The Tragedy of the Unwanted Child: What Ancient Cultures Did Before Abortion

Hoosierhawkeye

HR Legend
Sep 16, 2008
46,868
38,825
113
40
People have been on life support for years w/o any indication they'll get better, then they get better.

So, it would seem your claim here is "if they get better within 9 months" that's the limit. If it requires >9 months, then we can unplug them, regardless of "brain activity".

I'm saying that if there is a medical reason to believe they will get better in any amount of time they should be kept alive.
 

RileyHawk

HR Legend
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2002
35,118
20,620
113
The risk is extremely mild. They are at more risk in the car on the way to the abortion clinic then they are in the hospital giving birth.
I can play this stupid game. Americans drive 3.2 trillion miles in a year. The average trip is about 10 miles which means there are 320 billion car trips made each year. There are 43,000 auto related deaths per year. That's .0134/100000 chance of dying in a car accident compared to 17.4/100000 giving birth.

Your premise is complete bullshit.
 

RileyHawk

HR Legend
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2002
35,118
20,620
113
It's untenable to keep every person on heavy life support for decades in the hopes of a one in a billion miracle.

And the group of cells are likely going to become viable. While a person who is brain dead is not.

Anyone who is as likely to recover on life support as a embryo is likely to eventually be born is kept on life support easily and it's not even a question.
Lol - the lengths. Still no answer to the question.
 

RileyHawk

HR Legend
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2002
35,118
20,620
113
No it's not, we did it for a very long time. Sure some women attempted to abort on their own. Most carried to term.

The law required women to carry to term for a very long time before 5 justices made up a right (and took away a right to life for the children) that otherwise only existed in 4 states at the time.
This is completely ignorant of what actually took place. Unsafe abortions happened all the time. And now they will again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joes Place

claykenny

HR Legend
Gold Member
Feb 5, 2003
13,411
7,168
113
Colorado
Save your fingers @Hoosierhawkeye. They are not here to listen. They are not here to understand. They are godless and will therefore not accept any argument you make that stipulates that God exists. And they will not stop until everyone else bows down to their beliefs which demand that you too be godless.

Nobody is forcing you to have an abortion. Nobody is pushing their beliefs on you. Nobody is asking you to do anything different.

You are forcing people to not have an abortion and are pushing your beliefs on them. You are the one who will not stop until everyone else is forced to accept what you believe.
 

claykenny

HR Legend
Gold Member
Feb 5, 2003
13,411
7,168
113
Colorado
I'm saying that if there is a medical reason to believe they will get better in any amount of time they should be kept alive.

Who pays for a year plus of life support waiting for something that may never happen? That’s the conservative position, right? Health care costs are in large part out of control from spending on end of life care.
 

Joes Place

HR King
Aug 28, 2003
123,490
117,899
113
I'm saying that if there is a medical reason to believe they will get better in any amount of time they should be kept alive.

At some point, you need to realize the silly religious excuses are NOT worth it.
These new laws are going to kill innocent women needing basic standard of care.

Which NOW in some of these states means they need to WAIT until they "go septic", which means if they cannot get immediate care, they are dead.


YOU can choose to vote based on the litmus test of legislators who will allow basic abortion rights. That ends this nonsense.

But you won't. Because of the "save the babies" nonsense.
 

LetsGoHawks83

HR Legend
Mar 20, 2015
15,986
14,875
113
At some point, you need to realize the silly religious excuses are NOT worth it.
These new laws are going to kill innocent women needing basic standard of care.

Which NOW in some of these states means they need to WAIT until they "go septic", which means if they cannot get immediate care, they are dead.






YOU can choose to vote based on the litmus test of legislators who will allow basic abortion rights. That ends this nonsense.

But you won't. Because of the "save the babies" nonsense.

So she was able to legally have the procedure at a clinic in Texas? Maybe her doctor should have understood the law, instead of denying care for her.

Her situation isn't the goal of anti-abortion advocates
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hoosierhawkeye

Hoosierhawkeye

HR Legend
Sep 16, 2008
46,868
38,825
113
40
At some point, you need to realize the silly religious excuses are NOT worth it.
These new laws are going to kill innocent women needing basic standard of care.

Which NOW in some of these states means they need to WAIT until they "go septic", which means if they cannot get immediate care, they are dead.






YOU can choose to vote based on the litmus test of legislators who will allow basic abortion rights. That ends this nonsense.

But you won't. Because of the "save the babies" nonsense.

Seems to me to be a mis-interpretation of the law either that or the law was written poorly. No reason to prevent the removal of an already dead fetus.
 

Hoosierhawkeye

HR Legend
Sep 16, 2008
46,868
38,825
113
40
Who pays for a year plus of life support waiting for something that may never happen? That’s the conservative position, right? Health care costs are in large part out of control from spending on end of life care.

Umm that's not my position as I'm not a conservative, I'm a communitarian who believes in universal healthcare.

I don't believe in putting people on life support when they won't get better. But if the doctors think there is a legitimate chance of someone getting better and being able to live outside of a hospital setting they would of course need to stay on life support.
 

Hoosierhawkeye

HR Legend
Sep 16, 2008
46,868
38,825
113
40
Nobody is forcing you to keep slaves. Nobody is pushing their beliefs on you. Nobody is asking you to do anything different.

You are forcing people to not have slaves and are pushing your beliefs on them. You are the one who will not stop until everyone else is forced to accept what you believe.

FIFY

Understand that the reason that I want to force people to not have abortions is the same reason I want to prevent people from having slaves. The whole live and let live idea is great if you arn't taking away someone else's rights. This does.
 

Joes Place

HR King
Aug 28, 2003
123,490
117,899
113
FIFY

Understand that the reason that I want to force people to not have abortions is the same reason I want to prevent people from having slaves.
The thing is, that SOME people HAVE TO have abortions.

NO ONE is required to have slaves.
 

Joes Place

HR King
Aug 28, 2003
123,490
117,899
113
No reason to prevent the removal of an already dead fetus.
Sometimes, the heart cells are still beating.

EXACTLY why Ireland abolished their abortion ban, when a woman died because the fetal heart was still active, even though it was dead. She went septic and died.

Your buddies pass these silly "fetal heartbeat bills" without ONE IOTA of understanding of ALL of the medical conditions that can occur during a pregnancy and require an abortion. Because they are zealots and simpletons who latch onto the most simplistic arguments, and you support them.

If some people get "unnecessary" abortions, I'm fine with that, so long as ANY person who actually needs one has access to it. You think the opposite: we should ban them all, and those who "fall through the cracks" and are impacted by the legislation and die are just "collateral damage".

That's where we disagree. Maybe if you recognize that, your position could shift.
 

HawkPT

HR MVP
Dec 13, 2002
1,431
959
113
Well, they already are. Look at what’s happening in Missouri over the ambiguous wording in the trigger ban. As well as some states potentially making it illegal to discard unused embryos from IVF.

We still have 8 embryos frozen and are done having kids. Should I be forced to pay for storage of those forever (and my kids and their kids and so on and so forth in perpetuity since they can theoretically be frozen forever) or be forced to donate them to another couple for IVF? Have to live knowing that discarding a cluster of cells with zero cognitive capacity wasn’t in option so I had to allow potentially 8 of my children to actually be born with awareness into a situation I can’t control?

This entire argument revolves around when life begins. If you think it begins at conception, then miscarriage is murder by God. I don’t personally believe it begins until a fetus is capable of living off literal life support (the placenta) at around 20 weeks, albeit with significant human intervention. That’s also when brain development is at least suggestive of “consciousness”. A heartbeat doesn’t really indicate life because we can keep brain dead patients “alive” a long time with technology and their heart beats on. If you believe heartbeat is life, then it is murder to take a brain dead patient off life support.

Nobody can “prove” when life begins. You can have your opinion that it begins at conception, but that is not a consensus definition and trying to legislate off that definition is theocracy.
I appreciate that you are using logic to inform your beliefs and not just emotion, as most do. Here is my take:

If it is growing, it is alive.

Human life is more precious than other life form. We are the pinnacle of God's creation, the only creature to whom God gave an eternal soul. We are "knit together in our mothers' wombs" and are "fearfully and wonderfully made" (Psalm 139).

If the "clump of cells" has unique DNA, it is therefore a unique human life.

A miscarriage isn't the result of God deciding to kill the fetus. Miscarriages occur for the same reason any person's life ends.

None of us will survive without life support. An unborn baby just needs a different form of life support than what humans require after birth. Once born, we need certain environmental conditions to survive. An unborn baby's life is sustained by his/her mother via the placenta.

Why is a human fetus not given the same protection as an eagle's egg? If an embryo isn't life, why should an eagle egg be protected? Why should an eagle egg get more protection than a human embryo or fetus. I would guess that some would argue that the eagle egg is potential life, not life itself. If that is the case, why should we not encourage the development of a child's life potential knowing that people are the pinnacle of God's creation?

To Joe's Place: We give birth certificates to babies who have been born. They aren't life certificates. That baby didn't suddenly become alive when it exited the birth canal.
 

Hoosierhawkeye

HR Legend
Sep 16, 2008
46,868
38,825
113
40
Sometimes, the heart cells are still beating.

EXACTLY why Ireland abolished their abortion ban, when a woman died because the fetal heart was still active, even though it was dead. She went septic and died.

Your buddies pass these silly "fetal heartbeat bills" without ONE IOTA of understanding of ALL of the medical conditions that can occur during a pregnancy and require an abortion. Because they are zealots and simpletons who latch onto the most simplistic arguments, and you support them.

If some people get "unnecessary" abortions, I'm fine with that, so long as ANY person who actually needs one has access to it. You think the opposite: we should ban them all, and those who "fall through the cracks" and are impacted by the legislation and die are just "collateral damage".

That's where we disagree. Maybe if you recognize that, your position could shift.

I think law can be crafted so as to stop abortions by choice but still allow abortions that protect the mother's life.

Quite frankly I don't understand why these MD's find it so difficult when the law clearly allows the abortion to protect her life if they know very clearly that her life is in serious jeopardy without it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LetsGoHawks83

Joes Place

HR King
Aug 28, 2003
123,490
117,899
113
I think law can be crafted so as to stop abortions by choice but still allow abortions that protect the mother's life.
Maybe.
But the Conservatives have neither demonstrated the ability, nor the interest, in passing those laws.

So I'll fight against them UNTIL they show they can do it.
 

Hoosierhawkeye

HR Legend
Sep 16, 2008
46,868
38,825
113
40
The thing is, that SOME people HAVE TO have abortions.

NO ONE is required to have slaves.

And those exceptions are available for those who have to have them. You don't have to have abortion on demand up until birth to protect the people who need them for medical reasons.
 

Joes Place

HR King
Aug 28, 2003
123,490
117,899
113
And those exceptions are available for those who have to have them.
No, they are not.
That's being demonstrated to you over and over.

Links were provided regarding cancer patients in Ohio who could not get chemo, and had to travel to another state to get an abortion BEFORE they could get cancer care.

Your buddies DO NOT CARE about those cases. Recognize that. If that's a problem for you, then stop supporting their cause UNTIL they can craft adequate legislation. Quit falling for the propaganda they push out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RileyHawk

Hoosierhawkeye

HR Legend
Sep 16, 2008
46,868
38,825
113
40
Maybe.
But the Conservatives have neither demonstrated the ability, nor the interest, in passing those laws.

So I'll fight against them UNTIL they show they can do it.

Why arn't the laws that say except to protect the mother's life sufficient? That offers a pretty wide legal latitude.
 

Hoosierhawkeye

HR Legend
Sep 16, 2008
46,868
38,825
113
40
No, they are not.
That's being demonstrated to you over and over.

Links were provided regarding cancer patients in Ohio who could not get chemo, and had to travel to another state to get an abortion BEFORE they could get cancer care.

Your buddies DO NOT CARE about those cases. Recognize that. If that's a problem for you, then stop supporting their cause UNTIL they can craft adequate legislation. Quit falling for the propaganda they push out.

No the problem is that the doctors are not following the law. The law allows for that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LetsGoHawks83

Joes Place

HR King
Aug 28, 2003
123,490
117,899
113
Why arn't the laws that say except to protect the mother's life sufficient?

Because they are based on "immediate emergency".

Is this not understood by you? They cannot get an abortion UNTIL they start going septic. If they have a dead fetus with a beating heart, that's NOT sufficient, because in SOME cases those may naturally abort and clear out.

This is how your team of simpletons thinks; NONE of them have any idea of all the conditions and cases that will "slip through the cracks" of their silly "one size fits all" legislation. Abortion rights folks TELL you this, but you IGNORE it.

Why you selectively ignore it is a mystery. They WARN you these things will happen; when they happen, your attitude here is "well, they SHOULDN'T happen", which is what they WARNED you about in the first place.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RileyHawk

Joes Place

HR King
Aug 28, 2003
123,490
117,899
113
No the problem is that the doctors are not following the law. The law allows for that.

No, it does not. And it's why you'll see more and more examples, and dead mothers who didn't "want" abortions, but needed them and had no access.
 

Hoosierhawkeye

HR Legend
Sep 16, 2008
46,868
38,825
113
40
Because they are based on "immediate emergency".

Is this not understood by you? They cannot get an abortion UNTIL they start going septic. If they have a dead fetus with a beating heart, that's NOT sufficient, because in SOME cases those may naturally abort and clear out.

This is how your team of simpletons thinks; NONE of them have any idea of all the conditions and cases that will "slip through the cracks" of their silly "one size fits all" legislation. Abortion rights folks TELL you this, but you IGNORE it.

Why you selectively ignore it is a mystery. They WARN you these things will happen; when they happen, your attitude here is "well, they SHOULDN'T happen", which is what they WARNED you about in the first place.

You can't show that they are actually following the law either.

The ban allows for physicians to perform an abortion if the procedure is to prevent a someone’s death or bodily impairment, which is defined as any “medically diagnosed condition that so complicates the pregnancy of the woman as to directly or indirectly cause the substantial and reversible impairment of a major bodily function.” This includes pre-eclampsia, “inevitable” abortion and premature rupture of the membranes. It could also be diabetes or multiple sclerosis but it can’t be anything related to mental health.

To be able to perform the life-saving measure, a physician has to write that the procedure is necessary for the above reasons and must include the medical condition and the medical rationale for it. Also, the written documentation must be included in the pregnant person’s medical records and the doctor must have a copy of it for at least seven years.


Seems to me that the text allows them to conduct an abortion once they are aware of a condition that would cause impairment of a major bodily function. There is nothing indicating that they have to be on death's door.

The doctors are not following the law, likely because they have not familiarized themselves with it.
 

claykenny

HR Legend
Gold Member
Feb 5, 2003
13,411
7,168
113
Colorado
I appreciate that you are using logic to inform your beliefs and not just emotion, as most do. Here is my take:

If it is growing, it is alive.

Human life is more precious than other life form. We are the pinnacle of God's creation, the only creature to whom God gave an eternal soul. We are "knit together in our mothers' wombs" and are "fearfully and wonderfully made" (Psalm 139).

If the "clump of cells" has unique DNA, it is therefore a unique human life.

A miscarriage isn't the result of God deciding to kill the fetus. Miscarriages occur for the same reason any person's life ends.

None of us will survive without life support. An unborn baby just needs a different form of life support than what humans require after birth. Once born, we need certain environmental conditions to survive. An unborn baby's life is sustained by his/her mother via the placenta.

Why is a human fetus not given the same protection as an eagle's egg? If an embryo isn't life, why should an eagle egg be protected? Why should an eagle egg get more protection than a human embryo or fetus. I would guess that some would argue that the eagle egg is potential life, not life itself. If that is the case, why should we not encourage the development of a child's life potential knowing that people are the pinnacle of God's creation?

To Joe's Place: We give birth certificates to babies who have been born. They aren't life certificates. That baby didn't suddenly become alive when it exited the birth canal.

Again, I can appreciate your viewpoint and respect it. My issue is not at all with your views or faith. It is with legislating that faith onto others when other religions with the same fundamental “God” don’t have issue with early term abortion and it has zero respect for the views of those agnostic or atheist.

As for the clump of cells with unique DNA being defined as “life”, wouldn’t your definition also apply to sperm and egg? Should male masturbation be considered murder on the basis of your definition?

Eagle eggs aren’t protected because of the definition of life. They are protected because of endangered and symbolic status. Nobody has a problem with shooting an adult deer in season, but you can’t hunt a fawn. Why?
 
  • Like
Reactions: RileyHawk

claykenny

HR Legend
Gold Member
Feb 5, 2003
13,411
7,168
113
Colorado
Umm that's not my position as I'm not a conservative, I'm a communitarian who believes in universal healthcare.

I don't believe in putting people on life support when they won't get better. But if the doctors think there is a legitimate chance of someone getting better and being able to live outside of a hospital setting they would of course need to stay on life support.

But they don’t “need” to stay on life support. Families make the decision for comfort care and withdraw life support every day when there is still a chance of the patient being able to live outside of a hospital setting. Is that murder?
 
  • Like
Reactions: RileyHawk

claykenny

HR Legend
Gold Member
Feb 5, 2003
13,411
7,168
113
Colorado
FIFY

Understand that the reason that I want to force people to not have abortions is the same reason I want to prevent people from having slaves. The whole live and let live idea is great if you arn't taking away someone else's rights. This does.

A slave is a conscious human being. That is universally agreed upon by our society.

A fetus is not a universally agreed upon human being with rights because you cannot prove when life starts and that definition is arbitrary. That’s the whole point of this debate. Nobody knows. You think you know, but it is entirely based on faith.

Your analogy is flawed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RileyHawk

Hoosierhawkeye

HR Legend
Sep 16, 2008
46,868
38,825
113
40
A slave is a conscious human being. That is universally agreed upon by our society.

A fetus is not a universally agreed upon human being with rights because you cannot prove when life starts and that definition is arbitrary. That’s the whole point of this debate. Nobody knows. You think you know, but it is entirely based on faith.

Your analogy is flawed.

So is it ok to kill someone in their sleep or if they are passed out because they are unconscious?

Consciousness or lack of it does not have anything to do if a life is worth protecting.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: RileyHawk

Hoosierhawkeye

HR Legend
Sep 16, 2008
46,868
38,825
113
40
But they don’t “need” to stay on life support. Families make the decision for comfort care and withdraw life support every day when there is still a chance of the patient being able to live outside of a hospital setting. Is that murder?

Maybe when the chances are extremely low they make those decisions. Or when treatment only delays death by a few weeks anyways.

They arn't withdrawing life support from people who have the kind of chance an embryo or certainly a fetus has of expecting live birth.
 

claykenny

HR Legend
Gold Member
Feb 5, 2003
13,411
7,168
113
Colorado
So is it ok to kill someone in their sleep or if they are passed out because they are unconscious?

Consciousness or lack of it does not have anything to do if a life is worth protecting.

That’s not at all what I mean by “consciousness”. Brain activity capable of consciousness, or the criteria that would be used to determine brain death. Which are criteria that likely apply to an embryo/fetus up through around 20 weeks.
 

claykenny

HR Legend
Gold Member
Feb 5, 2003
13,411
7,168
113
Colorado
Maybe when the chances are extremely low they make those decisions. Or when treatment only delays death by a few weeks anyways.

They arn't withdrawing life support from people who have the kind of chance an embryo or certainly a fetus has of expecting live birth.

How do you know that?

Up to 15% of pregnancies end in miscarriage among women who know they are pregnant, so the actual number is higher. The vast majority happen in the first 12 weeks. So maybe 1 in 5 embryos and fetuses naturally won’t reach live birth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RileyHawk

Hoosierhawkeye

HR Legend
Sep 16, 2008
46,868
38,825
113
40
How do you know that?

Up to 15% of pregnancies end in miscarriage among women who know they are pregnant, so the actual number is higher. The vast majority happen in the first 12 weeks. So maybe 1 in 5 embryos and fetuses naturally won’t reach live birth.

So if the doctor tells you that your relative has an 80% chance of survival and living a healthy life you start saying "UNPLUG THE LIFE SUPPORT!!"

Tell me who would do that?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: RileyHawk

Hoosierhawkeye

HR Legend
Sep 16, 2008
46,868
38,825
113
40
That’s not at all what I mean by “consciousness”. Brain activity capable of consciousness, or the criteria that would be used to determine brain death. Which are criteria that likely apply to an embryo/fetus up through around 20 weeks.

Someone who is in a coma doesn't have brain activity capable of consciousness. Doesn't mean we kill them or pull them off life support unless there is reason to believe they will not recover.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: RileyHawk

HawkPT

HR MVP
Dec 13, 2002
1,431
959
113
Again, I can appreciate your viewpoint and respect it. My issue is not at all with your views or faith. It is with legislating that faith onto others when other religions with the same fundamental “God” don’t have issue with early term abortion and it has zero respect for the views of those agnostic or atheist.

As for the clump of cells with unique DNA being defined as “life”, wouldn’t your definition also apply to sperm and egg? Should male masturbation be considered murder on the basis of your definition?

Eagle eggs aren’t protected because of the definition of life. They are protected because of endangered and symbolic status. Nobody has a problem with shooting an adult deer in season, but you can’t hunt a fawn. Why?
A sperm or an egg is not a unique human life; it does not have unique DNA. Once they are combined, a zygote is and does.

I'm for legislating for protection of the unborn because the unique life within the womb requires protection in very much the same respect as those who have fought for legislation that we cannot discard of an eagle egg.

From my perspective, your opposite viewpoint is legislation (or a freedom) that allows a person to end the life of another. I cannot see how it is acceptable for me to enact legislation that prevents humans from harvesting eagle eggs but not work to protect the life of an unborn child, which is much more significant because of the sacredness of human life. And I cannot understand how an eagle egg deserves protection but not a human "egg."

This isn't a discussion of faith vs. science. Your view of science requires faith as well, but it is placed in a different person than the Person of my faith.

And, what has stimulated all of this recent debate is that the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution does not speak on the matter of abortion as an inalienable right of Americans. The SCOTUS ruling does not prevent abortions; it does not limit any freedoms. It allows the states to decide on this issue, which makes complete sense because this decision should be determined by the legislative branch, those who are elected and have the opportunity to be held accountable by those they serve, not the judicial branch, which is not.

For the record, Clay, I appreciate that you can approach this conversation with maturity. That is rare these days, especially on this message board.
 

RileyHawk

HR Legend
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2002
35,118
20,620
113
I appreciate that you are using logic to inform your beliefs and not just emotion, as most do. Here is my take:

If it is growing, it is alive.

Human life is more precious than other life form. We are the pinnacle of God's creation, the only creature to whom God gave an eternal soul. We are "knit together in our mothers' wombs" and are "fearfully and wonderfully made" (Psalm 139).

If the "clump of cells" has unique DNA, it is therefore a unique human life.

A miscarriage isn't the result of God deciding to kill the fetus. Miscarriages occur for the same reason any person's life ends.

None of us will survive without life support. An unborn baby just needs a different form of life support than what humans require after birth. Once born, we need certain environmental conditions to survive. An unborn baby's life is sustained by his/her mother via the placenta.

Why is a human fetus not given the same protection as an eagle's egg? If an embryo isn't life, why should an eagle egg be protected? Why should an eagle egg get more protection than a human embryo or fetus. I would guess that some would argue that the eagle egg is potential life, not life itself. If that is the case, why should we not encourage the development of a child's life potential knowing that people are the pinnacle of God's creation?

To Joe's Place: We give birth certificates to babies who have been born. They aren't life certificates. That baby didn't suddenly become alive when it exited the birth canal.
By your logic sperm is human life and all sperm should be saved.

Eagle's egg? Really? No person has to put their life at risk to support an ealge's egg. That's complete nonsense.

A baby can live with support for any number of sources and it doesn't require them to put their lives at risk to do so.
 

Latest posts