Abortion Issues

[Ooooops]

I would like to ask the "pro-life" guys - what do you do for the birth control?   I assume that you use condoms all the time?   

[WmGO]

Speaking on abortions, it happens [in FSU] had a higher rate than in America and possibly more accepted so men should take that into consideration when looking for a RW. On a topic of this importance a man should discuss his views with the lady he intends to marry.

True. Seekers take note.

Seekers also note Kuna's comments that not all FSUW are the "traditional" blah, blah, blah type women that the MOB industry promotes them as being. This should be quite evident from the FSUW postings here.  Agnosticism, often outright atheism, and moral relativism is common, probably the cultural norm.

1. I consider the difference to be that a fetus cannot survive outside the womb at 1-2 months pregnancy.  I consider it to be a human life only at the point where it can survive on it's own.

2. I simply cannot buy the theory of some that every sperm is a potential baby.  If that were the case, any male who has ever, ahem, done some things in private with themselves, would have to brought up on murder charges....and many millions of murder charges at that.

1. This is just a cheap cop out. Abortion stops a beating heart.  The heart of a person.
A human being. A baby. Rationalize it any way you want. But these are the realities. Within 60 days of conception the baby has all of their fingers, toes, internal organs, head, eyes, brain, blood circulation and yes a beating heart. Even at conception, the unborn child has everything necessary to become what God intended (if protected from harm).

BTW, if you and the pro-abortion FSUW research the matter you will find that medical studies reflect that virtually no late term abortions are performed in America to save the life of the mother or for health reasons. Like 99% of abortions, they are done for the mother's "convenience".

2. This is a really dumb thing to say. Noone said anything about sperm. The subject is a human being (you know, AFTER conception).

It never ceases to amaze me how far people will go to rationalize away basic responsibility and basic morality.   

[OlgaH]

The distinction between a child/baby and a foetus is generally a pretty clear one (if you stay within the bio-medical data and do not drag religious beliefs, etc. into the discussion) - if the foetus is viable outside the womb, then it's a baby.
BUT - this is my point of view and again in general I do not demand of press other people to subscribe to it.

It's not only your point of view. But very often the science, religion and ethics can not reach a consensus 
 

The only issue where I think that public morals (whatever THAT means) have a stand is in the matter of late term abortions. Except when the foetus is a real threat to the mother these shouldn't be allowed in a civilized society.

What about rape, birth defects?... and also accidental pregnancy. Some people psychologically are not ready for the parenting that is a profound responsibility and obligations. The parenting also involves such issue as financial.

I do not buy into the stories that in her 6-7th mos she suddenly became depressed and decided that it's imperative for her to get rid of the annoyance.

Psychology is a very delicate issue. Depression is multi-faceted insidious disease. There enough cases when depressed mothers kill their children.
http://www.lankanewspapers.com/news/2008/6/28696_space.html

http://www.wnbc.com/news/9382485/detail.html

http://www.ntm-tv.ru/news/our/20080109205535.html

[roykirk]

What about rape, birth defects?... and also accidental pregnancy. Some people psychologically are not ready for the parenting that is a profound responsibility and obligations. The parenting also involves such issue as financial.

Sadly, most of the anti-choice people I've debated with over the years don't think that rape should be an exception to abortion.  I remember reading a local case about a young teenager impregnated by her father.  This coworker of mine who was anti-choice argued with me that she shouldn't be allowed to have an abortion, because it wouldn't be right for us to punish her unborn baby for something her father did.    It always comes down to that for most of them; telling a woman what she can and can't do with her body.  "13 and pregnant with your father's incest child that probably also has horrendous birth defects?  Too bad.  You're going to carry that baby to term whether you like it or not."  Sort of like being raped twice.   

[ScottinCrimea]

I have a very simple philosophy - I'm pro-choice.  I believe one has the right to choose to have sex, and one has the right to choose whether or not to use contraception.  Once they have made those choices and a baby has been conceived, the choice has been made and they need to take responsibility for the consequences of their choices.

Choice has to end somewhere and responsibility begin somewhere or we really don't have much of a civilization.

Now the issue of rape and incest has been brought up.  In those cases there was no choice in the matter and brings up the only case where I feel that abortion is justified, which is when the health of the mother is in extreme danger.  This can mean mental health as well as emotional health, but notice I said "extreme".  Murder is never justified.  Taking a life in self defense can be.  Still, it is taking a life and decisions should be made with that in mind.

Unfortunately, as we all know, the vast majority of abortions are not to protect the mother's health but instead are out of convenience or the desire to avoid the consequences of choices already made.

As far as the age of viability being an issue, not too many years ago a six month old fetus was not considered viable and able to live outside the womb, and now we are saving those born much younger.  Who knows what the future will bring?  Those we would have justified aborting in the past as nonviable are now in Girl Scouts and playing little league.

[msmoby_ru]

Quote from: BillyB on Today at 08:16:31 PM

Speaking on abortions, it happens [in FSU] had a higher rate than in America and possibly more accepted so men should take that into consideration when looking for a RW. On a topic of this importance a man should discuss his views with the lady he intends to marry.  [/quote]

True. Seekers take note.

Seekers also note Kuna's comments that not all FSUW are the "traditional" blah, blah, blah type women that the MOB industry promotes them as being. This should be quite evident from the FSUW postings here.  Agnosticism, often outright atheism, and moral relativism is common, probably the cultural norm.

WHooow ... HUGE generalisation/ misleading statement.... and even if true in many cases - qualification is necessary.

I'm sure you know that during the Soviet era birth control  was abortion,  it was the norm - not frowned apon - it carried no social stigma.
 
Those attitudes take a long time to disappear - I was ( and still am ) shocked at how FSUW don't seem scared by this, but we have to understand the system was just different.

I believe you  know a fair bit about the FSU and you'll know that Christianity and Islam are now widely practised. Birth control is now more often the pill or a condom. I don't know if that is acceptable to you.

Thirty years ago, one couldn't buy condoms in the Republic of Ireland - they were available from the "family planning clinic", but the Roman Catholic church discouraged woman from asking for them - result - back street abortions.

I don't think we should judge FSUW too harshly because of a different social attitude - it's not like they had choice back then.

[Wienerin]

What about rape, birth defects?... and also accidental pregnancy. Some people psychologically are not ready for the parenting that is a profound responsibility and obligations. The parenting also involves such issue as financial.

Psychology is a very delicate issue. Depression is multi-faceted insidious disease. There enough cases when depressed mothers kill their children.

Do you know about incorrigible birth defects that manifest themselves later than 5-6 mos? And anyway there's always the adoption. That she was raped she definitely knew before the last trimester. Being not ready for parenting should also manifest itself befor these 6 mos< and you know - there are a lot of things in life which put a burden of responsibility and obligation on one - is everyone allowed to welch out of obligations by... murder?

The question of finance should also arise well before the 6th mos of the pregnancy. Better still - before the pregnancy occured. But it doesn't - as witnessed by the singke mothers in ghettos all over the U.S. Deplorable as this is it's still not an invitation to murder a viable baby. Give birth and give the baby away for adoption - there're people standing in line for it.

I know very well what is a depression, believe me. And yes, there were mothers who killed their children (how the two were connected was a different story in every case) which has nothing to do with a future mother claiming her right to murder a 6-7 mos child because she might lapse in such a strong depression that she'll kill it later. Looks like a pretty thin reasoning to me.

And this has not much to do with morals, etc. Nobody keeps away the lady in question from birth control  or abortion - in abundant family planning clinics all over the country. AND she has up to 6 mos to solve her problems regarding the future baby or lack thereof. I with I had as much time to brood over my problems No one would grumble much on missing a theater performance, court appointment or whatever - and demand a repeat performance, judgement for them, etc., now would they?

We are not given endless choices and chances in life. If we make poor choices for the most part we have to abide with the consequences. I'va read a lot of polemic on this late-ternibation legislation, including the minutes of the Congress sessions, witnesses, etc.

An argument that a woman became pregnant in the hope that the culprit marry her, and was trying to cajole him into it for 5 mos - and afterwords, when either she saw at last that he's not of a marrying disposition and/or decided  that he's a poor marriage material - seems slightly ridiculous to me. Makes me angry too. How does a murder make somebody grow up and face up to their responsibilities?

[roykirk]

This whole "late-term abortion" discussion is nothing more than a straw man argument.  I don't think anyone here has advocated taking 8 month pregnant women and wantonly aborting their pregnancies.  The CDC reports that out of all abortions in the United States, only 1.4% occur after the 20th week.  Once again, further proof that this late-term abortion hysteria is a smoke and mirrors attempt to divert our attention away from the real issue. 

[Wienerin]

Wienerin, you are preaching to the wrong choir.      Blues Ferry is on pro-choice side as far as I can tell.

a) I AM pro-choice; b) I was kidding... more than a little. (plaintively) shall I stop wisecracking so that no one is offended?

[OlgaH]

Unfortunately, as we all know, the vast majority of abortions are not to protect the mother's health but instead are out of convenience or the desire to avoid the consequences of choices already made.

I think the birth defects are not a choice that made by a woman... and a teared condom as well. 

All debates about abortion is debates about "is a human embryo is a person or not"

When does an embryo become a person?
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3861/is_200201/ai_n9064043/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1

[Wienerin]

Such late-term abortions are almost always a scare tactic from the anti-choice crowd.  Nearly every late term abortion I've ever seen or heard about was due to medical reasons.  I've never heard of a 7 or 8 month pregnant woman seeking an abortion because she simply wanted to get rid of the baby.  And this is after several years of volunteering in a women's shelter when I was younger.  I'm sure there are cases where it's happened, but there's also cases of crazy women drowning their kids in the bathtub too, it doesn't mean that all mothers are homicidal maniacs nor does it mean we should remove all bathtubs from houses where kids are present

Thanbk you. Repeat, I'm - pro-choice. I've refered above to the minutes of the Congress sessions on this legislation. The arguments and cases - provided by the "pro-choice crowd" - were mainly of the described variety. Let me tell you why - the reson of mother's life  was never  in question. As it's not in question for millenia for Jews, Catholics, Muslims. The weapons are clashed over whether to consider it the danger to woman's health when she is anguished over her boyfriend's desertion or doesn't have enough money to bring up the child, etc. I'm not joking now, read the testimony.

On every other point in this pro-choice/pro-life debate the issues are clear to me, of course, pro-choice. BUT on the threshold of the third trimester the choice was done already.

[OlgaH]

Do you know about incorrigible birth defects that manifest themselves later than 5-6 mos? And anyway there's always the adoption.

There should be choice of woman

That she was raped she definitely knew before the last trimester. Being not ready for parenting should also manifest itself befor these 6 mos< and you know - there are a lot of things in life which put a burden of responsibility and obligation on one - is everyone allowed to welch out of obligations by... murder?

Have I ever written the opposite   
____________________________________________
About murder

The distinction between a child/baby and a foetus is generally a pretty clear one (if you stay within the bio-medical data and do not drag religious beliefs, etc. into the discussion) - if the foetus is viable outside the womb, then it's a baby.
BUT - this is my point of view and again in general I do not demand of press other people to subscribe to it.

How you will check if an embryo or fetus is viable outside the womb? Even nowadays some 7 months fetus sometimes can not be saved outside the womb even in incubator. BTW incubator is a replacement of the womb 

PS. I'm also against when women make abortion after 6 months of pregnancy but in some cases it can be done.   

[Wienerin]

1. This is just a cheap cop out. Abortion stops a beating heart.  The heart of a person.
A human being. A baby. Rationalize it any way you want. But these are the realities. Within 60 days of conception the baby has all of their fingers, toes, internal organs, head, eyes, brain, blood circulation and yes a beating heart. Even at conception, the unborn child has everything necessary to become what God intended (if protected from harm).

somebody seriously misled you - "You're not in Kansas any more" (meaning that anywhere elso you have access to half-decent textbook with embryo development stages). SAt conception there is NO (none, nada, zilch) "unborn child" - there are (or more) cells. And yes, as these cells start to multiply they provide all the material for a future human body. As heaps of clay, sand, gravel, tubs of water, planks etc. - with proper application within its proper time will become... mayby a cottage, maybe a palace, hovel, fortress, etc.

Here is a wonderful visual tool to follow the stages of embryonal development ehttp://www.visembryo.com/baby/carnegiestages.html - just click on the funny lump along the spiral, and read. As you can easily see only after 6 mos can the embryo survive (probably) outside mother's body. Until then - it's a part of her body, totally hers to dispose of as she wishes.

BTW, if you and the pro-abortion FSUW research the matter you will find that medical studies reflect that virtually no late term abortions are performed in America to save the life of the mother or for health reasons. Like 99% of abortions, they are done for the mother's "convenience".

False - third trimester is the pregnancy period when some complicatuons can develop - like enclamsia (which could be fatal both for the mother and the embryo-foetus). You do not know, I do not know, etc. - how many late term abortions are performed for legitimate health concerns and how many - for... wel, I don't know... the mother MAY have a bout of depression, - what about the doctor?

2. This is a really dumb thing to say. Noone said anything about sperm. The subject is a human being (you know, AFTER conception).

It never ceases to amaze me how far people will go to rationalize away basic responsibility and basic morality.   
[/quote]

There's now such thing as "basic morality"... Catholic church, for example, allows its African clergy to marry - otherwise there'd not be any clergy in Africa Apart from t he three "world" religions I do not know another where religion, morals or whatever say anything agains abortion - many people in history said nothing about bashing a baby's brains out if it were born sickly or unsatisfactorily looking... And not many pediatricians will look too closely into a baby's sleeping death.

BTW - I simply cannot take men in the pro-life movement, sorry. Not your business, beautiful sirs. As to nobody saying anything about sperm - go read your Bible, please. Genesis 38:8 - if you do not have one, look it up on the internet. The sin of Onan, you know Capital punishment, by the way...

[Wienerin]

There should be choice of woman

I'm not exactly agreable on this point - concerning the late-term abortion. In every choice we make there is a point of no return. Why not 6 mos? Because if not 6, 7 or 8 months, where do we stop, I repeat? reasonably - not considering the percentage, etc. THere aren't even that many sexual maniacs in the population, but we have laws against them, do we not? And if the maniac deals with a small child, who couldn't argue or protect oneself - we do not say tha to kill the child was the maniac's choice, and let it be therefore.

How you will check if an embryo or fetus is viable outside the womb? Even nowadays some 7 months fetus sometimes can not be saved outside the womb even in incubator. BTW incubator is a replacement of the womb 

Statistics mostly as far as I know. Absolute majority of the premature births before 6 mos will die. Absolute majority of the births after 6 mos are viable and can survive. Look at Julius Ceasar for example The measure of viability is ability to breath. It's as simple as this - if you can breath, you live, if you cannot... well, sorry, pal.

As to even nowadays... Excuse me, but sometimes grown people in an oxygen tent do not survive - what do you want of a tiny baby 

[groovlstk]

Jeez folks,

Can you please break off the abortion discussion into No Holds Barred or get back on topic? You're all intelligent, independent adults and no amount of debate or acrimony is going to change opinions that have long been established.

 

[mark2353]

Well, let me educate you, dear virgin, that's how lots of those abortions happen.    So, if you don't want to have children or your lady doesn't want to have children - I'd say that vasectomy is the best choice! 

I totally agree, after the vasectomy make sure you make the follow up office call with sample! There has been several cases where the little guys slip through! We meet such a man! good luck!
mark

[roykirk]

Jeez folks,

Can you please break off the abortion discussion into No Holds Barred or get back on topic? You're all intelligent, independent adults and no amount of debate or acrimony is going to change opinions that have long been established.

Now what fun would that be?     In all of the years I've engaged anti-choicers in debate, I've only managed to change the mind of one and got another to soften their perspective.  For me, that makes all the vitriol worth it.   

[OlgaH]

I'm not exactly agreable on this point - concerning the late-term abortion. In every choice we make there is a point of no return. Why not 6 mos? Because if not 6, 7 or 8 months, where do we stop, I repeat? reasonably - not considering the percentage, etc. THere aren't even that many sexual maniacs in the population, but we have laws against them, do we not? And if the maniac deals with a small child, who couldn't argue or protect oneself - we do not say tha to kill the child was the maniac's choice, and let it be therefore.

Sorry, Wienerin, but I think your analogy with maniac is irrelevant 

For example the results of amniocentesis show that a fetus carries Tay-Sachs disease... or idiocy disease or Daun disease  ...  why the amniocentesis could not be done earlier there can be also different reasons.

I really don't know how many people are ready to adopt children with idiocy disease, Daun disease and so on...

One day my neighbor said  if she knew about Daun disease of her second child she would make abortion even after 6 month of pregnancy...     

Statistics mostly as far as I know. Absolute majority of the premature births before 6 mos will die. Absolute majority of the births after 6 mos are viable and can survive.

but how... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/medical_notes/3256615.stm

[Ooooops]

So, what do we see here?  Women are pro-choice and guys (most of  ) are pro-life.   How ironic...   

[Ooooops]

In all of the years I've engaged anti-choicers in debate, I've only managed to change the mind of one and got another to soften their perspective. 

Wow!   You are good!   

[Blues Fairy]

Even at conception, the unborn child has everything necessary to become what God intended (if protected from harm).

I suppose you mean its Immortal Soul, which entitles it to protection.  But when does the soul enter the embryo?  At conception? What if the embryo then divides into twins - its soul divides as well?  

BTW an overwhelming majority of spontaneous abortions (miscarriages) occur at very early stages as nature's way to weed out genetic errors.  MC's due to genetic abnormalities may occur up until the end of the first trimester.  Now, if all of those miscarried fetuses had an immortal soul, wouldn't it place Whoever-made-the-decision-to-flush-them-out in a somewhat unfavorable light?  A extremely immoral action on His part.  

In the real world, a "person" only has a claim to a right to live if it can actually live - without being attached to another person's circulatory system and at that person's expense.  A human being does not have an immovable right to survival if it must involve using the physical body of another human being.  You see, moral relativism, however abhorrent to you, is nevertheless a very real thing, directly connected to the realities of this world.

[msmoby_ru]

Well, let me educate you, dear virgin, that's how lots of those abortions happen.    So, if you don't want to have children or your lady doesn't want to have children - I'd say that vasectomy is the best choice! 

So would I, and have done so, ( and we enjoy the benefits!) but there are those who advise otherwise...

http://www.dontfixit.org/

I can only say I haven't met any men in the UK / Ireland who had pain problems beyond the first few days..

[Ronnie]

In the real world, a "person" only has a claim to a right to live if it can actually live - without being attached to another person's circulatory system and at that person's expense.  A human being does not have an immovable right to survival if it must involve using the physical body of another human being.  You see, moral relativism, however abhorrent to you, is nevertheless a very real thing, directly connected to the realities of this world.

Blues Fairy,

Your definition of who has the right to live is one of the most frightening collection of words, I've read in a long time.  And, I must confess, they anger me more than just a little.

By claiming that a person only has a right to live if he/she can survive without the life-supporting physical maternal attachment, you leave no obstacle to the extension of such reasoning to those who may no longer be physically attached yet cannot feed themselves or maintain vital body temperature without assistance from another human. 

At the heart of your viewpoint is the notion that the more in need, the more vulnerable, a human may be, the less protection society should afford.  Does that absence a right to live also extend to the ill, the disabled, the aged?  For the Eugenicist, neo-Nazi or atheist, the answer must logically be, yes.

This deplorable world view stems from Darwinism which affords no moral distinction between humans and animals.  Yet in the "real world"  animal mothers will fight to the death to protect her vulnerable young, while human mothers may be fully justified in doing quite the opposite. 

BF, you once wrote that your belief, sorry, KNOWLEDGE that there is no God did not affect your estimation of life.  Seems that wasn't entirely true. Thank you, however, for the object lesson in how an intelligent human mind becomes an unguided missile once it discards it's compass.   

 

[Ronnie]

Now what fun would that be?     In all of the years I've engaged anti-choicers in debate, I've only managed to change the mind of one and got another to soften their perspective.  For me, that makes all the vitriol worth it.   

How so, Roy?  How was it worth it?  You convince someone they should not think or act but in their own immediate self-interests.    How noble of you!

How is a man measured?  How a woman? 

It is a fact of life that the child survives because the woman suckles him and keeps him warm and protected from danger.  And, the woman survives because the man hunts and toils that she might eat and also protects her from danger.   

How does a "choice" to reject those functions, essential to the continuation of life, affect the measure of the man or woman?  It's clear how.  Not well. 

And, in a stroke of poetic justice there is a Darwinian component:  Those men and women who "choose" to reject their inherent and essential obligations will not have their genes preserved.  It's their "choice" and some might argue it's better after all that certain gene pools do in the course of time, go dry.

[Ronnie]

To me the Living Will is the answer.   Once I can't function on my own without help of machines for extended period of time - it's time to go.   Death is just part of life. 

In Blues Fairy's world a living will would be moot since such machines would have no use and therefore not exist. 

If you can't survive without help then it's....see ya..wouldn't want to be ya!