Your Abortion "Line"

[theIowaHawk]

Where would you draw your "line" on abortion?

Consider this is a non-life-of-mother, non-dead-fetus type of abortion. A standard, I want to end this pregnancy.

Weeks are approximate.

 

[theIowaHawk]

I voted 25 weeks, but it is more between 25-40, without much reasoning I can give why.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

By the way fetal brain activity begins at around week 6, not week 25.

http://www.whattoexpect.com/pregnancy/fetal-brain-nervous-system/

This aught to be well known as fetuses are moving on their own well before week 25. Those arms and legs move in response to signals from a brain.

 

[22*43*51]

Pro-abortionist that are past ~ 12 weeks will wind up on the wrong side of science.

It is a matter of time before we have better medical proof of the atrocities being practiced daily around the world.

 

[theIowaHawk]

By the way fetal brain activity begins at around week 6, not week 25.

http://www.whattoexpect.com/pregnancy/fetal-brain-nervous-system/

According to what I was reading, it was the "regular brain wave" consistent with normal brain activity. I had that written in and decided it was too long. If I understand correctly, this is fairly widely accepted.

 

[fredjr82]

By the way fetal brain activity begins at around week 6, not week 25.

http://www.whattoexpect.com/pregnancy/fetal-brain-nervous-system/

This aught to be well known as fetuses are moving on their own well before week 25. Those arms and legs move in response to signals from a brain.

Look we are all very well eaware of your stance on abortion. I hope you the best in your crusade in getting it removed from being a right in this country. Until then though, please let the adults talk in this thread. We don't need you or Phantom in here "churching" the place up.

That said, I vote for 20 weeks. I think by the half way point of your pregnancy if you don't have a concrete direction in which you wish to go you are no longer eligible for abortion.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Pro-abortionist that are past ~ 12 weeks will wind up on the wrong side of science.

It is a matter of time before we have better medical proof of the atrocities being practiced daily around the world.

I disagree on the point of any science proving "atrocities". Science has advanced immensely in this field, with those attacking abortions with the science for 40 years...and the debate rages on.

What, specifically, are you thinking they will find to conclusively "prove" the atrocity? A brain-wave that says, "please don't"?

 

[BABiscuit]

I disagree on the point of any science proving "atrocities". Science has advanced immensely in this field, with those attacking abortions with the science for 40 years...and the debate rages on.

What, specifically, are you thinking they will find to conclusively "prove" the atrocity? A brain-wave that says, "please don't"?

Fetuses were yelling don't do it, but we couldn't hear them.

 

[fredjr82]

Nobody has voted for 20 weeks so far.

I don't actually vote. Be thankful I even reply to your thread. You should feel privileged I even opened it. You're welcome.

 

[22*43*51]

I disagree on the point of any science proving "atrocities". Science has advanced immensely in this field, with those attacking abortions with the science for 40 years...and the debate rages on.

What, specifically, are you thinking they will find to conclusively "prove" the atrocity? A brain-wave that says, "please don't"?

That a child is more sentient at younger ages that we realize. Then we still stick a spike in its skull.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Look we are all very well eaware of your stance on abortion. I hope you the best in your crusade in getting it removed from being a right in this country. Until then though, please let the adults talk in this thread. We don't need you or Phantom in here "churching" the place up.

That said, I vote for 20 weeks. I think by the half way point of your pregnancy if you don't have a concrete direction in which you wish to go you are no longer eligible for abortion.

Wow ad homonim.

How is talking about fetal brain waves "churching up the place"

I love how you think "He's religious so we can ignore everything he says even when it doesn't actually have anything to do with religion."

I don't argue against abortion with the bible unless I'm arguing with a Christian. Since most here are not, I don't use it. no point

For the record I'm aware of your stance on abortion to. . . That doesn't mean I ask you to shut up and go away.

 

[moral_victory]

Went 20 weeks, but assuming allowance for medical emergency after that mark.

 

[Tom Paris]

I agree with Fred. And that is the time frame I think most women actually have abortions. I just Google'd it and the first thing I see is 1% of abortions are done after 21 weeks. That tells me that most women are doing it the right way and this isn't as barbaric as some would lead us to believe.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

According to what I was reading, it was the "regular brain wave" consistent with normal brain activity. I had that written in and decided it was too long. If I understand correctly, this is fairly widely accepted.

Source??

What is the operational definition of "normal brain activity" Seeming how brain activity changes constantly with both age and over the course of a day it sounds rather suspect to me.

 

[CuttyDoesIt]

Look we are all very well eaware of your stance on abortion. I hope you the best in your crusade in getting it removed from being a right in this country. Until then though, please let the adults talk in this thread. We don't need you or Phantom in here "churching" the place up.

That said, I vote for 20 weeks. I think by the half way point of your pregnancy if you don't have a concrete direction in which you wish to go you are no longer eligible for abortion.

+1 as long as the mothers health is not in danger

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

By the way fetal brain activity begins at around week 6, not week 25.

http://www.whattoexpect.com/pregnancy/fetal-brain-nervous-system/

This aught to be well known as fetuses are moving on their own well before week 25. Those arms and legs move in response to signals from a brain.

If you are a Buddhist who scrupulously respects all life forms with that little brain activity, then you absolutely have the right to stake out that position. But if you trap or poison mice, do any hunting, and some would argue even if you swat flies, you are killing more advanced beings.

My point is that it isn't mere brain activity that makes something a person. It's the nature of that brain activity.

Which is why my cutoff is when a kid can keep his room cleaner than a robot vacuum cleaner. Or probably around 5. Note that as technology improves, that age will rise, because those vacuum cleaners will soon be smarter than most Republicans.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Source??

What is the operational definition of "normal brain activity" Seeming how brain activity changes constantly with both age and over the course of a day it sounds rather suspect to me.

It wasn't "normal brain activity", it was something like regular waves of brain activity, as in, not just spikes on an EEG, but the pattern of wave activity that is correlated with normal brain activity. Are you saying this isn't a generally accepted time frame for this? I'm not questioning your stance on brain activity, I'm saying that people choosing that option are accepting of that definition.

Let me see if I can pull the link, I wasn't just spitballing these. This was what I used just as a quick timeline of argued points: http://brainblogger.com/2009/05/10/medical-controversy-when-does-life-begin/ It certainly isn't a scientific thesis.

Edit to add: Also, your own link was discussing this, just not outright: (Edit again, wrong one)

At the tail-end of trimester two, your little one’s brainstem (heart rate, breathing, blood pressure) is almost entirely mature, resting just above the spinal cord but below the cerebral cortex (the last area to mature). By now, the fetal nervous system is developed enough so your baby is startled by loud noises outside the womb — and may even turn his head toward the sound of your voice! Another exciting development: At 28 weeks, fetal brainwave activity features sleep cycles, including REM (the stage when dreaming occurs).

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

The thalamus of a 20-week fetus is probably less sophisticated than that of an average chicken. We eat chickens.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

At the tail-end of trimester two, your little one’s brainstem (heart rate, breathing, blood pressure) is almost entirely mature, resting just above the spinal cord but below the cerebral cortex (the last area to mature). By now, the fetal nervous system is developed enough so your baby is startled by loud noises outside the womb — and may even turn his head toward the sound of your voice! Another exciting development: At 28 weeks, fetal brainwave activity features sleep cycles, including REM (the stage when dreaming occurs).

So . . . maybe that 28 week point is worth instituting as a "better-safe-than-sorry" cutoff. No real reason to think we are dealing with a "person" or anything remotely sentient, but we are still uncertain about the function of dreaming. Of course REM doesn't actually mean a fetus is dreaming. Eye movements presumably develop first, being relatively simple motor patterns.

 

[theIowaHawk]

I am amazed by the 4 (thus far) choices for conception. Of all the argument that has taken place on this site about this topic, I can't figure out who the conception guys are. I didn't even think Hoosier was, as his arguments are all based in his opinion of science, heartbeat, brain activity, etc. which is well beyond conception.

Who are the conception guys? Other than religious (which seems a poor reason to institute law) reasons, I'd love to hear from the guys who believe conception is some sort of moral standpoint worthy of protection.

 

[SCHawkFan]

I agree with Fred. And that is the time frame I think most women actually have abortions. I just Google'd it and the first thing I see is 1% of abortions are done after 21 weeks. That tells me that most women are doing it the right way and this isn't as barbaric as some would lead us to believe.

So that is what, roughly 600,000 since 1973? That is a lot of late term abortions. I am sure all were to protect the life of the mother.

By the way, about .028 % of women die each year during childbirth in the US.

 

[fredjr82]

Wow ad homonim.

How is talking about fetal brain waves "churching up the place"

I love how you think "He's religious so we can ignore everything he says even when it doesn't actually have anything to do with religion."

I don't argue against abortion with the bible unless I'm arguing with a Christian. Since most here are not, I don't use it. no point

For the record I'm aware of your stance on abortion to. . . That doesn't mean I ask you to shut up and go away.

The problem with debating with you is that we've heard all of your talking points in the past. You haven't changed anybody's stance with your talking points. There is no compromise with you. It's no abortion or nothing. Maybe I'm in the minority here but I don't need to read and re-read your stance on the subject AGAIN and would prefer to have an actual conversation with people who understand that abortion isn't going away so compromise is the only option at this point.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I am amazed by the 4 (thus far) choices for conception. Of all the argument that has taken place on this site about this topic, I can't figure out who the conception guys are. I didn't even think Hoosier was, as his arguments are all based in his opinion of science, heartbeat, brain activity, etc. which is well beyond conception.

Who are the conception guys? Other than religious (which seems a poor reason to institute law) reasons, I'd love to hear from the guys who believe conception is some sort of moral standpoint worthy of protection.

I have argued for a long time that the ONLY reason for picking conception is religion. I have challenged HROTters over and over to give me non-religious reasons for picking that point. A few have tried but are clearly grasping at straws.

"It's the first point when the full set of chromosomes is present." Yeah? So? That's about as far as they can get - thinking that because they can find some agreed-upon distinction, therefore that's the point. But why? Why not the first hair follicle? Or the first anything else?

From a religious point of view it's perfectly sensible. Lots of religious people believe in an imaginary thing they call a soul, and think that this imaginary thing comes into existence or attaches to the cell upon fertilization. But of course there's no proof if that. And not all religions - even those that believe in souls - think that's when the soul enters the picture. In some cultures that is thought to happen well after birth.

I'm frankly surprised that more haven't picked the quickening response. Not sure what the Highlander has to do with it, but many scripture-quoters point to mention of quickening in the bible. So for a religious person, that could make sense. Still a religious argument, but at least it coincides with something physiological and detectable, and not something imaginary like a soul.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

So that is what, roughly 600,000 since 1973? That is a lot of late term abortions. I am sure all were to protect the life of the mother.

By the way, about .028 % of women die each year during childbirth in the US.

How much certainty that the mother will die do you require? 100%? 80%? 50%?

If it were your beloved wife and there was a 20% chance she would die in delivery would you want to risk it? 30%? 40%?

Stop me if there's ANY point when you would pick saving your wife.

 

[fredjr82]

I am amazed by the 4 (thus far) choices for conception. Of all the argument that has taken place on this site about this topic, I can't figure out who the conception guys are. I didn't even think Hoosier was, as his arguments are all based in his opinion of science, heartbeat, brain activity, etc. which is well beyond conception.

I'm pretty sure Hoosier is a conception guy. Hell he may even be a "insertion" guy. Once the D is in, no abortion ever.

 

[fredjr82]

How much certainty that the mother will die do you require? 100%? 80%? 50%?

If it were your beloved wife and there was a 20% chance she would die in delivery would you want to risk it? 30%? 40%?

Stop me if there's ANY point when you would pick saving your wife.

Hell I even support couples who choose to abort because of complications with the unborn fetus. I'd hate to be in that position and I'm not sure what I would choose, but can certainly support their decision in aborting the fetus rather than making it suffer for a majority of its life after its born.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I'm pretty sure Hoosier is a conception guy. Hell he may even be a "insertion" guy. Once the D is in, no abortion ever.

That makes sense. Conception may not be guaranteed just because you did the deed, but IF conception occurs, abortion is ruled out. Every act of intercourse between fertile heterosexuals - even protected sex - has a non-zero chance of conception. So why distinguish between insertion and conception - except perhaps for religious reasons.

Good thing we aren't all gods - since apparently a god can get a woman pregnant just by imaginary sex.

 

[fredjr82]

That makes sense. Conception may not be guaranteed just because you did the deed, but IF conception occurs, abortion is ruled out. Every act of intercourse between fertile heterosexuals - even protected sex - has a non-zero chance of conception. So why distinguish between insertion and conception - except perhaps for religious reasons.

Good thing we aren't all gods - since apparently a god can get a woman pregnant just by imaginary sex.

Sorry I was just trying to be humorous. I don't know if he's a conception guy or not. Judging by the "no abortion ever" stance he takes I would assume at the very minimum he would be.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Hell I even support couples who choose to abort because of complications with the unborn fetus. I'd hate to be in that position and I'm not sure what I would choose, but can certainly support their decision in aborting the fetus rather than making it suffer for a majority of its life after its born.

Well, you still aren't Satan.

I support abortion on demand as a form of contraception. Not necessarily the preferred form of contraception, but a perfectly acceptable one.

I find it interesting how many pro-choice moderates and liberals get upset at that position. A decade or 2 ago this was a fairly common position. But there has been a fairly relentless campaign to convince people that abortion is a bad choice. A bad choice that should be rare but legal in the case of pro-choicers; a bad choice that should be illegal in the case of pro-lifers.

But that's just propaganda at work.

It's only a bad choice if there is a better choice available. Often there was a better choice - emphasis on the past tense - but by the time an abortion is under consideration, that's rarely the case.

I read many years ago that abortion was the contraception method of choice in Russia. Or maybe that was back when it was the USSR. I don't know if that was true or just another device to demonize Russia. But it could make sense in a nation that may not have ready access to the pill or other methods. Especially one where women aren't slvt-shamed by religious zealots.

 

[Tom Paris]

So that is what, roughly 600,000 since 1973? That is a lot of late term abortions. I am sure all were to protect the life of the mother.

By the way, about .028 % of women die each year during childbirth in the US.

Not sure your point. What would you like to do with those 600,000 unwanted kids? Like we aren't overpopulated enough!

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Sorry I was just trying to be humorous. I don't know if he's a conception guy or not. Judging by the "no abortion ever" stance he takes I would assume at the very minimum he would be.

Yes, he is a conception guy.

Whether you were being funny or not, the 2 are logically indistinguishable, except on religious grounds. I thought it was clever of you to notice that.

 

[fredjr82]

I support abortion on demand as a form of contraception. Not necessarily the preferred form of contraception, but a perfectly acceptable one.

I find it interesting how many pro-choice moderates and liberals get upset at that position. A decade or 2 ago this was a fairly common position. But there has been a fairly relentless campaign to convince people that abortion is a bad choice. A bad choice that should be rare but legal in the case of pro-choicers; a bad choice that should be illegal in the case of pro-lifers.

I don't agree with using abortion as a type of contraception (at least not the form of abortion we're talking about here). I do however agree that Plan B can and should be taken as often as possible if warranted. Young adults probably shouldn't be having unprotected sex before they're married but I understand (from being a horny young adult) that sometimes mistakes happen. I'm glad they have the ability to acquire Plan B in those instances.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I don't agree with using abortion as a type of contraception....

Why not?

What possible argument could there be against being pragmatic in this way if you aren't consumed with the religious arguments? If it is not a person, then we are merely talking about a medical procedure to remove a small amount of unwanted tissue. It could just as easily be a bone spur, a tumor, a cyst, an appendix, a scar formation, an infection mass, a mole, bags under the eyes....

I assume you have no disagreement with the ad lib removal of any of those. Why is abortion different?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Ideally, safe and convenient abortions would be readily available on demand.

And fully covered under Obamacare (or under the Medicare-for-all plan that will eventually replace it).

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

I am amazed by the 4 (thus far) choices for conception. Of all the argument that has taken place on this site about this topic, I can't figure out who the conception guys are. I didn't even think Hoosier was, as his arguments are all based in his opinion of science, heartbeat, brain activity, etc. which is well beyond conception.

Who are the conception guys? Other than religious (which seems a poor reason to institute law) reasons, I'd love to hear from the guys who believe conception is some sort of moral standpoint worthy of protection.

The way the question is worded it seems as though it's a question of personal ethics. As far as others asking about the difference between ejaculation/insertion or conception it's very simple. While we arn't in the body to note when conception occurs there are several ways of preventing conception and I'm not opposed to any of those either legally or on a personal level.

If you want a more legal/scientific basis I'd put it at 6 weeks.

Although there is some scientific merit in conception and it's that joining genetic material creates an entirely unique individual with unique DNA. Everything after can therefore simply be looked at as a stage of life.

However I think Week 6 is on firmer scientific ground. Going further and you can simply argue that no one is fully human until age 25 years because it takes that long for the brain to fully develop.

 

[fredjr82]

Why not?

What possible argument could there be against being pragmatic in this way if you aren't consumed with the religious arguments? If it is not a person, then we are merely talking about a medical procedure to remove a small amount of unwanted tissue. It could just as easily be a bone spur, a tumor, a cyst, an appendix, a scar formation, an infection mass, a mole, bags under the eyes....

I assume you have no disagreement with the ad lib removal of any of those. Why is abortion different?

I'd have to see the long list of risks associated with getting those things removed like having an abortion does. I don't have an issue with abortion being used once or twice, but someone who uses for contraception (like they would condoms) is wrong. It would be like me going to the doctor every time I got a cold. I knew I could just go to the doctor and get it taken care of, but why didn't I do some things on my end to eliminate the effects of the cold? Maybe get some rest, take some medication, etc. I have no problem using their right to an abortion, but will never support them using it like contraception for than 1 or 2 times in their lifetime.

 

[unIowa]

I choose ejaculation BC if not intended for pregnancy that belongs on an ass, in a belly button, on some Ts or in a mouth.

Generally though I don't care about other people's unborn, just care about my own so hook'em if you want them.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

The way the question is worded it seems as though it's a question of personal ethics. As far as others asking about the difference between ejaculation/insertion or conception it's very simple. While we arn't in the body to note when conception occurs there are several ways of preventing conception and I'm not opposed to any of those either legally or on a personal level.

If you want a more legal/scientific basis I'd put it at 6 weeks.

What is the legal/scientific basis that puts it at 6 weeks?

 

[theIowaHawk]

The way the question is worded it seems as though it's a question of personal ethics. As far as others asking about the difference between ejaculation/insertion or conception it's very simple. While we arn't in the body to note when conception occurs there are several ways of preventing conception and I'm not opposed to any of those either legally or on a personal level.

If you want a more legal/scientific basis I'd put it at 6 weeks.

I hadn't thought about how I posed it. That makes some sense, in general, I guess. Somebody could be answering, "I would never have an abortion after conception", but not be seeking to legislate it for everyone.

 

[SCHawkFan]

How much certainty that the mother will die do you require? 100%? 80%? 50%?

If it were your beloved wife and there was a 20% chance she would die in delivery would you want to risk it? 30%? 40%?

Stop me if there's ANY point when you would pick saving your wife.

You are completely off track here. I was not saying the life of the mother should not be a reason for abortion. I was arguing that the life of the mother being at risk is not the reason for the vast majority of late term abortions.