Abortion

[HIWB]

"The problem is that you don't have a clear cut definition of when life begins. I do and I base mine on how we determine the end of life.

We determine the end of life based upon lack of brain function. We don't necessarily test for it but we know when it's impossible that the brain could have survived based on other vitals such as heartbeat. And we only cut people off from life support if there is no hope of them ever being able to resume enough function to live away from direct life support.

So I base my beginning of life off that. We see brain function at 6 weeks gestation no matter how minimal it is there. Furthermore we know that if we do nothing in most cases the child will gain normal brain function and be able to live away from the life support that is it's mother.

Therefore I will tell you based on how we already understand things medically speaking abortion beyond 6 weeks gestation is murder. In fact the medical community used to believe that and part of the Hippocratic oath used to be that a doctor wouldn't participate in an abortion. But some doctors realized that abortion after it was legalized was some easy money so that part was removed for political/monetary purposes. Not because they had a new medical reason to make them believe it was somehow ethical." @Hoosierhawkeye

Am I the only one surprised that Hoosier is the one who wrote this?

And, why would a 5 week old fetus have any less chance of growing to develop normal brain function with nothing on the EEG than a 6 week old with barely a blip on the EEG? This seems pretty arbitrary for a guy who is typically very conservative and very firm on this subject.

 

[General Tso]

So long as there are different points of view on when life begins, err on the side of killing it. Got it.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

And the difference between you and I is I'm not going to tell someone else what they can and can't do unless I have very solid evidence and a good reason why it is wrong. I'm not sure how you came to that certainty to your conclusion. I can't talk myself into it...because deep down, I admit, honestly, I think your definition of when life begins is wrong. AND, because many learned men and women say the same thing.

Many learned people also think it's right. Not every doctor and scientist out there think's abortion is good.

When those learned men and women can't give you a consistent definition of when life begins that applies across all times you should begin to become concerned.

No abortion supporter has ever given me a consistent definition of when human life begins that doesn't depend on our current technology level (the mythical viability line) or geographical position (inside or outside of the womb).

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Am I the only one surprised that Hoosier is the one who wrote this?

And, why would a 5 week old fetus have any less chance of growing to develop normal brain function with nothing on the EEG than a 6 week old with barely a blip on the EEG? This seems pretty arbitrary for a guy who is typically very conservative and very firm on this subject.

I've been using this argument for a while now. Morally I believe human life begins at conception but there is a strong scientific argument to point out that it scientifically begins at 6 weeks.

The difference between 5 and 6 weeks is that we don't have evidence of brain function at 5 weeks at this point. At 5 weeks you could make the scientific argument that it is in fact just a clump of cells that is beginning to organize. If human life ends with brain death then it has to begin with brain life. That's 6 weeks.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

By the way, the most pro-life a society can be is to be extremely, and I mean extremely, pro-environmental conservation.

All this current pro-life is almost entirely political bullshit posturing.

The GOP holds onto pro-life as their party's life support. They think this makes them the morally superior party, a fulcrum of their "brand".

Hogwash. If the GOP really cared about reducing abortion, their strategies would be much, much different.

But the strategy isn't to reduce abortion. The strategy is to garner easy votes.

Just don't get me tied up with the GOP, I'm not affiliated with those guys.

My view is that abortion needs to be attacked from both the supply and demand side. Demand needs to be reduced by a strong social safety net as well as policies which encourage people to marry and stay married.

Supply needs to be attacked by this human rights abuse being made illegal nationwide .

That of course won't happen tomorrow, I don't know if it will ever happen at least not in this world, humans have a great way of dehumanizing others when it fits a narrative that they like. We've always been a species that will find excuses to kill, torture, enslave, or otherwise deny human rights to others. In this country conservatives do it with confederate statues, immigration policies, and blaming the victims. Liberals do it with abortion and the restrictions on the freedom of conscience. Both worship the false god of individualism. It's part of our sin nature and I don't expect that to change until Christ returns.

 

[Rudolph]

Just don't get me tied up with the GOP, I'm not affiliated with those guys.

My view is that abortion needs to be attacked from both the supply and demand side. Demand needs to be reduced by a strong social safety net as well as policies which encourage people to marry and stay married.

Supply needs to be attacked by this human rights abuse being made illegal nationwide .

That of course won't happen tomorrow, I don't know if it will ever happen at least not in this world, humans have a great way of dehumanizing others when it fits a narrative that they like. We've always been a species that will find excuses to kill, torture, enslave, or otherwise deny human rights to others. In this country conservatives do it with confederate statues, immigration policies, and blaming the victims. Liberals do it with abortion and the restrictions on the freedom of conscience. It's part of our sin nature and I don't expect that to change until Christ returns.

To the bolded part: Okay, sure.

If abortion isn't ever going to be outlawed, then time to accept and embrace the (general) liberal position — which is to address supply and demand via a pragmatic (or objective) approach versus a faith-based, religious dogma-based (subjective at best) approach.

If my daughter or girlfriend or wife or friend or neighbor is raped, impregnated, and wants to terminate pregnancy, I am not going to stand in her way.

You've been fed a message that too often lumps all abortion simply as the result of irresponsible behavior, as some type of dehumanizing easy out.

I know (at least) three women who have had an abortion resulting from rape. Trust me, there is no easy out.

If you want to live in a society governed by your religion, you're in the wrong place. Live your life governed by your religion, period. Allow your marriage to be defined by your religion.

Are you one who believes life begins at conception?

 

[fredjr82]

We're never going to see eye to eye on this topic.

I say we as taxpayers offer ANYONE, a hysterectomy/vasectomy if they're currently child free or if extenuating circumstances deem necessary (AKA loopholes). We pay for the procedure and a one time stipend. We just solved the abortion problem and the over population problem. Those junkies will be begging for the stipend and we'll ensure they're not reproducing. People like Hoosier can sleep better at night too because of all the babies not being murdered.

 

[Joes Place]

Many learned people also think it's right. Not every doctor and scientist out there think's abortion is good.

When those learned men and women can't give you a consistent definition of when life begins that applies across all times you should begin to become concerned.

No abortion supporter has ever given me a consistent definition of when human life begins that doesn't depend on our current technology level (the mythical viability line) or geographical position (inside or outside of the womb).

It begins when a fetus can survive WITHOUT significant medical intervention, aside from food and warmth, outside the mother. Many CHOOSE to save preemies (and that's the right thing to do), but there should be no requirement to do so IF that is the parent's choice.

I may not agree with people who choose abortions, but I'm not walking in their shoes; I don't know what their social situation is; I don't know what their financial resources are and support structure is; I don't know what level of 'risk' they are willing to accept to deliver a baby to term - because putting in fuzzy language like 'abortion is ok when the mother's life is "at risk" ' means different things in different situations. In a top-dollar hospital, the 'risk' of a specific diagnosis may be medically different from what it is in a rural hospital. The 'risk' that someone is willing to take if it is their last chance at a baby may be different from that of a couple already with 2 young children, and risking those children growing up w/o a mother.

There will NEVER be a solution to this problem that is acceptable to all sides. Period. But you CAN develop policies that limit the need for >1st trimester abortions (by pushing birth control, safe sex and morning-after pills) to eliminate the need for MOST. That's the policy I can support. Not 'outlawing' abortions, where people who medically need one cannot find providers to perform it when it becomes a medical necessity.

If people WANT all these unwanted babies brought 'to term', they need to 'up' the taxes needed to RAISE the kids to adulthood, and not in orphanages. And I don't think that's a tax bill too many would like to deal with....

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

To the bolded part: Okay, sure.

If abortion isn't ever going to be outlawed, then time to accept and embrace the (general) liberal position — which is to address supply and demand via a pragmatic (or objective) approach versus a faith-based, religious dogma-based (subjective at best) approach.

If my daughter or girlfriend or wife or friend or neighbor is raped, impregnated, and wants to terminate pregnancy, I am not going to stand in her way.

You've been fed a message that too often lumps all abortion simply as the result of irresponsible behavior, as some type of dehumanizing easy out.

I know (at least) three women who have had an abortion resulting from rape. Trust me, there is no easy out.

If you want to live in a society governed by your religion, you're in the wrong place. Live your life governed by your religion, period. Allow your marriage to be defined by your religion.

Are you one who believes life begins at conception?

Just because I'm not sure if it's going to happen means you don't stop the fight. There are times when you fight the fight even if you can't win. And I wouldn't call this a "can't win" yet, just one I'm not certain of victory (not the same thing.)

It is a dehumanizing easy out many times. Most abortions have nothing to do with rape. Even when it does there are other options where one can choose life for the innocent.

Even those that do, the abortion doesn't fix the rape, nor is the child responsible for the rape. Children like that can be given up for adoption or handed over to the state. Even now we make that easy. If we made adoption a lot easier things would work well.

I'm not looking for a place governed by my religion, but I am looking for someplace that respects life at all stages and believes human life has inherent value. And that includes the unborn, the poor, and the sick. If you want to curse God while engaging in homosexual relations with a prostitute I believe that should be your legal right. Only thing I will do is consider it immoral and ask God to have mercy upon you.

Morally I believe life begins at conception. I grant that scientifically the picture looks more like 6 weeks gestation.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

It begins when a fetus can survive WITHOUT significant medical intervention, aside from food and warmth, outside the mother. Many CHOOSE to save preemies (and that's the right thing to do), but there should be no requirement to do so IF that is the parent's choice.

Guess your life is only as good as you don't require significant medical intervention then. Maybe we should start applying people's ideas of the beginning of life with the end of THEIR life. I believe in life as long as there is brain function and a realistic chance that the person will be able to survive without direct life support. So I get all the medical intervention I need until that happens. You believe it's only as good as it doesn't require significant medical intervention, so therefore all you get is maybe some stitches, anti-bodics and a bandaid. No major surgeries, life support or transplants no matter what.

I may not agree with people who choose abortions, but I'm not walking in their shoes; I don't know what their social situation is; I don't know what their financial resources are and support structure is; I don't know what level of 'risk' they are willing to accept to deliver a baby to term - because putting in fuzzy language like 'abortion is ok when the mother's life is "at risk" ' means different things in different situations. In a top-dollar hospital, the 'risk' of a specific diagnosis may be medically different from what it is in a rural hospital. The 'risk' that someone is willing to take if it is their last chance at a baby may be different from that of a couple already with 2 young children, and risking those children growing up w/o a mother.

Legitmate risks to the mothers life are another thing all together, I can support an abortion when there is extreme risk. Those situations are fairly rare though.

There will NEVER be a solution to this problem that is acceptable to all sides. Period.

There isn't a solution as to the age of consent of children that is acceptable to both pedophiles and non-pedophiles alike. There isn't a solution as to the legality of murdering black people that is acceptable to both racists and black people.

But you CAN develop policies that limit the need for >1st trimester abortions (by pushing birth control, safe sex and morning-after pills) to eliminate the need for MOST. That's the policy I can support.

I agree that universal healthcare should include most contraceptive options for both men and women. I also think the safety net should be available to take care of people who do have children.

Not 'outlawing' abortions, where people who medically need one cannot find providers to perform it when it becomes a medical necessity.

Medical necessity isn't done via typical abortion channels. PP doesn't do medical necessity abortions. And medical necessity is one of the least common reasons for abortion there is. I'm concerned about the voluntary at will abortions.

If people WANT all these unwanted babies brought 'to term', they need to 'up' the taxes needed to RAISE the kids to adulthood, and not in orphanages. And I don't think that's a tax bill too many would like to deal with....

The tax bill wouldn't be nearly as big as you think, but that is the ultimate problem we care more about money then we do about life.

 

[Joes Place]

Legitmate risks to the mothers life are another thing all together, I can support an abortion when there is extreme risk. Those situations are fairly rare though.

Again, WHO DEFINES "risk"?

For many a 1-in-10 chance of dying is too much. For others, 1-in-100 may be too high. Do YOU want legislators defining what level of medical risk YOU or YOUR loved one needs to take on?

Roll the dice for yourself if you want; don't roll them on behalf of someone you don't know and will never meet.

 

[Joes Place]

The tax bill wouldn't be nearly as big as you think, but that is the ultimate problem we care more about money then we do about life.

Like hell it wouldn't. Add up the numbers.
An abortion costs "maybe" $1000, likely less.

Raising a kid to 18 years old, and paying to do it will easily cost 50-100 times that. And it's not close.

Adoption SHOULD be encouraged, and we should incentivize people to go that route - I completely agree on that. But expecting the government to 'step in' for the unwanted births and institutionalize kids isn't the answer. And that IS what we'd go back to - orphanages - to handle all the unwanted births. Abortion is a primary reason we no longer have those anymore.

You want more news stories of young, unwanted children starved, abused, living in basement dungeons until they die - that's what the end result will be, because our social systems are ALREADY vastly underfunded.

Push for policies that prevent the pregnancies in the first place, THEN for adoption options. Otherwise, make your decision for yourself, and not someone else you don't know and have no clue what their life and situation is like.

 

[FSULongM]

"The problem is that you don't have a clear cut definition of when life begins. I do and I base mine on how we determine the end of life.

We determine the end of life based upon lack of brain function. We don't necessarily test for it but we know when it's impossible that the brain could have survived based on other vitals such as heartbeat. And we only cut people off from life support if there is no hope of them ever being able to resume enough function to live away from direct life support.

So I base my beginning of life off that. We see brain function at 6 weeks gestation no matter how minimal it is there. Furthermore we know that if we do nothing in most cases the child will gain normal brain function and be able to live away from the life support that is it's mother.

Therefore I will tell you based on how we already understand things medically speaking abortion beyond 6 weeks gestation is murder. In fact the medical community used to believe that and part of the Hippocratic oath used to be that a doctor wouldn't participate in an abortion. But some doctors realized that abortion after it was legalized was some easy money so that part was removed for political/monetary purposes. Not because they had a new medical reason to make them believe it was somehow ethical." @Hoosierhawkeye

Murder is a legal term, which, in this country, makes your argument completely wrong. You might want to switch to "homicide," "killing," or some other non-legal term to make your argument hold water. Other than that, a perfectly valid opinion.

 

[DanL53]

Many learned people also think it's right. Not every doctor and scientist out there think's abortion is good.

When those learned men and women can't give you a consistent definition of when life begins that applies across all times you should begin to become concerned.

No abortion supporter has ever given me a consistent definition of when human life begins that doesn't depend on our current technology level (the mythical viability line) or geographical position (inside or outside of the womb).

The reason I won't try to give a definition of when human life begins is the same reason I won't ever try to perform brain surgery or build a rocket ship to go to Mars. Not something I CAN do as well as many people more capable than I. And you are right, they argue as well. But it seems so often those opposed to legal abortion, even Doctors, are coming from a religious background.

But I would remind that when abortion was illegal it was like prohibition. A big problem considering how much more dangerous it was, but people still sought out ways to have it done.

Finally, you use end of life, being brain dead and/or on life support, as a method to measure when life ends and begins. May I remind many persons technically brain dead are also still registering the most basic of brain function...just like that six week old embryo. And, as to life support that is exactly what the pregnant woman is providing. So, I don't agree with the six week measure. Brain waves don't mean thought. But again, this is not meant as an argument FOR an abortion, just pointing out the problem when people start trying to apply measures that are simplified.

My respect for your views from a moral standpoint remain. I agree morally. But opposed to laws based on morality and especially without clear reasons.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

The reason I won't try to give a definition of when human life begins is the same reason I won't ever try to perform brain surgery or build a rocket ship to go to Mars. Not something I CAN do as well as many people more capable than I. And you are right, they argue as well. But it seems so often those opposed to legal abortion, even Doctors, are coming from a religious background.

But I would remind that when abortion was illegal it was like prohibition. A big problem considering how much more dangerous it was, but people still sought out ways to have it done.

Finally, you use end of life, being brain dead and/or on life support, as a method to measure when life ends and begins. May I remind many persons technically brain dead are also still registering the most basic of brain function...just like that six week old embryo. And, as to life support that is exactly what the pregnant woman is providing. So, I don't agree with the six week measure. Brain waves don't mean thought. But again, this is not meant as an argument FOR an abortion, just pointing out the problem when people start trying to apply measures that are simplified.

My respect for your views from a moral standpoint remain. I agree morally. But opposed to laws based on morality and especially without clear reasons.

The difference between a brain dead person and a child at 6 weeks gestation is that the child at 6 weeks gestation stands a chance to become viable. The brain dead person does not.

Do you not think that if the brain dead person had a realistic chance of resuming some normal function . . . even if it took several months we would keep them on life support until that either occurs or we find reason to doubt their ability to recover?

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Like hell it wouldn't. Add up the numbers.
An abortion costs "maybe" $1000, likely less.

Raising a kid to 18 years old, and paying to do it will easily cost 50-100 times that. And it's not close.

Adoption SHOULD be encouraged, and we should incentivize people to go that route - I completely agree on that. But expecting the government to 'step in' for the unwanted births and institutionalize kids isn't the answer. And that IS what we'd go back to - orphanages - to handle all the unwanted births. Abortion is a primary reason we no longer have those anymore.

You want more news stories of young, unwanted children starved, abused, living in basement dungeons until they die - that's what the end result will be, because our social systems are ALREADY vastly underfunded.

Push for policies that prevent the pregnancies in the first place, THEN for adoption options. Otherwise, make your decision for yourself, and not someone else you don't know and have no clue what their life and situation is like.

First of all there is no reason for an unwanted child to be starved abused and left in a basement when you can turn it over to the state. So that excuse goes out the window.

Secondly I agree that as part of a nationwide universal healthcare system contraception needs to be offered. Adoptions need to be made free.

It won't be that bad also because not only will more kids be adopted but I would venture to say that the vast majority of would have been aborted children will be raised by their parents who may need help at first but if given the proper aid and job training will become financially self sufficent. Especially if lifetime marriage is promoted.

I don't have to know anyone's situation to know that killing is not the answer. Do you say "Make the decision for yourself and not someone else who you don't know their life and situation." when someone goes and shoots another person in the head?? I can't know every situation but I can know that killing your child either in the womb or outside of it isn't the proper solution to your problems.

But again this isn't very different from what we are used to these excuses. White southerners used to say that their skin wasn't acclimated to the hot sun in the south and that's why they needed to enslave blacks to work their farms. Human rights abuses don't happen in a vacuum and every single justification given for abortion has been used in some previous human rights abuse somewhere world wide.

 

[Joes Place]

First of all there is no reason for an unwanted child to be starved abused and left in a basement when you can turn it over to the state. So that excuse goes out the window.

No...that ABSOLUTELY happens in foster homes TODAY, due to lack of funds to track and verify all those homes and caregivers are adequately vetted.

Remember....people MAKE MONEY by providing foster care, and not ALL of them are doing so out of the goodness of their hearts.

Those systems are already completely overwhelmed TODAY. Tossing another 100k babies onto them ain't going to 'fix' those problems w/o LOADS more money and oversight.