Abortion

[EpiPEN]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Lol, yes, it is based on the premise that premeditated murder of a human being, who is wholly innocent (OMG WHAT IF YOU COULD ASSASSINATE HITLER LOLZ), is always bad. Crazy!

<---- 100% USDA Approved

 

[pearl158]

I agree with the empowerment model - with a couple of exceptions - so yeah, giving the info and letting someone make their own choice is great. I wonder about your comment saying that medical providers play down the emotional and medical risks of abortion though. The medical risks of a pregnancy are far higher than those of an abortion, and (IMO) the main reason people feel emotional trauma after an abortion is because there are hateful people out there telling them they are going to hell and shoving pictures of fetuses in their faces as tools of emotional manipulation. See imnotsorry.com for an alternative viewpoint. Do you think that pro-life counselors provide a realistic assessment of the health and emotional risks to a pregnant woman?

I think that many women in an abortion-supportive environment still feel pain and question their decisions, even if they believe it was the right decision.

There are risks of abortion that are not clearly defined for patients. I can't tell you how many patient I saw that had long-term fetility problems after repeated abortions. They told me, "They never said I might not be able to have children later." Abortion is a permanent decision, and every miscarriage or induced abortion affects later pregnancies, sometimes not at all, and sometimes profoundly.

I didn't SAY pro-life counselor. If I were to only refer my patients to a biased resource, I would be guilty of the very thing I am against. I want my patients to make a sound, informed decision. The last thing I want as a provider is having a patient attempt suicide (as one of our former patients did) after an abortion because we were willing to fit her in 2 hours after her positive UPT.

 

[pearl158]

I'm really all about choice...it's not fair for me to decide what is right or wrong for anyone else...

social eugenics is kind of a loaded philosophy, and while I personally agree with some aspects of it (prenatal testing and genetic counseling come to mind) I rarely agree with any one philosophy. I like to pick and choose based on where my beliefs lie, not just believe everything that someone else wrote.

My previous post to pearl was simply stating that things could have turned out good or bad for him and neither is actually a valid argument for or against abortion. It might have been somewhat unclear.

I'm a woman, BTW. And my point wasn't to make a blanket argument against abortion. It was to provide perspective for the argument.

 

[Decepticon]

Lol, yes, it is based on the premise that premeditated murder of a human being, who is wholly innocent (OMG WHAT IF YOU COULD ASSASSINATE HITLER LOLZ), is always bad. Crazy!

I didn't say it was crazy. More like an intellectual extension of moral absolutism your brain has developed to adapt in real life.

What about innocent fish? Or innocent cattle?

 

[rockydoc]

I didn't say it was crazy. More like an intellectual extension of moral absolutism your brain has developed to adapt in real life.

What about innocent fish? Or innocent cattle?

I think this is a totally different argument....tangents are dangerous....we dont wanna start arguing animal rights here or anything

 

[Decepticon]

My personal opinion about abortion stems from my near-miss with it myself. I grew up in a drug-infested, difficult home. I was unwanted. My mother left Planned Parenthood three times, once as they dilated her cervix.

I do enjoy hearing the opinions of those who came from loving homes where their lives were planned and wanted. They think they have some moral authority to decide whether I, and other unwanted children like me, should live or die. My mother told me that not aborting me was just as "irresponsible" as getting pregnant in the first place. She chose on a whim. And here I am.

$hit, my eyes are soaking wet now after reading your story. Now I think of all my sperm that I flushed down the drain or wasted in a woman's face or 2nd entry. That could have been another doctor... That was a future star lawyer... That little one would have been smarter than me, so no big loss... That one would have turned out religious... so no big loss, etc.

 

[Decepticon]

I think this is a totally different argument....tangents are dangerous....we dont wanna start arguing animal rights here or anything

What are humans, if not animals.

What decides which creatures you feel sympathy with?

 

[Lacheln]

I think that many women in an abortion-supportive environment still feel pain and question their decisions, even if they believe it was the right decision.

True, I didn't mean to imply that wasn't the case. What I meant was that the pain is significantly amplified by taking a private sadness and making it a public moral failure by implying it's murder.

There are risks of abortion that are not clearly defined for patients. I can't tell you how many patient I saw that had long-term fetility problems after repeated abortions. They told me, "They never said I might not be able to have children later." Abortion is a permanent decision, and every miscarriage or induced abortion affects later pregnancies, sometimes not at all, and sometimes profoundly.

I hate mixing discussions of repeated abortions with the general abortion question because it is using an extreme example to justify an extreme viewpoint. There have been many studies done that have shown that an early abortion done by a qualified medical professional carries very low risk compared to pregnancy.

I didn't SAY pro-life counselor. If I were to only refer my patients to a biased resource, I would be guilty of the very thing I am against. I want my patients to make a sound, informed decision. The last thing I want as a provider is having a patient attempt suicide (as one of our former patients did) after an abortion because we were willing to fit her in 2 hours after her positive UPT.

And you don't think the prevailing pro-life attitudes might have had anything to do with her feeling guilt and shame of that magnitude? That patient clearly fell through the cracks - psychological screening is supposed to be part of the process. It seems like that's where the failure lies, not in biased counseling. In any case, I'm a fan of nuance. I don't have a definitive answer, and I hear what you're saying even though I don't agree with it all.

I think I'm outta here, thanks for the conversation.

 

[Decepticon]

I understand your point, but I dont think that the separate egg/sperm are being counted as individuals here. Once they are connected, then I count it as a being who has a hope of a "future like ours" (another famous philosophical stance). Basically Pearl is saying that denying anyone a "future like ours" is wrong and steps outside the boundaries of one's rights....I am just terribly horrified of the thought of one person placing a level of worth on another person's life....to me, some people (not saying you) could easily jump from this into infanticide, euthanasia, killing of mentally handicapped, etc. b/c these people might live a life of struggle......

We always place a level of worth on another person's life. My brother is worth more to me than you. I would rather have a healthy kid than a down's kid, and I would readily cough up much dough for it. So there is a value difference. But when the kid is born, of course you love it.

I mean, what's stopping you from systematically killing orphans if they arent adopted by a certain deadline (kinda like dogs in a shelter or something).....I know I going extreme here....but Im just saying that some of these basic views can coincide with more radical and scary ones

I don't know what stops me. But there is something stopping me. Isn't that incredible?

 

[Decepticon]

Outlawing it might decrease it's frequency, but it won't stop it from happening. Those that do seek it out will find themselves not in the hands of medical professionals but someone much less qualified and much more likely to put her in danger. So, while I believe it is the wrong moral choice for a woman to make, it should be a choice available to her.

Do I understand you correctly if your argument is like this:
1. abortions happen no matter what.
2. abortions are less dangerous to mom when they are legal
3. therefore, it is better to let abortions be legal.

If that was the only argument, you could just as well say:
1. bank robberies happen no matter what.
2. bank robberies are less dangerous to thieves when they are legal.
3. therefore, it is better to let bank robberies be legal.

 

[lol.psych]

My personal opinion about abortion stems from my near-miss with it myself. I grew up in a drug-infested, difficult home. I was unwanted. My mother left Planned Parenthood three times, once as they dilated her cervix.

I do enjoy hearing the opinions of those who came from loving homes where their lives were planned and wanted. They think they have some moral authority to decide whether I, and other unwanted children like me, should live or die. My mother told me that not aborting me was just as "irresponsible" as getting pregnant in the first place. She chose on a whim. And here I am.

There is no way to accurately predict the future of an unwanted child. Any attempt you make to predict that we will be the scum of the earth (as many have suggested) is only your own prejudice brought into the sunlight, shielded by your so-called "acceptance" of women's right to choose. I'm shocked at how you discount us. Your prejudice plagues us along every step of our difficult but valuable lives, far beyond our mother's "choice."

- Former Unwanted Child, Future Doctor

Alright, I'm back.

That's great that you're happy and motivated and healthy.
Point is - your mom had a choice. She chose to carry you to term. To me, it doesn't matter what she chose - what matters is that she had a choice.

 

[Hyperstudyosis]

Respectfully, I would like to point out that having already left the embryo stage, you can't really say how you think now can reflect any decision that might have affected the cell version of you back then. Becuase if it is like saying that if a woman doesn't get pregant as soon as she can, then she is killing half a person every month or so; and that a man is killing millions of possible children each day.

Sorry, but your reasoning is flawed. You cannot speak of killing a child before conception and there is no such thing as "half a person."

 

[Hyperstudyosis]

What are humans, if not animals.

What decides which creatures you feel sympathy with?

Humans have a soul; animals do not.

 

[EpiPEN]

Sorry, but your reasoning is flawed. You cannot speak of killing a child before conception and there is no such thing as "half a person."

why not? it's like if I was to say you cannot speak of killing a child before birth and there is no such thing as a fetus being considered a person.


keep reading the thread next time, I had already explained my point was about where do you draw the line of when some cells can be defined as life.

 

[EpiPEN]

Humans have a soul; animals do not.

let me guess, you are also a non-believer of evolution

 

[Depakote]

Do I understand you correctly if your argument is like this:
1. abortions happen no matter what.
2. abortions are less dangerous to mom when they are legal
3. therefore, it is better to let abortions be legal.

If that was the only argument, you could just as well say:
1. bank robberies happen no matter what.
2. bank robberies are less dangerous to thieves when they are legal.
3. therefore, it is better to let bank robberies be legal.

yes. women seeking abortions are just like bank robbers. exactly so. in every way.

 

[yaah]

Wow, 7 pages in 5 hours.

Has anyone made the "Abortions for some, miniature American Flags for others" joke yet?

 

[Decepticon]

yes. women seeking abortions are just like bank robbers. exactly so. in every way.

According to YOUR premises, it was. I didn't make a straw man out of it, because I didn't omit any valuable information from your argument. Read my disclaimer before the bank robbery premises.

 

[Depakote]

Wow, 7 pages in 5 hours.

Has anyone made the "Abortions for some, miniature American Flags for others" joke yet?

Surprisingly, no. Please proceed...

 

[Decepticon]

Humans have a soul; animals do not.

I tried to figure out what you meant by a soul by doing a search in MEDLINE. When was the soul established again? Who found a soul in humans and not in animals?

 

[MsKrispyKreme]

Humans have a soul; animals do not.

 

[Depakote]

Read the f. disclaimer. If that was your only argument, and the reasoning was based on the general principle I outlined, that general principle could be transferred to bank robbers. Which means that the straw man is actually quite living. A straw man omits important differing factors, and my argument doesn't. I simply leave it up to you to introduce other theories, the one you came forward with doesn't distinguish between bank robbery and abortion, and that is YOUR flaw, not mine.

Side note... I actually was just presenting my own personal point of view on this issue, not trying to argue it. I find it a rather moderate point of view which is based in a more "abortions are bad " stance than not... so I was a little surprised that of all the throats in this thread (including many much more liberal), you decided to jump down mine.

Ah, but such is arguing on the interwebs... such a great past-time.

(and yes, if you go hunting down the list of logical fallicies, that's probably on there as not addressing your agrument... mainly b/c I just don't care about what you think)

 

[Hyperstudyosis]

I tried to figure out what you meant by a soul by doing a search in MEDLINE. When was the soul established again? Who found a soul in humans and not in animals?

Do you believe only in things science can prove? Apparently so.

 

[Hyperstudyosis]

why not? it's like if I was to say you cannot speak of killing a child before birth and there is no such thing as a fetus being considered a person.


keep reading the thread next time, I had already explained my point was about where do you draw the line of when some cells can be defined as life.

It seems we disagree as to when life begins. I firmly believe that life begins at conception.

BTW, yes, I am a creationist.

 

[Decepticon]

Side note... I actually was just presenting my own personal point of view on this issue, not trying to argue it. I find it a rather moderate point of view which is based in a more "abortions are bad " stance than not... so I was a little surprised that of all the throats in this thread (including many much more liberal), you decided to jump down mine.

Ah, but such is arguing on the interwebs... such a great past-time.

I think abortions are perfectly OK, and I have no problems with your opinions. You might be smarter than me, for all I know. I just saw a logical flaw, and felt the urge to jump it. 😀

The point is; the argument you made cannot be the sole argument. There must be something else going on in your head, to distinguish abortion from e.g bank robbery.

Exactly what defines whether we are pro or anti-abortion is a really cool philosophical issue. I think we just make up a lot of excuses to feel better about a decision we have already made, perhaps to comply with our image of ourselves.

I don't have much problem with abortions. Kill the little critter all up until it emerges from the womb. And when you get out of hospital, dump him in a baby chute in the same hospital if you don't want him/her.

 

[Decepticon]

Do you believe only in things science can prove? Apparently so.

No, I have lots of ideas that aren't proven.

I don't see how "a soul" could even be interpreted as an idea. It is just a word. It would be like this:
Humans have thaxaniolyxa, dogs don't
what is thaxaniolyxa?
No idea. Do you only believe in things that can be proven?

 

[rockydoc]

somehow this thread has deteriorated to new levels in a short time.....kinda went off topic with the souls discussion and what not.

 

[Begaster]

I didn't say it was crazy. More like an intellectual extension of moral absolutism your brain has developed to adapt in real life.

What about innocent fish? Or innocent cattle?

Come now. This is getting a tad ridiculous. Comparing humans to cattle seems a bit beyond the scope and purpose of this discussion (ironically, I'm fine with abortions, but avoid eating cows and pigs out of disgust with slaughterhouses). As does a discussion of moral relativism versus absolutism. If you do not agree that murder of the innocent is always wrong, there is nothing else to discuss. I reckon most individuals would not disagree with that statement, though.

 

[OldSchooler]

.

 

[Lokhtar]

Do you believe only in things science can prove?

By believe, do you mean things I regard as fact? Of course. I don't understand why anyone wouldn't.

 

[rockydoc]

By believe, do you mean things I regard as fact? Of course. I don't understand why anyone wouldn't.

shouldnt get into this on this thread, but it is something called faith....some people have it, others dont

 

[Depakote]

I think abortions are perfectly OK, and I have no problems with your opinions. You might be smarter than me, for all I know. I just saw a logical flaw, and felt the urge to jump it. 😀

The point is; the argument you made cannot be the sole argument. There must be something else going on in your head, to distinguish abortion from e.g bank robbery.

I've put plenty of thought into my stance over the years (and wound up on both sides of the argument before getting here). It's difficult to eloquently put my stance into words and convey everything...

Honestly, I do think it's a morally wrong decision. But the fact of the matter is that there are 2 lives that have to be considered here.

Mom is going to have to carry the kid, give birth and then put the kid up for adoption or raise the kid. Having a child changes your life... plenty of people aren't ready for that and some are just desperate enough to do something extreme to maintain the status quo. I'm not saying that it's the right thing, in fact, I've said that it's the wrong thing plenty of times.

Bank robbery is theft for financial gain. Abortion allows someone to keep the life they're living... it's usually done for selfish reasons, but a blanket legislation to say that people have to have a good reason for doing it or that one person's reason is better than another's would inevitably lead to value judgments determining access. The only reasonable solution is to give access to those seeking it and leave the moral judgments to your higher power of choice.

 

[NickNaylor]

I used to have no problem with abortion. Whatever people want to do is there thing, I used to think, and as a physician it's my responsibility to assist them however I can.

However, my opinion has changed, and on a personal level, I'm against abortion. I think the only legitimate excuse for an abortion, in my eyes, is danger to the mother, as the mother has more responsibility to the world than an unborn fetus, and it would be better to lose a fetus with no responsibilities than both the mother and the fetus or the mother. I do think, however, that the government should not criminalize abortion. I don't know why it would, other than for religious reasons, which, at least in the U.S., is supposedly not cool.

As a physician, I would be absolutely against an elective abortion. I don't see abortion as birth control.

 

[serikk85]

Please analyze your position AND your opponents, then form arguments accordingly. Stop yelling MURDER and CHOICE back and forth and acting like you're actually making a real point of contention.

👍 These debates give me headaches. So many people pretending to know what they're talking about, when in reality they're throwing eloquent tantrums.

 

[Lokhtar]

shouldnt get into this on this thread, but it is something called faith....some people have it, others dont

You mean, believing in something you know isn't true? Yea, I still don't understand. 😛

 

[rockydoc]

You mean, believing in something you know isn't true? Yea, I still don't understand. 😛

No, I mean believing in something that can't be scientifically proven, you know what I mean...

faith = belief in the unseen/unproven

like I said, some people have it, others dont....you obviously take the latter stance and I the former.

anywhoo, back to abortion

 

[Hyperstudyosis]

No, I have lots of ideas that aren't proven.

I don't see how "a soul" could even be interpreted as an idea. It is just a word. It would be like this:
Humans have thaxaniolyxa, dogs don't
what is thaxaniolyxa?
No idea. Do you only believe in things that can be proven?

Every word has a meaning behind it.

No, I don't only believe in things that can be proven. I believe in a lot of things that can't be proven by science.

 

[serikk85]

You mean, believing in something you know isn't true? Yea, I still don't understand. 😛

👎 Not doing yourself any favors with that comment....

 

[rockydoc]

👍 These debates give me headaches. So many people pretending to know what they're talking about, when in reality they're throwing eloquent tantrums.

I think the thread had a little more quality in the first couple pages....maybe you should read those instead.....and, in a way, debates such as this one are inherently headache producers....however, I wholeheartedly agree with understanding the oppositions viewpoint before entering the fray.

 

[EpiPEN]

It seems we disagree as to when life begins. I firmly believe that life begins at conception.

I will say that I understand your point but I do not understand your reasoning. You don't have to answer this but this is just quesstions I've had about defining the origin where life begins. At what point in conception can you consider the cell a person? when the first strand of DNA composed of the two separate strands is formed? at the first cell division? I just don't see where one can truly draw a line as to where life begins and thus I find it difficult to stomach that it begins at "conception"

 

[serikk85]

when the first strand of DNA composed of the two separate strands is formed?

??? What does this mean? There is no non-complimentary hybridization occurring during conception (or any natural case), as far as I know...

 

[armybound]

??? What does this mean? There is no non-complimentary hybridization occurring during conception (or any natural case), as far as I know...

the first round of replication, I assume

 

[armybound]

Look, this thread is getting heated, as most sociopolitical topics usually do.

Please try not to insult or inflame one another or this thread will be closed.

Thanks.

 

[EpiPEN]

the first round of replication, I assume

bingo

should have been more detailed, I was trying to make a point in a hurry

 

[pearl158]

The scavengers have come out to destroy an otherwise thoughtful discussion. I'm signing out.

 

[RapplixGmed]

It seems a lot of people are confused and arguing about whether and where a fetus becomes a "person" with a "right o life."

If you admit those two premises, the pro-life position is easy to take, ... However....

Logically, you don't even have to assume that life begins at conception or that the fetus has a right to life to support the pro-life position.

Consider this: why is murder wrong? Well... it could be wrong because of its effects on the murderer... or it could be wrong because of the effects on the victim's relatives and friends... but i think we're willing to say that its wrong because of the effects on the victim.

What are the effects on the victim? it denies the victim's future from him/her ... all of the potential joy, pain, productivity, and progeny of the victim's future are destroyed.

Apply this to abortion and it is easy to see why it is wrong. Even if a baby encumbers the mother and denies some opportunity to her, it does not compare to the opportunity brought about by an entirely new life entering the world.

This argument allows contraception because it there is no victim in this case, you cannot argue that sperm or egg have any future.

This argument allows for abortion when the health of the mother is in jeapordy because her future is more immediate and "guaranteed" in this case than the infant's and is thus more valuable.

This argument was first made by Don Marquis and I think its pretty convincing.

 

[serikk85]

the first round of replication, I assume

Ah....perhaps. Still doesn't make sense with Epi's statement though.
When the first strand of DNA composed of the two separate strands is formed? Two strands going to one = hybridization. One strand going to two = replication (though, to be technical, two strands going to four = replication).

 

[rockydoc]

I will say that I understand your point but I do not understand your reasoning. You don't have to answer this but this is just quesstions I've had about defining the origin where life begins. At what point in conception can you consider the cell a person? when the first strand of DNA composed of the two separate strands is formed? at the first cell division? I just don't see where one can truly draw a line as to where life begins and thus I find it difficult to stomach that it begins at "conception"

This is a major reason why the abortion debate burns with an everlasting flame.....b/c first one has to define a "person"...and there have been many attempts to do this, but still no one agrees.....I personally think of it as denying a being a "future like ours" , instead of trying to define when one becomes a "person", or "enters the community of personhood".

Someone once commented that pro-choicers tend to define personhood with very specific and narrow characteristics in order to exclude fetuses from that classification (but in doing so, tend to also inadvertantly exclude mentally handicap, infants, etc).
While, pro-lifers tend to give a very broad definition of personhood in order to include almost everything as well as the fetus (but in doing so, form a week argument of personhood separate from cells, such as you are arguing)
Thus, the debate continues.

 

[rockydoc]

It seems a lot of people are confused and arguing about whether and where a fetus becomes a "person" with a "right o life."

If you admit those two premises, the pro-life position is easy to take, ... However....

Logically, you don't even have to assume that life begins at conception or that the fetus has a right to life to support the pro-life position.

Consider this: why is murder wrong? Well... it could be wrong because of its effects on the murderer... or it could be wrong because of the effects on the victim's relatives and friends... but i think we're willing to say that its wrong because of the effects on the victim.

What are the effects on the victim? it denies the victim's future from him/her ... all of the potential joy, pain, productivity, and progeny of the victim's future are destroyed.

Apply this to abortion and it is easy to see why it is wrong. Even if a baby encumbers the mother and denies some opportunity to her, it does not compare to the opportunity brought about by an entirely new life entering the world.

This argument allows contraception because it there is no victim in this case, you cannot argue that sperm or egg have any future.

This argument allows for abortion when the health of the mother is in jeapordy because her future is more immediate and "guaranteed" in this case than the infant's and is thus more valuable.

This argument was first made by Don Marquis and I think its pretty convincing.

Perfect example of the classic "future like ours" argument....it is interesting to see how different people post viewpoints which coincide with already standing philosophical views.....these have all been previously argued in higher circles, and still no one agrees....so we sure as heck arent gonna fix it

but for the record...i agree w/ you

 

[EpiPEN]

Ah....perhaps. Still doesn't make sense with Epi's statement though.
When the first strand of DNA composed of the two separate strands is formed? Two strands going to one = hybridization. One strand going to two = replication (though, to be technical, two strands going to four = replication).

was refering to right after the two separate chromosomes from each parent combines to form the complete set of DNA (in the zygote) which the person will have for the rest of his/her/its life (assuming no further mutations).