My New Stance on Abortion

[alan1]

My New Stance on Abortion

It’s taken me quite a while to get here, but I have changed my stance on abortion. It’s been many an abortion debate on many message boards that caused me to think long and hard about the abortion issue. There have been many people from both sides of the debate that have inspired my introspective thought on this issue. I will however, give most of the credit to my altered opinion to one person that has challenged me, honestly debated me and truly forced me (intellectually speaking) to re-think my stance. That person would be Ms Coyote. (And some people say that you can’t influence changes in opinion over the internet).

That being said let me tell you how my opinion has changed.

I’ve decided that I am not against abortion 100%. I’m still against abortion and I think nobody should ever get an abortion, but it’s more about my view of when life actually begins.
To get there, I have to look at when life actually ends.
Within our commonly accepted view of medical life, pretty much everybody accepts cessation of brainwaves as the end of life. The cessation of brainwaves is the point that doctors legally declare a person dead. The end of brain activity is when doctors, courts and the common man have determined that life supporting equipment can be unplugged and a person can be declared dead. Even religions accept this.
Based upon that, I have decided (in my mind) that the beginning of life is the existence of brain waves. I believe that life begins when brain activity begins. Up to that point, I will accept abortion as an option. I won’t accept abortion as an option once brainwaves exist, at the point that brainwaves exist, the medical community and the courts have already spoken loudly and clearly that a person’s life is worth something.

So, my new stance on abortion is this;
If brain functions exist, abortion should not be allowed, prior to that, abortion can be allowed. I still think that prior to brain activity abortions should not be performed, but I am willing to accept abortion up to that point. I still disagree with abortion, and I don’t like it. I think that once brain activity has been achieved all abortion should be banned.

 

[Zoom-boing]

My New Stance on Abortion

It’s taken me quite a while to get here, but I have changed my stance on abortion. It’s been many an abortion debate on many message boards that caused me to think long and hard about the abortion issue. There have been many people from both sides of the debate that have inspired my introspective thought on this issue. I will however, give most of the credit to my altered opinion to one person that has challenged me, honestly debated me and truly forced me (intellectually speaking) to re-think my stance. That person would be Ms Coyote. (And some people say that you can’t influence changes in opinion over the internet).

That being said let me tell you how my opinion has changed.

I’ve decided that I am not against abortion 100%. I’m still against abortion and I think nobody should ever get an abortion, but it’s more about my view of when life actually begins.
To get there, I have to look at when life actually ends.
Within our commonly accepted view of medical life, pretty much everybody accepts cessation of brainwaves as the end of life. The cessation of brainwaves is the point that doctors legally declare a person dead. The end of brain activity is when doctors, courts and the common man have determined that life supporting equipment can be unplugged and a person can be declared dead. Even religions accept this.
Based upon that, I have decided (in my mind) that the beginning of life is the existence of brain waves. I believe that life begins when brain activity begins. Up to that point, I will accept abortion as an option. I won’t accept abortion as an option once brainwaves exist, at the point that brainwaves exist, the medical community and the courts have already spoken loudly and clearly that a person’s life is worth something.

So, my new stance on abortion is this;
If brain functions exist, abortion should not be allowed, prior to that, abortion can be allowed. I still think that prior to brain activity abortions should not be performed, but I am willing to accept abortion up to that point. I still disagree with abortion, and I don’t like it. I think that once brain activity has been achieved all abortion should be banned.

Sounds to me as if you still believe that abortion is wrong, regardless of a brain activity argument. Maybe you have yourself convinced otherwise but that's not how I'm reading it.

 

[alan1]

Sounds to me as if you still believe that abortion is wrong, regardless of a brain activity argument. Maybe you have yourself convinced otherwise but that's not how I'm reading it.

You are reading me correctly. I do believe that abortion is wrong. I am, however, willing to accept the definition of the cessation of life as the same standard for the beginning of life.

 

[Immanuel]

My New Stance on Abortion

It’s taken me quite a while to get here, but I have changed my stance on abortion. It’s been many an abortion debate on many message boards that caused me to think long and hard about the abortion issue. There have been many people from both sides of the debate that have inspired my introspective thought on this issue. I will however, give most of the credit to my altered opinion to one person that has challenged me, honestly debated me and truly forced me (intellectually speaking) to re-think my stance. That person would be Ms Coyote. (And some people say that you can’t influence changes in opinion over the internet).

That being said let me tell you how my opinion has changed.

I’ve decided that I am not against abortion 100%. I’m still against abortion and I think nobody should ever get an abortion, but it’s more about my view of when life actually begins.
To get there, I have to look at when life actually ends.
Within our commonly accepted view of medical life, pretty much everybody accepts cessation of brainwaves as the end of life. The cessation of brainwaves is the point that doctors legally declare a person dead. The end of brain activity is when doctors, courts and the common man have determined that life supporting equipment can be unplugged and a person can be declared dead. Even religions accept this.
Based upon that, I have decided (in my mind) that the beginning of life is the existence of brain waves. I believe that life begins when brain activity begins. Up to that point, I will accept abortion as an option. I won’t accept abortion as an option once brainwaves exist, at the point that brainwaves exist, the medical community and the courts have already spoken loudly and clearly that a person’s life is worth something.

So, my new stance on abortion is this;
If brain functions exist, abortion should not be allowed, prior to that, abortion can be allowed. I still think that prior to brain activity abortions should not be performed, but I am willing to accept abortion up to that point. I still disagree with abortion, and I don’t like it. I think that once brain activity has been achieved all abortion should be banned.

Sounds to me as if you still believe that abortion is wrong, regardless of a brain activity argument. Maybe you have yourself convinced otherwise but that's not how I'm reading it.

He made it clear that he thinks abortion is wrong under any circumstances, but he is willing to accept abortion up until brain activity begins. That sounds to me to be an intelligent way of looking at things.

Unfortunately, even that is a problem because you have people like the author of this:

Brain_Waves

Have you heard the common claim that "fetal brain waves" have been measured very early in pregnancy? Ever wondered how exactly that was done, and if it's true?

Good question, and no, it's not true. Instead, as with many "pro-life" assertions, it's based on very old research that has been taken out of context or misreported. It also depends on an incorrect, misleading definition of "brain waves," which is a nontechnical term anyway. Here's the real story.

The assertion is made over and over again that "fetal brain activity" has been observed or "fetal brain waves" have been measured at 40, 43, or 45 days, or at 6 weeks after fertilization. You can find the claim in "pro-life" and sometimes even nonmedical pro-choice literature. Sometimes a reference is cited, but most often not. This false information has passed into the general understanding about fetal development and is simply stated as fact. It is however a factoid instead, which is the name for a statment repeated often enough that people accept it as truth, though it's not.

{snip}

However, these structures don't begin to form until the last 2 months of pregnancy.

So I have no objection to saying that "a human life" or "human personhood" begins when brain waves are measured on an EEG. That is well into the second half of pregnancy, however, no matter how many times the "40 days" factoid is repeated.

and you have the following:

WikiAnswers - When does a fetus have brain activity

Q: When does a fetus have brain activity?

A: Brain activity begins at approximately 25 weeks of gestation, shortly before the beginning of the third trimester.

Leave it up to the pro-choice people and Brain Activities will be said not to begin until the toddler is 2 years old.

Immie

 

[Zoom-boing]

I still think that prior to brain activity abortions should not be performed, but I am willing to accept abortion up to that point. I still disagree with abortion, and I don’t like it. I think that once brain activity has been achieved all abortion should be banned.

Sounds to me as if you still believe that abortion is wrong, regardless of a brain activity argument. Maybe you have yourself convinced otherwise but that's not how I'm reading it.

You are reading me correctly. I do believe that abortion is wrong. I am, however, willing to accept the definition of the cessation of life as the same standard for the beginning of life.

He made it clear that he thinks abortion is wrong under any circumstances, but he is willing to accept abortion up until brain activity begins. That sounds to me to be an intelligent way of looking at things.

I probably didn't underline the right sentence. Yes you did make it clear about the brain activity but this sentence: but I am willing to accept abortion up to this point posted after this sentence: I still think that prior to brain activity abortions should not be performed seemed contradictory to me. How can you accept something 'up to a point' when you believe that something is wrong? It's early, perhaps I'm just not fully awake in reading this yet. Oh and I messed up the quotes things . . .

 

[Barb]

My New Stance on Abortion

It’s taken me quite a while to get here, but I have changed my stance on abortion. It’s been many an abortion debate on many message boards that caused me to think long and hard about the abortion issue. There have been many people from both sides of the debate that have inspired my introspective thought on this issue. I will however, give most of the credit to my altered opinion to one person that has challenged me, honestly debated me and truly forced me (intellectually speaking) to re-think my stance. That person would be Ms Coyote. (And some people say that you can’t influence changes in opinion over the internet).

That being said let me tell you how my opinion has changed.

I’ve decided that I am not against abortion 100%. I’m still against abortion and I think nobody should ever get an abortion, but it’s more about my view of when life actually begins.
To get there, I have to look at when life actually ends.
Within our commonly accepted view of medical life, pretty much everybody accepts cessation of brainwaves as the end of life. The cessation of brainwaves is the point that doctors legally declare a person dead. The end of brain activity is when doctors, courts and the common man have determined that life supporting equipment can be unplugged and a person can be declared dead. Even religions accept this.
Based upon that, I have decided (in my mind) that the beginning of life is the existence of brain waves. I believe that life begins when brain activity begins. Up to that point, I will accept abortion as an option. I won’t accept abortion as an option once brainwaves exist, at the point that brainwaves exist, the medical community and the courts have already spoken loudly and clearly that a person’s life is worth something.

So, my new stance on abortion is this;
If brain functions exist, abortion should not be allowed, prior to that, abortion can be allowed. I still think that prior to brain activity abortions should not be performed, but I am willing to accept abortion up to that point. I still disagree with abortion, and I don’t like it. I think that once brain activity has been achieved all abortion should be banned.

Sounds to me as if you still believe that abortion is wrong, regardless of a brain activity argument. Maybe you have yourself convinced otherwise but that's not how I'm reading it.

Something to consider form either end of the abortion debate:
"Between 1995 and 2003, abortion rates dropped more in developed than in developing countries. And although it may be difficult for some to accept, rates fell most sharply in countries where abortion is legally available on broad grounds and widely available in practice. "
Cohen, Susan A. “New Data on Abortion Incidence, Safety Illuminate Key Aspects of Worldwide Abortion Debate“ Guttmacher Institute. 2007. Volume 10. 4. http://www.ippf.org/NR/rdonlyres/8D...2A/0/Death_Denial_unsafe_abortion_poverty.pdf (accessed April 20, 2009)
Those are also the areas of the world where contraceptive use is higher / in greater demand.

 

[Immanuel]

I probably didn't underline the right sentence. Yes you did make it clear about the brain activity but this sentence: but I am willing to accept abortion up to this point posted after this sentence: I still think that prior to brain activity abortions should not be performed seemed contradictory to me. How can you accept something 'up to a point' when you believe that something is wrong? It's early, perhaps I'm just not fully awake in reading this yet. Oh and I messed up the quotes things . . .

Well, my position on abortion is this... abortion is wrong under all circumstances. However, I am willing to assert that if the mother's life is truly in danger (that doesn't mean infection from a hangnail) then by all means the mother has the right to protect herself.

Contradictory? I don't think so.

Also, if a thirteen year old girl is raped and then has the unfortunate problem of ending up pregnant as well, I can't for the life of me expect a 13 year old girl to give birth unwillingly to the child of the man that raped her.

Contradictory? I don't think so.

Abortion is wrong, but, there are times that exceptions need to be made.

Immie

 

[alan1]

I probably didn't underline the right sentence. Yes you did make it clear about the brain activity but this sentence: but I am willing to accept abortion up to this point posted after this sentence: I still think that prior to brain activity abortions should not be performed seemed contradictory to me. How can you accept something 'up to a point' when you believe that something is wrong? It's early, perhaps I'm just not fully awake in reading this yet. Oh and I messed up the quotes things . . .

Trust me on this, I've struggled with this decision in my mind for quite some time.
Accepting something doesn't mean you agree with it. As an example, I have 2 daughters (ages 19 and 21), I accept the fact that they are going to have sex, that doesn't mean I agree that they should be having sex.
Perhaps it's because my opinion about abortion is not based upon religion that I can allow myself to accept something I personally think is wrong.

 

[DamnYankee]

I probably didn't underline the right sentence. Yes you did make it clear about the brain activity but this sentence: but I am willing to accept abortion up to this point posted after this sentence: I still think that prior to brain activity abortions should not be performed seemed contradictory to me. How can you accept something 'up to a point' when you believe that something is wrong? It's early, perhaps I'm just not fully awake in reading this yet. Oh and I messed up the quotes things . . .

Trust me on this, I've struggled with this decision in my mind for quite some time.
Accepting something doesn't mean you agree with it. As an example, I have 2 daughters (ages 19 and 21), I accept the fact that they are going to have sex, that doesn't mean I agree that they should be having sex.
Perhaps it's because my opinion about abortion is not based upon religion that I can allow myself to accept something I personally think is wrong.

Great job, IMO. It's my firm belief that preventive education should always take precedence with the goal being that abortion will not occur because educated people take the necessary precautions. (Extenuating circumstances excluded here.) While my own allowance does not have the same rationale as yours, it has a medical/ethical basis, rather than a religious one. Although I consider myself a person of faith, there can be no advancing on this issue unless there is some compromise by both sides, and that requires factual information that is reviewed without the hysteria.

 

[strollingbones]

why do people continue to deny that abortion is the stopage of a possible life? why do pro lifers continue to pretend this is anything more than a "hot button" issue for them? if anyone wanted to outlaw abortion it would have been done by now....the ussc has not been stacked anti abortion and no matter how hard they attempt to nail down a personal that issue, they, the medica etc. never seem to do it well.

does anyone really thing they can turn back the clock on abortion. women can purchase menstral extraction kits to perform abortions on themselves. many herbs will induce abortions if introduced quick enough. women will risk their lives with bad alley abortions..why drive women back to that?

 

[strollingbones]

and this new stance is just the same old bullshit...now you are using the brain activity issue...the only issue...does a woman wish to carry a child to maturity or abort said child....it has been legal how many decades now thru how many ussc?

 

[KittenKoder]

My stance is simple, it should be up to the woman who gets pregnant, right or wrong, it is their responsibility to make that choice, not mine, not anyone else's. If it's wrong I wouldn't want to be blamed for it, so I would never be in a situation to get involved, in any way. But if it's not wrong then I would have no spiritual right to interfere should they make the choice.

 

[WillowTree]

and this new stance is just the same old bullshit...now you are using the brain activity issue...the only issue...does a woman wish to carry a child to maturity or abort said child....it has been legal how many decades now thru how many ussc?

legal does not make it ethical.. abortion out of convenience as a matter of birth control is wrong.. I agree with immie,, under certain circumstances it is both legal and ethical,, ie severe malformation, rape, incest,,danger of mom losing life etc.. but as birth control.? too many other ways to accomplish that.

 

[DamnYankee]

My stance is simple, it should be up to the woman who gets pregnant, right or wrong, it is their responsibility to make that choice, not mine, not anyone else's. If it's wrong I wouldn't want to be blamed for it, so I would never be in a situation to get involved, in any way. But if it's not wrong then I would have no spiritual right to interfere should they make the choice.

Generally speaking, I would agree, but having had discussions with males on this issue, the responsibility of choice can be complicated -- if they disagree on the decision.

 

[KittenKoder]

My stance is simple, it should be up to the woman who gets pregnant, right or wrong, it is their responsibility to make that choice, not mine, not anyone else's. If it's wrong I wouldn't want to be blamed for it, so I would never be in a situation to get involved, in any way. But if it's not wrong then I would have no spiritual right to interfere should they make the choice.

Generally speaking, I would agree, but having had discussions with males on this issue, the responsibility of choice can be complicated -- if they disagree on the decision.

They often say "possession is nine tenths of the law." Sometimes men just have to realize that in this matter, they are not the ones in control. This is one of the few instances in which they are not effected by it as much as women, and therefore the woman would be the one to be taking on the responsibility, but at least the men could rest easy knowing they are not to blame if there is something bad about it.

 

[code1211]

My stance is simple, it should be up to the woman who gets pregnant, right or wrong, it is their responsibility to make that choice, not mine, not anyone else's. If it's wrong I wouldn't want to be blamed for it, so I would never be in a situation to get involved, in any way. But if it's not wrong then I would have no spiritual right to interfere should they make the choice.

Generally speaking, I would agree, but having had discussions with males on this issue, the responsibility of choice can be complicated -- if they disagree on the decision.

They often say "possession is nine tenths of the law." Sometimes men just have to realize that in this matter, they are not the ones in control. This is one of the few instances in which they are not effected by it as much as women, and therefore the woman would be the one to be taking on the responsibility, but at least the men could rest easy knowing they are not to blame if there is something bad about it.

The issue that Mountain Man seemed to be wrestling with was whether or not a life was being aborted. The Right to Choose aside, the issue of the other life is a legit consideration in feeling good or bad about this.

Again, Scott Peterson was tried for a dual homocide when he killed his wife who was carrying their unborn child. If there is no second life there, how could there be a second count of murder?

If the unborn child is alive, then the right to choose is not a mater of choice but rather a matter of life and death.

I don't know when brain activity begins, but this seems to be really good measure. I had never thought about defining pre-natal life by that measure. It makes sense and addresses the issue of life AND allows choice through a definable time period.

Anybody know when the brain activity starts?

 

[KittenKoder]

Generally speaking, I would agree, but having had discussions with males on this issue, the responsibility of choice can be complicated -- if they disagree on the decision.

They often say "possession is nine tenths of the law." Sometimes men just have to realize that in this matter, they are not the ones in control. This is one of the few instances in which they are not effected by it as much as women, and therefore the woman would be the one to be taking on the responsibility, but at least the men could rest easy knowing they are not to blame if there is something bad about it.

The issue that Mountain Man seemed to be wrestling with was whether or not a life was being aborted. The Right to Choose aside, the issue of the other life is a legit consideration in feeling good or bad about this.

Again, Scott Peterson was tried for a dual homocide when he killed his wife who was carrying their unborn child. If there is no second life there, how could there be a second count of murder?

If the unborn child is alive, then the right to choose is not a mater of choice but rather a matter of life and death.

I don't know when brain activity begins, but this seems to be really good measure. I had never thought about defining pre-natal life by that measure. It makes sense and addresses the issue of life AND allows choice through a definable time period.

Anybody know when the brain activity starts?

Here's the problem with using that as the issue, technically everything is alive, because each cell is alive, at all stages. Whether it's considered viable or not would be a better gauge, but even then you run into problems with how to determine what "viable" means. Sometimes it's just better to let the individual make the determination and hope they choose right instead of wrestling with the morality of forcing them to choose on way or the other.

 

[Bfgrn]

So, my new stance on abortion is this;
If brain functions exist, abortion should not be allowed, prior to that, abortion can be allowed.

Gee, MM, I didn't know you get to decide...

 

[Immanuel]

Generally speaking, I would agree, but having had discussions with males on this issue, the responsibility of choice can be complicated -- if they disagree on the decision.

They often say "possession is nine tenths of the law." Sometimes men just have to realize that in this matter, they are not the ones in control. This is one of the few instances in which they are not effected by it as much as women, and therefore the woman would be the one to be taking on the responsibility, but at least the men could rest easy knowing they are not to blame if there is something bad about it.

The issue that Mountain Man seemed to be wrestling with was whether or not a life was being aborted. The Right to Choose aside, the issue of the other life is a legit consideration in feeling good or bad about this.

Again, Scott Peterson was tried for a dual homocide when he killed his wife who was carrying their unborn child. If there is no second life there, how could there be a second count of murder?

If the unborn child is alive, then the right to choose is not a mater of choice but rather a matter of life and death.

I don't know when brain activity begins, but this seems to be really good measure. I had never thought about defining pre-natal life by that measure. It makes sense and addresses the issue of life AND allows choice through a definable time period.

Anybody know when the brain activity starts?

The link I provided said about 25 weeks. The other one said late in the second trimester which would be about 25 weeks. So at a guess, I would say somewhere around 25 weeks. I'll also note that many state that the point of "viability" starts right around that time.

When I read MM's post I asked the same question you did and went to look it up.

For the record, I still don't look at the beginning of brain waves as a point acceptable to cutting off legal abortions. Just because science tells us brain waves begin at such a time doesn't mean that it is a point to end life.

When brain death occurs there is no further extension of life, but on the other side of life before brain waves begin there is still lots of living to go.

Immie

 

[WillowTree]

They often say "possession is nine tenths of the law." Sometimes men just have to realize that in this matter, they are not the ones in control. This is one of the few instances in which they are not effected by it as much as women, and therefore the woman would be the one to be taking on the responsibility, but at least the men could rest easy knowing they are not to blame if there is something bad about it.

The issue that Mountain Man seemed to be wrestling with was whether or not a life was being aborted. The Right to Choose aside, the issue of the other life is a legit consideration in feeling good or bad about this.

Again, Scott Peterson was tried for a dual homocide when he killed his wife who was carrying their unborn child. If there is no second life there, how could there be a second count of murder?

If the unborn child is alive, then the right to choose is not a mater of choice but rather a matter of life and death.

I don't know when brain activity begins, but this seems to be really good measure. I had never thought about defining pre-natal life by that measure. It makes sense and addresses the issue of life AND allows choice through a definable time period.

Anybody know when the brain activity starts?

The link I provided said about 25 weeks. The other one said late in the second trimester which would be about 25 weeks. So at a guess, I would say somewhere around 25 weeks. I'll also note that many state that the point of "viability" starts right around that time.

When I read MM's post I asked the same question you did and went to look it up.

For the record, I still don't look at the beginning of brain waves as a point acceptable to cutting off legal abortions. Just because science tells us brain waves begin at such a time doesn't mean that it is a point to end life.

When brain death occurs there is no further extension of life, but on the other side of life before brain waves begin there is still lots of living to go.

Immie

nope,, at 25 weeks there is a living breathing human being in there.. If you didn't get to see "The Hand Of Hope",, it posted down in general discussion under Pause for a Moment.. yep,,,