Abortion

[Iuuvic]

It sounds like he's speaking about deregulating the food industry though.

I'm a she. I'm asserting that logically speaking that people support abortion should support any effort againist government telling what you can and can't eat because both are invasion of privacy.

Those regulations serve a practical purpose though and improve the health of the entire community...Unlike a regulation on abortion.

[The Pretend Pub]

The only people that should be arguing about abortions are:
- The woman having it
- In some cases the father
The rest should just float off and mind their own business.

1) if my taxes are helping to pay for it, it is my business.

Fine, so long as I get to decide whether or not to proceed with the next war.

2) in some cases the father??? why is it only the mothers choice to end the life of a fathers child? it takes two to make a life but one to end it?

While in most cases it's probably a dick move for a woman who's in a committed relationship with the father to not consult with the father before making this decision, the fact remains that it's her body and not his so the final decision ultimately is hers and not his.

[Condunum]

What do you think we tried to tell most of the Pro-life advocates in here? USSR was probably the worst since I joined the thread.

I'm pro-life and pro-choice. I probably wouldn't personally have an abortion if I had a vagina, but it's not my choice.

Well, that's why it's called a choice. I probably would, but that's because I hate kids. Typical of a 17 year old, yes, but I don't like kids >_>

[Nightkill the Emperor]

I can tell.

You know, this whole damn thing shouldn't be a big deal.

As long as the authoritarians insist on making a big deal out of outlawing it, those of us who are on the side of justice and morality have little choice.

Which is why the authoritarians should shut the fuck up.

[New England and The Maritimes]

The only people that should be arguing about abortions are:
- The woman having it
- In some cases the father
The rest should just float off and mind their own business.

1) if my taxes are helping to pay for it, it is my business.
2) in some cases the father??? why is it only the mothers choice to end the life of a fathers child? it takes two to make a life but one to end it?

1. Bullshit.
2. No child. Father isn't the one who has to risk his life over it. Any life ending is incidental. Abortion of pregnancy is eviction, not destruction.

[Dempublicents1]

2) in some cases the father??? why is it only the mothers choice to end the life of a fathers child? it takes two to make a life but one to end it?

It is only the mother's choice to end a pregnancy because she is the one who is pregnant. The father may want her to continue the pregnancy, but he does not get to use her body for that purpose against her will.

[12 laws]

Now im still looking into the numbers. but the last time i did research this topic for a social report, the form most used were partial birth.. which HAVE NO EFFECT ON THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER...

In the 2007 Supreme Court case, Gonzales v. Carhart, the Court upheld the ban on partial birth abortions. What are partial birth abortions? Here’s how one nurse, quoted in Carhart, described it.

“ ’Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed the baby’s legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby’s body and the arms–everything but the head. The doctor kept the head right inside the uterus… .’The baby’s little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby’s arms jerked out, like a startle reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he is going to fall. ‘The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby’s brains out. Now the baby went completely limp… .’He cut the umbilical cord and delivered the placenta. He threw the baby in a pan, along with the placenta and the instruments he had just used.’ ”



Im not sure on the whole should it be outlawed. we cant force morality of any ones opinion. I am however against EVERY Partial Birth Abortion as it is the most barbaric end of life performed in the name of choice.

[IshCong]

1) if my taxes are helping to pay for it, it is my business.

Fine, so long as I get to decide whether or not to proceed with the next war.

2) in some cases the father??? why is it only the mothers choice to end the life of a fathers child? it takes two to make a life but one to end it?

While in most cases it's probably a dick move for a woman who's in a committed relationship with the father to not consult with the father before making this decision, the fact remains that it's her body and not his so the final decision ultimately is hers and not his.

1: They said it is their business, not that they can automatically decide it unilaterally. Quite a difference, in fairness.
2: Query to all:
What if the mother wishes to abort, but the father wishes to either transfer the fetus to an artificial/alternate womb (given this is possible) or, given that the baby could be born alive prematurely at that time, simply induce a premature birth?

[New England and The Maritimes]

Now im still looking into the numbers. but the last time i did research this topic for a social report, the form most used were partial birth.. which HAVE NO EFFECT ON THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER...

In the 2007 Supreme Court case, Gonzales v. Carhart, the Court upheld the ban on partial birth abortions. What are partial birth abortions? Here’s how one nurse, quoted in Carhart, described it.

“ ’Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed the baby’s legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby’s body and the arms–everything but the head. The doctor kept the head right inside the uterus… .’The baby’s little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby’s arms jerked out, like a startle reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he is going to fall. ‘The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby’s brains out. Now the baby went completely limp… .’He cut the umbilical cord and delivered the placenta. He threw the baby in a pan, along with the placenta and the instruments he had just used.’ ”

Im not sure on the whole should it be outlawed. we cant force morality of any ones opinion. I am however against EVERY Partial Birth Abortion as it is the most barbaric end of life performed in the name of choice.

Give me a source that >50% of all abortions are "partial-birth." Please. I would love to read that, because it would be the complete opposite of every other thing I've read.

Meanwhile, in reality, the number of partial birth abortions would not change the fact that abortion is an issue of bodily sovereignty, and that anybody who opposes giving women the capacity to end their pregnancies is, in fact, opposing granting women the most fundamental human right there is.

[Tlaceceyaya]

Now im still looking into the numbers. but the last time i did research this topic for a social report, the form most used were partial birth.. which HAVE NO EFFECT ON THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER...

All abortion affects the life of the mother. If she does not have an abortion, she will either have to keep the baby and her life will never be the same, or she will give it up for adoption and be left with regret.

[IshCong]

Now im still looking into the numbers. but the last time i did research this topic for a social report, the form most used were partial birth.. which HAVE NO EFFECT ON THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER...

In the 2007 Supreme Court case, Gonzales v. Carhart, the Court upheld the ban on partial birth abortions. What are partial birth abortions? Here’s how one nurse, quoted in Carhart, described it.

“ ’Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed the baby’s legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby’s body and the arms–everything but the head. The doctor kept the head right inside the uterus… .’The baby’s little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby’s arms jerked out, like a startle reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he is going to fall. ‘The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby’s brains out. Now the baby went completely limp… .’He cut the umbilical cord and delivered the placenta. He threw the baby in a pan, along with the placenta and the instruments he had just used.’ ”

Im not sure on the whole should it be outlawed. we cant force morality of any ones opinion. I am however against EVERY Partial Birth Abortion as it is the most barbaric end of life performed in the name of choice.

Give me a source that >50% of all abortions are "partial-birth." Please. I would love to read that, because it would be the complete opposite of every other thing I've read.

Meanwhile, in reality, the number of partial birth abortions would not change the fact that abortion is an issue of bodily sovereignty, and that anybody who opposes giving women the capacity to end their pregnancies is, in fact, opposing granting women the most fundamental human right there is.

If a being is capable of surviving outside the womb, it should be given the right to the life it can have, though not the right to impose upon the mother's body for its survival. The right to life is another of those fundamental Human rights dealies.
At any rate, said mother can then foreswear her legal rights and obligations as the parent if she so chooses.

EDIT: Above does not cover situations in which an abortion would be necessary to insure the mother's health, or cases in which the resultant child would have a high risk of severe birth defects.

[Dempublicents1]

Now im still looking into the numbers. but the last time i did research this topic for a social report, the form most used were partial birth.. which HAVE NO EFFECT ON THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER...

In the 2007 Supreme Court case, Gonzales v. Carhart, the Court upheld the ban on partial birth abortions. What are partial birth abortions? Here’s how one nurse, quoted in Carhart, described it.

“ ’Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed the baby’s legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby’s body and the arms–everything but the head. The doctor kept the head right inside the uterus… .’The baby’s little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby’s arms jerked out, like a startle reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he is going to fall. ‘The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby’s brains out. Now the baby went completely limp… .’He cut the umbilical cord and delivered the placenta. He threw the baby in a pan, along with the placenta and the instruments he had just used.’ ”

Im not sure on the whole should it be outlawed. we cant force morality of any ones opinion. I am however against EVERY Partial Birth Abortion as it is the most barbaric end of life performed in the name of choice.

There is so much misconception in this one post. First of all, you are either the worst researcher ever or you are flat-out lying about ever finding any evidence that the most-used form of abortion is "partial birth." Intact dilation and extraction can only be used for late-term abortion. The vast majority of abortions are carried out well before it would even be possible.

Second of all, banning this procedure does nothing but endanger women and make the process more mentally distressing. It prevents a woman and her doctor from discussing the options and choosing the best medical course in her case. It then restricts the doctor to using an arguably much more "barbaric" procedure in which the fetus is ripped limb from limb, rather than being removed intact. This procedure requires the doctor to insert forceps into the woman's womb up to 15 times, each carrying the risk of uterine puncture. It also increases the chance that some fetal tissue may be left behind, where it can go necrotic and lead to infertility. And because doctors are afraid that they may inadvertently break the so-called "partial birth abortion" law, many have added a completely unnecessary injection to kill the fetus beforehand - at greater risk to the mother.

And then there is the fact that this prevents a mother the ability to hold her child and mourn over it. Late-term abortions are carried out because they are medically indicated, either because of pregnancy complications that endanger the mother, because the fetus is currently dead or dying, or because of gross physical or chromosomal defects of the fetus - often defects which will be deadly. This means that a woman going through a late-term abortion was nearly always planning on carrying to term. She very likely already had names picked out. With intact dilation and extraction (what the uneducated call "partial birth abortion), the doctor could give a body to the mother, father, grandparents, etc. that they could hold, mourn, even hold a funeral service and bury if they saw fit. Those who banned the procedure, however, have removed that possibility.

The so-called "partial birth abortion ban" was one of the cruelest things that has been passed in the fight over abortion.

[12 laws]

2: Query to all:
What if the mother wishes to abort, but the father wishes to either transfer the fetus to an artificial/alternate womb (given this is possible) or, given that the baby could be born alive prematurely at that time, simply induce a premature birth?

[/quote]


I think that would be a fair alternative... but will it be supported by insurance?? like ending the pregnancy ?

[Thatchland]

2: Query to all:
What if the mother wishes to abort, but the father wishes to either transfer the fetus to an artificial/alternate womb (given this is possible) or, given that the baby could be born alive prematurely at that time, simply induce a premature birth?

I think that would be a fair alternative... but will it be supported by insurance?? like ending the pregnancy ?

I'm not lending an agreement or opposition to this - but you have to think of every part involved in this process:

1. the pregnant woman could just not tell the man with whom she's been having sex with that she is pregnant. No option for the man available. Any regulations requiring her to tell him is, again, inhibiting her life's rights. And what about victims of rape/incest ... should the man have any rights to this option, as well?
2. assuming she does tell him, how does he know the embryo/fetus is his (we can easily see some manipulative women telling the wrong man)? DNA testing ... which, at the earliest cannot be done until the 9th or 10th week. Also, some DNA testing can have medical risks involved for both the woman and the embryo/fetus. So if your intent is for the embryo/fetus to go through a full pregnancy, you're rolling the dice.
3. assuming she tells him, and the DNA does not exclude him as the biological donor, her consent to the entire transfer procedure would be required as it is a medical procedure upon her body.

There are more things to think about ... this is only the start.

[Copenhagen Metropolis]

Where do I start? First, on your point about aborted relatives- I must ask you to prove what you are saying because it sounds like bs. Aborting a fetus isn't murder anymore than masturbating is. Well unless we are talking 3rd term abortion, which I think is something that needs to stay illegal. First term though? I see no problem with it.

I also think it's funny that they only people I ever see that are adamant that abortion is murder is men who cannot possibly know what the woman is going through.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/blog/my-onl ... s-aborted/ how about that?
masturbation = common, actually good for you sometimes
abortion = already fertilized and developing fetus that is surgically removed, scars you, kills the fetus

lol

[Republic of Tropical Partiers]

I think that would be a fair alternative... but will it be supported by insurance?? like ending the pregnancy ?

I'm not lending an agreement or opposition to this - but you have to think of every part involved in this process:

1. the pregnant woman could just not tell the man with whom she's been having sex with that she is pregnant. No option for the man available. Any regulations requiring her to tell him is, again, inhibiting her life's rights. And what about victims of rape/incest ... should the man have any rights to this option, as well?
2. assuming she does tell him, how does he know the embryo/fetus is his (we can easily see some manipulative women telling the wrong man)? DNA testing ... which, at the earliest cannot be done until the 9th or 10th week. Also, some DNA testing can have medical risks involved for both the woman and the embryo/fetus. So if your intent is for the embryo/fetus to go through a full pregnancy, you're rolling the dice.
3. assuming she tells him, and the DNA does not exclude him as the biological donor, her consent to the entire transfer procedure would be required as it is a medical procedure upon her body.

There are more things to think about ... this is only the start.

1. If the she did rape the man then I don't get why a proven criminal should have more rights that a innocent, I think it would be illogical for a criminal to have more rights that their victim in any circumstance.

[Thatchland]

I'm not lending an agreement or opposition to this - but you have to think of every part involved in this process:

1. the pregnant woman could just not tell the man with whom she's been having sex with that she is pregnant. No option for the man available. Any regulations requiring her to tell him is, again, inhibiting her life's rights. And what about victims of rape/incest ... should the man have any rights to this option, as well?
2. assuming she does tell him, how does he know the embryo/fetus is his (we can easily see some manipulative women telling the wrong man)? DNA testing ... which, at the earliest cannot be done until the 9th or 10th week. Also, some DNA testing can have medical risks involved for both the woman and the embryo/fetus. So if your intent is for the embryo/fetus to go through a full pregnancy, you're rolling the dice.
3. assuming she tells him, and the DNA does not exclude him as the biological donor, her consent to the entire transfer procedure would be required as it is a medical procedure upon her body.

There are more things to think about ... this is only the start.

1. If the she did rape the man then I don't get why a proven criminal should have more rights that a innocent, I think it would be illogical for a criminal to have more rights that their victim in any circumstance.

I didn't think I would need to make this clarification: the rape/incest victim being the woman.

[Republic of Tropical Partiers]

Ye

1. If the she did rape the man then I don't get why a proven criminal should have more rights that a innocent, I think it would be illogical for a criminal to have more rights that their victim in any circumstance.

I didn't think I would need to make this clarification: the rape/incest victim being the woman.

Yeah, in that case their is no dispute but women can rape to you know.

[Wiztopia]

Something that I don't get is why people claim abortion is mentioned in the bible. Abortion is never mentioned in the bible.

It says if you hit a pregnant woman and the child dies because of it, the person who hit should be stoned to death as per an eye for an eye. You might base it on that, but that's pretty weak.

That's considered miscarriage anyway. The funniest argument I ever heard for the bible mentioning abortion was "thou shalt not kill"

[IshCong]

I think that would be a fair alternative... but will it be supported by insurance?? like ending the pregnancy ?

I'm not lending an agreement or opposition to this - but you have to think of every part involved in this process:

1. the pregnant woman could just not tell the man with whom she's been having sex with that she is pregnant. No option for the man available. Any regulations requiring her to tell him is, again, inhibiting her life's rights. And what about victims of rape/incest ... should the man have any rights to this option, as well?
2. assuming she does tell him, how does he know the embryo/fetus is his (we can easily see some manipulative women telling the wrong man)? DNA testing ... which, at the earliest cannot be done until the 9th or 10th week. Also, some DNA testing can have medical risks involved for both the woman and the embryo/fetus. So if your intent is for the embryo/fetus to go through a full pregnancy, you're rolling the dice.
3. assuming she tells him, and the DNA does not exclude him as the biological donor, her consent to the entire transfer procedure would be required as it is a medical procedure upon her body.

There are more things to think about ... this is only the start.

I'm not so much looking for responses to legal matters derived from that, as much as I was looking for opinions on the hypothetical situation. Like, would it be right to progress with an abortion anyway?

[Forsher]

Why should there be pro-life and pro-choice only? It makes much more sense to have both, that is to say time limits on abortion. This is not reflected in the poll at all.

Women should be able to choose whether or not they have an abortion but once you get to the point that the foetus could survive, when born, quite easily things are different. I say 24 weeks, this is over half-way and is more than enough time to make a choice.

I don't see why. As long as it's in their body, it remains a parasite.

That's a pretty screwed up view. What if I told you it's not a parasite?

an organism which lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other’s expense:

Women do not have to eat more than they would normally until they are pretty close to term. Much of the eating for two stuff is a myth.

Now, pro-choice arguments I've seen have frequently argued that the foetus is not alive so you're not one of them. (Cannot live somewhere without being alive.)

This definition has also excluded something that I think should be there. People are factories and the child is a good we produce for our own benefit. Therefore not a parasite.

Also, if the baby is stil around at 24 weeks it is clearly wanted for some reason.

[IshCong]

I don't see why. As long as it's in their body, it remains a parasite.

That's a pretty screwed up view. What if I told you it's not a parasite?

an organism which lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other’s expense:

Women do not have to eat more than they would normally until they are pretty close to term. Much of the eating for two stuff is a myth.

Now, pro-choice arguments I've seen have frequently argued that the foetus is not alive so you're not one of them. (Cannot live somewhere without being alive.)

This definition has also excluded something that I think should be there. People are factories and the child is a good we produce for our own benefit. Therefore not a parasite.

Also, if the baby is stil around at 24 weeks it is clearly wanted for some reason.

Speaking factually, however, the fetus does take nutrients from the woman, deriving nutrient and life-support from the 'host' mother. :shrugs:

People are factories and children are goods? What in the world is this nonsense? That's just so horribly wrong. I thought we moved past the idea that people are property a while ago.

Uh...all ideology aside, if somebody wants to abort at 24 weeks, the fact the fetus is 24 weeks along does not make the fetus wanted...

[Condunum]

I don't see why. As long as it's in their body, it remains a parasite.

That's a pretty screwed up view. What if I told you it's not a parasite?

an organism which lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other’s expense:

Women do not have to eat more than they would normally until they are pretty close to term. Much of the eating for two stuff is a myth.

Now, pro-choice arguments I've seen have frequently argued that the foetus is not alive so you're not one of them. (Cannot live somewhere without being alive.)

This definition has also excluded something that I think should be there. People are factories and the child is a good we produce for our own benefit. Therefore not a parasite.

Also, if the baby is stil around at 24 weeks it is clearly wanted for some reason.

Actually, the argument is usually over it if't human. It's rather accepted that a clump of cells is living.

[Raeyh]

Actually, the argument is usually over it if't human. It's rather accepted that a clump of cells is living.

Some clumps of cells are considered non-living.

[Salandriagado]

I don't see why. As long as it's in their body, it remains a parasite.

That's a pretty screwed up view. What if I told you it's not a parasite?

You'd be demonstrably wrong. There is a clear biological definition of the word "parasite", and a foetus fits it.

an organism which lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other’s expense:

Women do not have to eat more than they would normally until they are pretty close to term. Much of the eating for two stuff is a myth.

Irrelevant. It takes resources from the mother (what, did you think all that growth happened by magic?)

Now, pro-choice arguments I've seen have frequently argued that the foetus is not alive so you're not one of them. (Cannot live somewhere without being alive.)

You have a severe misunderstanding here. It is not a person, therefore it has no rights. Even if it did have any rights, they would not override the bodily sovereignty of the mother. Period.

This definition has also excluded something that I think should be there. People are factories and the child is a good we produce for our own benefit. Therefore not a parasite.

People are not factories. Children are not goods. Foetus' are not beneficial. They are indisputable parasites.

Also, if the baby is stil around at 24 weeks it is clearly wanted for some reason.

Late knowledge of things, poor access (partly due to certain political bodies working hard to deny women's rights) and thought over decisions happen.