy

- Here are your words YOU typed and submitted, You have NO PROBLEM with a baby being KILLED at any point of pregnancy OR AFTER BIRTH????? Try to manipulate that into sounding reasonable or sane???? The rest of what you said is equally insane but I just can't get past the killing a baby at ANY point of pregnancy (which also means up to 9 months) OR killing a baby AFTER BIRTH which you have no problem with?? It's right there, YOUR WORDS!!??

Why would it be acceptable for a mother to choose to terminate at 4 months but not at 8.5 months?

And then, why would it be acceptable to terminate at 8.5 months of pregnancy, but not 10 seconds after birth?

[MagnusGreeol]

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=215383

- Some of you already read through this, but for those who haven't, go have a read through on mrswdk's outlook/beliefs

\MGM/♎

\MGM/ F