Abortion

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

Do you believe in abortion

  • Yes

    Votes: 147 65.3%

  • No

    Votes: 78 34.7%
  • Total voters
    225
  • Poll closed .
No, we do agree, totally! 🙂 I just like to point out that the words we choose to use to frame the issue tend to obscure the ACTUAL issue. From both sides. Just look at the names of the two positions: "Pro-Life" and "Pro-Choice"... they aren't even directly opposed to each other. They are named to serve and at the same time obscure the TRUE positions that human beings hold.

OldSchooler said:
I think you and I agree more than we disagree. Your argument with my post is mainly one of semantics. Belief in whether something is considered an human individual is different from religious belief.

I think most people agree that killing someone is bad, and that burning off a wart is ok. The debate about abortion, I believe, should center on is aborting a fetus more like the former, or latter.

I have a problem with the argument that denying the 'possibility of life' is the same as taking a life. I wasn't exactly sure if that's the position you hold, but I think those are two different things.
Click to expand...
 
OldSchooler said:
I'm not trying to be mean, but I really think you're missing the point, which may be my fault.

Let me clarify, there are many people who believe that a fetus is a real human just like an adult. I'm not one of them, you may not be either, but we cannot totally dismiss their view. Try to imagine you believe that way, why would aborting a fetus be any different from killing a new born by neglect? That question is not rhetorical, someone who holds your view must have an answer for it. I don't think it would, and so do most people who believe that a fetus is alive.

And I'm sorry, killing something, and letting something die due to a choice we make is the same thing. Differentiating between the two is nothing more than semantic argument and is of no consequence to the debate. That's the exact kind of argument that detracts from the real issues.

Again for the record, I am pro-choice, I just think flawed arguments on my own side hurt my stance more than arguments from the other side.
Click to expand...

OldSchooler said:
Again, if a newborn dies because it is abandoned by the mother, is that better, worse, or the same? Your answer to this question will really help me understand where you're coming from.
Click to expand...


For the record I'm pro-choice...I don't care if you call the fetus alive or not, it doesn't really matter to me (I'm saying this since you assume that all people who are pro-choice must think the fetus is not a life)...I'm still pro-choice..

the argument I'm trying to make is that the mother cannot be forced to let a fetus live off her body...you're not killing the fetus, you're choosing not to let it be a parasite...
the fact that it dies is a consequence of your choice, but it's not the same as killing it.
killing and letting die are in fact very different things. You could not be charged for murder because you refuse to give a liver transplant to your dying relative who needs it...in essence you are letting them die, but it's not the same things as killing them. you have a right to decide what you want done with your own body...same principal applies here...having sex is not the same thing as saying you want to have a baby...

once a child has been born you need to take care of it...it does not depend solely on your body for all functionality...it's heart beats on its own, it breathes on its own, etc. yes, you must feed the baby, but it can survive on formula which doesn't require any sacrifice from your own body..
 
hahaha. I was just about to say 100% agreed, until I noticed you threw in "with rights" after "human individual" haha... you were doing so well. I've yet to find the "human rights sac" I was born with... I assume its an appendage then? I have a 1 millimeter one down here... but I don't think that's it. 😛

OldSchooler said:
To be more clear, I think that the concept of real human is not (or should not be) man made. I think there should distinct characterizations by which we define an organism as an alive, human individual with rights. I don't think this will ever happen though.
Click to expand...
 
decafplease said:
Ummm. If someone base-jumps, are they consenting to death? Do they know it's a risk? Is anyone surprised when it happens?
Click to expand...


A risk is not the same thing as consent...

so people who get HIV and other STDs consented to it? I don't think so...
 
foster033 said:
having sex is not a consent for pregnancy...
Click to expand...

Of course it is. Pregnancy follows sex, sex causes pregnancy. They don't just show correlation, they show causation. Consenting to one requires an implied consent to what follows.

For example: overeating is consent to gain weight.
 
I'm a big fan of people who use the word "parse". Personally.

Seriously though. Human beings hunt animals with rifles for fun. They take the lives of doe as they sip from a stream. I mean... As long as we do stuff like that, what's the point in talking about any of this. I forget... sigh.

OldSchooler said:
I agree, animals should be respected. I made the 'human' distinction because this discussion is on human abortion, delving into animal rights is, I believe, a separate issue, and mingling the two can really confuse arguments.

I'm a big fan of parsing issues to their most simple form and adressing them independently.
Click to expand...
 
I just want to point out htat majority of the people on SDN seem to "believe" in abortion (which I guess is a pretty weird/vauge position). So i'm go out on a limb here and say that the majority of future doctors would be in favor of letting abortion be legal?

Even considering the limitations of th sample size
 
Maxwell Edison said:
Of course it is. Pregnancy follows sex, sex causes pregnancy. They don't just show correlation, they show causation. Consenting to one requires an implied consent to what follows.

For example: overeating is consent to gain weight.
Click to expand...

That would only make sense if pregnancy followed after sex every single time...
 
As I stated before, I recognize abortion as a necessary evil. I wouldn't ever vote to make abortion illegal, but I would vote STRONGLY for any program that made it easier (within reason) to not get into a position where abortion is the most attractive option to a person.

I can't say that I will ever be "okay" with abortion, let alone that I will ever be "pro-abortion" (and i'll never candy coat and obscure it and call it "pro-choice"). The day I stop thinking abortion is disgusting will be the day I lose all respect for myself...

I will expect a decent human being to feel terrible about themselves for at least a little while after having an abortion... but I will never be able to say I wouldn't have done it if I were in their shoes... so... In all fairness, I have to say keep abortion legal.


... and I know my answer isn't convincing. I am scared of the person who is completely "convinced" on either side of the issue. It's a gut-wrenching thought to abort a potential human life.


EpiPEN said:
I just want to point out htat majority of the people on SDN seem to "believe" in abortion (which I guess is a pretty weird/vauge position). So i'm go out on a limb here and say that the majority of future doctors would be in favor of letting abortion be legal?

Even considering the limitations of th sample size
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
foster033 said:
That would only make sense if pregnancy followed after sex every single time...
Click to expand...

Not at all. When I order a burger at a restaurant and tell them to cook it rare (aside: this is how burgers are meant to be eaten; if you think otherwise, you clearly lack the mental faculties to be an MD) I accept the possibility that I may get sick because I happen to like a juicy pink burger. Now most times I would not expect to get sick. But if I did, I know that it's because I decided that a delicious burger was worth the gamble.

Consent doesn't mean that you know the outcome every time. It means you know what outcomes are possible, and you're willing to take your chances, hence consent forms in medical practice.
 
I totally do. You're a G man. It's easy to get heated in these conversations... and we should all get heated, no matter what side we are on... it means we care.

OldSchooler said:
I know what you mean. I just strung those words together in the hope that someone's definition of 'human' or 'thing we shouldn't kill' will be in it. I hope you can see past the minor 'word choice' qualm and see the main point of my argument.
Click to expand...
 
Reading through the first page of replies, I'm enjoying reading the very articulate replies here. I am absolutely morally opposed to abortion as a form of birth control.

That said, the speciality I'm most interested in is Ob/Gyn, and I will likely choose to be trained in the procedure, at least in performing a D&C. Rape/incest (though I would prefer she was given the morning after pill when she reported the rape, or chose to carry it and give the baby up for adoption), life of the mother, or a terminal birth defect (example: anencephaly) are the only scenarios I can think of that would make me consider performing a termination. I would obviously perform D&Cs for patients that have miscarried, as the pregnancy is already over.
 
Last edited:
Geekchick921 said:
Reading through the first page of replies, I'm enjoying reading the very articulate replies here. I am morally opposed to abortion as a form of birth control.

That said, the speciality I'm most interested in is Ob/Gyn, and I will likely choose to be trained in the procedure, at least in performing a D&C. Rape/incest, "life of the mother" or a terminal birth defect (example: anencephaly) are the only scenarios I can think of that would make me consider performing a termination. I would obviously perform D&Cs for patients that have miscarried, as the pregnancy is already over.
Click to expand...

That sounds very reasonable to me.

I am curious, given your opposition to elective termination, would you be willing to refer one of your patients to another physician, and/or provide them with education about all options if asked about elective termination? Or perhaps if there was early detection of a moderate abnormailty?

My point of view, so far, is that education about options are appropriate even if a particular physician would not him or herself be willing to perform the procedure. Basically, because I feel the focus of care is about the patient and not the physician. But I am aware that some physicians, even whole hospital systems, exist that will not discuss the topic at all with their patients, nor give referrals. This is the kind of thing an interviewer might press you with by the way, so it is good to think through it. 🙂
 
Haemulon said:
That sounds very reasonable to me.
Click to expand...
Thank you.

I am curious, given your opposition to elective termination, would you be willing to refer one of your patients to another physician, and/or provide them with education about all options if asked about elective termination? Or perhaps if there was early detection of a moderate abnormailty?
Click to expand...
Well, firstly, I hope I would not be faced with that decision. What I'm currently most interested is REI, MFM, or becoming a laborist (Ob hospitalist), so the odds that a patient would come to be seeking an abortion is unlikely if I go any of those routes. In any case, I would certainly provide them with education about all other options. While I don't know the ethics of this, I would prefer not to give them referrals to physicians that would terminate, and I'm also sure they could find them without my help.

As far as early detection of a moderate abnormality goes, that is certainly a grey area. Speaking as a poster on a pregnancy forum (as my husband and I are expecting), first trimester scans (like NT scans) turn up MANY false positives that are later proven false with genetic testing by CVS or amniocentesis. I personally don't believe abortion is warranted due to an abnormality unless it will result in the baby dying before shortly after birth due to its severity.

My point of view, so far, is that education about options are appropriate even if a particular physician would not him or herself be willing to perform the procedure. Basically, because I feel the focus of care is about the patient and not the physician. But I am aware that some physicians, even whole hospital systems, exist that will not discuss the topic at all with their patients, nor give referrals. This is the kind of thing an interviewer might press you with by the way, so it is good to think through it. 🙂
Click to expand...
I work at a Catholic hospital, and I am pretty much 100% sure that is the case here. I have heard the physicians with privileges here are not permitted to prescribe the morning after pill, and I'm certain elective abortions would never be performed on the premises.

That I could be asked this at an interview is a very good point. Thank you for the help! 🙂
 
Geekchick921 said:
Reading through the first page of replies, I'm enjoying reading the very articulate replies here. I am absolutely morally opposed to abortion as a form of birth control.

That said, the speciality I'm most interested in is Ob/Gyn, and I will likely choose to be trained in the procedure, at least in performing a D&C. Rape/incest (though I would prefer she was given the morning after pill when she reported the rape, or chose to carry it and give the baby up for adoption), life of the mother, or a terminal birth defect (example: anencephaly) are the only scenarios I can think of that would make me consider performing a termination. I would obviously perform D&Cs for patients that have miscarried, as the pregnancy is already over.
Click to expand...

To some one the fringe (and throughout these pages) the morning after pill is equivalent to abortion because it prevents implantation of an already fertilized egg. There are efforts to re-categorize this type of birth control as abortion.
 
shmrshines said:
interesting indeed. I like this type of thinking, your someone who is actually looking at the science of it and not just purging information that was given to them.
Click to expand...

Thank you. Issues like these have many cool points to talk about. For instance, a widely held position is that life begins at conception. But then to dig into that a little more, we can have a really interesting discussion about the process of fertilization and exactly at which molecular process or mechanism actually consititutes the moment of conception, and why such a process inherently confers the said property of incipient life (if at all). Fertilization is actually a process after all, and viewing it as a single instant grossly underestimates the complexity of the mechanism.

Another point may be the fact that the human oocyte itsself has actually not even finished meiosis at the time that fertilization occurs. The meiotic process and second polar body formation is stimulated by the event. So at time of fertilization, one could even argue for a pseudo-triploid condition existing, which is not representative of a normal genome.

Also the cases of in vitro fertilization using intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) can and does bypass many of the molecular mechanisms of fertilization, yet a functional embryo is still produced. So, if one of those mechanisms were to be chosen as the moment of life beginning, to bypass them introduces another interesting philosophical argument about the origin of individual life in such cases.

Just a few thoughts off the top of my head that could be really cool points of discussion (at least cool for me, but I admittedly a dork about this stuff). There is so much more to this than all the emotional banter that gets thrown around. 🙂
 
Last edited:
anything that takes away the right of a woman to choose what to do with her own body, or to force her through a medical procedure (childbirth) on the behalf of another being is pure misogyny. taking away that right means that you're putting the rights of a clump of cells over the rights of a living, breathing, autonomous individual.

and I 100% believe that if it were men that would be the ones getting abortions, this debate wouldn't exist at all. people just love to throw around stories about "careless" women who were so "silly" and forgot the BC, or just "use abortions as birth control" or other derogatory, sexist anecdotes that spell out the fact that they think women aren't able to make medical decisions for themselves. no one would ever DREAM of trying to legislate what a man could do with his body.
 
OldSchooler said:
Please explain why. Why do you have the responsibility to take care of it once it's born, but not before?
Click to expand...

You would have the responsibility to take care of it before it's born if it could survive without using your body...
basically I don't think you should be able to withhold it formula/food, but if you don't want it stealing your food or allow it to use your body to survive you shouldn't be forced to let it...forbidding to let it develop in your body is not the same thing as denying it care/food/shelter...


I think I'm done explaining this to you I'm sorry if you don't understand it, I'm not trying to be mean but I really don't know how much clearer I can be nor can I think of anymore ways to explain it...

the whole point of this was just b/c you said all people who are pro-choice think that the fetus is not alive and therefore it's not murder...I just wanted you to see that's not the only argument, and while you may believe that there are other people out there who do think the fetus is alive but still think it's okay for a women to have a choice.
 
My opinion is it really depends on the circumstances but yes i agree with it...
 
nogolfinsnow said:
To some one the fringe (and throughout these pages) the morning after pill is equivalent to abortion because it prevents implantation of an already fertilized egg. There are efforts to re-categorize this type of birth control as abortion.
Click to expand...
True. I personally consider it somewhere between the two, but I am not opposed to it. God forbid, were I raped, I would request it as well. Though if the time for that had lapsed, I don't know what I would choose to do.

Rape is a grey area in this discussion all together. Many people here are saying when you consent to sex you give implied consent to a possible pregnancy, and I agree with that statement. However, in the case of the victim, she did not consent to having sex with her rapist, and certainly did not give implied consent to carry his baby. If she is sexually active, she could be diligently using contraception in every act of consentual sex she's ever had.

The dilemma is that, while she does not deserve to deal with a pregnancy she did not want that is a constant remind her of the trauma, the baby does not deserve to be, dare I say, punished for it. Perhaps I'm being sappy since I'm pregnant myself, but I personally think adoption is an ideal situation in this case, as the baby would go to a family that will love it and care for it regardless of their parentage or origins.
 
Last edited:
capn jazz said:
anything that takes away the right of a woman to choose what to do with her own body, or to force her through a medical procedure (childbirth) on the behalf of another being is pure misogyny. taking away that right means that you're putting the rights of a clump of cells over the rights of a living, breathing, autonomous individual.

and I 100% believe that if it were men that would be the ones getting abortions, this debate wouldn't exist at all. people just love to throw around stories about "careless" women who were so "silly" and forgot the BC, or just "use abortions as birth control" or other derogatory, sexist anecdotes that spell out the fact that they think women aren't able to make medical decisions for themselves. no one would ever DREAM of trying to legislate what a man could do with his body.
Click to expand...

I completely 100% whole heartedly agree with everything you have said here.

Regardless of what oldschooler is saying...it doesn't matter to me whether that clump of cells is considered a human life or not...it's still the women's right to choose what to do with her own body.
The debate to me is about a women's choice.
 
OldSchooler said:
To many people (not I), that 'clump of cells' is a living, autonomous individual, and the woman is not only choosing what to do with her own body, but what to do with another's.
By totally disregarding the point of view of your opposition you are not doing your side of the argument any favors. Your post epitomizes what is wrong with the abortion debate, and this is from a fellow pro-choicer.
Click to expand...

There is no base for the claim that a fetus is a "living, autonomous individual." It is a vaguely human-shaped (after a while) collection of cells that saps a mother's nutrients and uses her as housing. It is completely unaware of itself or its surroundings.

Would you call a sunflower seed a sunflower? Just because something will, eventually, given the right circumstances, grow into something else doesn't mean it is that something else right now. A fetus is still a fetus, and so long as a fetus is entirely dependent on one single woman to survive, it is that one single woman's choice to agree to its survival or not.

My post does not epitomize what is wrong with the abortion debate. It is my sincere opinion that a pro-life stance completely ignores the rights of bodily autonomy of an already living autonomous woman in favor of the rights of something that doesn't know it exists.
 
foster033 said:
I completely 100% whole heartedly agree with everything you have said here.

Regardless of what oldschooler is saying...it doesn't matter to me whether that clump of cells is considered a human life or not...it's still the women's right to choose what to do with her own body.
The debate to me is about a women's choice.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
Im pretty sure that Terry Shaivo stuff doesnt happen much
Click to expand...

I used that as an example to make my point which was that there are a billion cases where the person isn't dying and the next of kin decides their life isn't worth living so they pull the plug. So to use that as your argument of being against abortion -- that we don't do it to adults so we shouldn't do it to a fetus -- is inaccurate.
 
OldSchooler said:
There it is... right there you are making a clear distinction between the nature of the fetus pre-brith and the newborn.
To many people, again, not I, there IS NO DISTINCTION. To people who really believe that a fetus is a person, killing it by removing it from your body is the same as killing a newborn by leaving it on the street.
You just proved my point, you classify the fetus based on its ability to survive outside of the womb, which I think is fair, but many DO NOT. That's all I'm trying to say.
Click to expand...

I don't even understand your argument...you're sort of being ridiculous...
I don't understand what you think you've won here...I haven't said anything in this post that I didn't say before...
you must provide a fetus/a newborn/ a child with food and water...you do not have to do this at the expense of your own rights or your own body...
I never said I personally believe it is living being...I don't know if it is or not, frankly, I don't really care....
just b/c people don't structure a debate the way you want it or view from a different angle doesn't mean that it's wrong...
 
OldSchooler said:
To someone who believes that a fetus is a person, saying its the mother's right to choose what to do with her body is like saying I have the right to choose whether to pull the trigger while holding a gun to someone's head. It's my body right?
Click to expand...

....if that person is attempting to live in your uterus, then yes.
 
It is neither a Pro-Life nor a Pro-Choice issue in reality.

It is a "is it a grossly inhumane enough act to abort a fetus that we as a society feel compelled to override the rights of a single person over their own body in this specific case?" - issue. To override these rights is a SERIOUS SERIOUS SERIOUS thing, no doubt... but those who call themselves "pro-life" seek to do just that...

... It's a Life and Choice issue. You can't separate the two here. Well, you can... but as soon as you do, you're really just debating to yourself.


capn jazz said:
There is no base for the claim that a fetus is a "living, autonomous individual." It is a vaguely human-shaped (after a while) collection of cells that saps a mother's nutrients and uses her as housing. It is completely unaware of itself or its surroundings.

Would you call a sunflower seed a sunflower? Just because something will, eventually, given the right circumstances, grow into something else doesn't mean it is that something else right now. A fetus is still a fetus, and so long as a fetus is entirely dependent on one single woman to survive, it is that one single woman's choice to agree to its survival or not.

My post does not epitomize what is wrong with the abortion debate. It is my sincere opinion that a pro-life stance completely ignores the rights of bodily autonomy of an already living autonomous woman in favor of the rights of something that doesn't know it exists.
Click to expand...
 
capn jazz said:
....if that person is attempting to live in your uterus, then yes.
Click to expand...


HaHa...thank you for bringing some sense to this argument...I like and agree with everything you've said so far...

you're being a lot more articulate than I have been...although it's sort of hard for me to be cohesive and coherent when I'm supposed to be working😀
 
capn jazz said:
and I 100% believe that if it were men that would be the ones getting abortions, this debate wouldn't exist at all. people just love to throw around stories about "careless" women who were so "silly" and forgot the BC, or just "use abortions as birth control" or other derogatory, sexist anecdotes that spell out the fact that they think women aren't able to make medical decisions for themselves. no one would ever DREAM of trying to legislate what a man could do with his body.
Click to expand...

Perhaps historically (i.e. Hellenic era) this concept may have held water, but it's ludicrous to believe that this is the case now. The debate is whether you believe that a fetus is a living human being; conflating it with women's lib theory not only distorts the message, but completely ignores the point of the current argument.

Question: do you really think that if men were capable of carrying babies (which depending upon how you come down on the Thomas Beatie issue is a decidedly real possiblity) that people would be OK with killing fetuses?

If you really believe that, I've got a subprime mortgage for you that is an opportunity too good to miss!
 
OldSchooler said:
My point is that most people believe that killing humans is wrong, so the question should be is the fetus a human or not.
Click to expand...

This is the point, and it is my ambivalence about this that is really trying.

For me, I don't know. It's difficult to say *when* life starts without imposing some arbitrary point on the matter, and I've never heard a good rationale from either side as to why they are nearer the truth. It's a problem though, because although I don't have the desire to dictate to people how to live their lives, I believe that if there is a possibility that fetuses were fairly deemed human that inaction is as bad as the act itself.
 
OldSchooler said:
That's exactly what I've been trying to say. I think that the start of life needs to be defined. That, of course, will never happen.
Click to expand...

Playing devil's advocate here (because again, I don't know...and as a result of which, I'm kind of a heckler to both sides in the argument at the moment) if we don't know, isn't the ethical thing not risking inadvertent killing?
 
If there is uncertainty regarding when human life truly begins, it seems like the logical thing to do would be to give the benefit of the doubt to the fetus by saying it's alive. If you were hunting and saw a movement in a bush that you thought could be another person, you would err on the side of caution and not shoot. Personally, I've read a lot of articles in which embryologists stand by the viewpoint that human life begins at conception, but have yet to see any that state the other view.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
Volunteering with Abortion Fund
Replies
9
Views
2K
deleted480308
D
I
Abortion in PS?
Replies
31
Views
4K
BombsAway
B
D
Interview question (abortion)
Replies
21
Views
10K
gyngyn
gyngyn
N
abortion taught in med school?
2
Replies
82
Views
12K
487806
4
MedPR
ACA And Abortion
Replies
35
Views
4K
skais595
S
Top