Where should the line be drawn on abortion?

[catzmeow]

Pregnancy complications | womenshealth.gov

 

[koshergrl]

Aside from the fact that abortion violates human rights

Subjective opinion inflamed by hyperbole.

Then supported. That's how it works. You state your argument, then support it.

it is a threat to the health and well-being of the women that pro-abortionists claim it exists to protect.

Carrying a pregnancy to term is more dangerous.

That has nothing to do with my statement.

Abortion is used by pimps and by modern-day slave traders to increase the worth of the women they abuse and depend upon. Pregnant women are a liability to those who make money off of forced prostitution and they are not earners, so women who are in these trades are forced to obtain abortions to prolong their usefulness to those who abuse them. Planned Parenthood workers have repeatedly been exposed working with those who abuse women (pimps, even parents who are hiding incest and child abuse) to coerce women and girls into getting abortions.

Fallacy of composition. These things may well be occurring, but the majority of abortions are not occurring in these situations. Eliminating abortion would not stop sexual slavery.

I didn't say it would. I said it was a tool of those who subjugate and abuse women. And it is.

 

[saveliberty]

Pregnancy complications | womenshealth.gov

From YOUR source:

Complications of pregnancy are health problems that occur during pregnancy. They can involve the mother's health, the baby's health, or both. Some women have health problems before they become pregnant that could lead to complications. Other problems arise during the pregnancy. Keep in mind that whether a complication is common or rare, there are ways to manage problems that come up during pregnancy.

Most of those conditions listed are very managable and do not or will not result in death. Thanks for proving my point. NOT MORE DANGEROUS THAN CARRYING TO TERM.

 

[koshergrl]

My point isn't that it's less, or more, risky than pregnancy.

My point is that it poses a risk to women's health and wellbeing, and I supported that point.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Prior to 20 weeks gestation, abortion is not murder; after 24 weeks, abortion should be illegal. 20-24 weeks is a gray area for me. At 24 weeks, most fetuses can survive outside the womb with medical intervention, and at that point, I think the fetus's budding personhood trumps the mother's right to avoid being inconvenienced or harmed by the pregnancy.

NO PERSONAL INSULTS.

What is life? Is this a mystery that can't be answered? Actually, medical science has a standard definition that is also the legal definition. You know why the doctor pulling the plug on a born patient doesn't go to prison for murder? Because life IS defined medically.

Ready?

Life is the presence of brain and heart activity measurable by EEG and EKG respectively. If there is brain and heart activity and you pull the plug, expect some prison time (until Obamacare is fully enforced.)

So when is abortion the killing of a human? When heart and brain activity are present. When is this? 5 to 6 weeks gestation.

I know, you pro-aborts don't like science and medical fact, but there it is anyway.

 

[saveliberty]

My point isn't that it's less, or more, risky than pregnancy.

My point is that it poses a risk to women's health and wellbeing, and I supported that point.

Being transported in a car, crossing a busy intersection, smoking, drinking, eating and host of other regular activities present a risk to women's health and wellbeing. The risk needs to be balanced with the general outcome of the activity.

 

[catzmeow]

Complications of pregnancy are health problems that occur during pregnancy. They can involve the mother's health, the baby's health, or both. Some women have health problems before they become pregnant that could lead to complications. Other problems arise during the pregnancy. Keep in mind that whether a complication is common or rare, there are ways to manage problems that come up during pregnancy.

Most of those conditions listed are very managable and do not or will not result in death. Thanks for proving my point. NOT MORE DANGEROUS THAN CARRYING TO TERM.

Have you passed a bowling ball through your urethra? When you do, you can comment on the health complications of childbirth. I've done it twice.

My point stands....carrying a pregnancy to term has more health risks for women than an abortion. C-sections are major surgery. Labor and delivery is a major surgery. The Third trimester of pregnancy can pose major risks to women, including preeclampsia/eclampsia (can cause permanent liver and kidney damage, stroke, and heart problems). Even a relatively minor part of delivery, an episiotomy, can cause many longterm health problems such as a prolapsed uterus/bladder, painful intercourse (for years), urinary and anal incontinence (problems with shitting/pissing yourself), etc.

And, death remains a very real risk.

Shocking number of American women die from childbirth, pregnancy
More U.S. women dying in childbirth - Health - Pregnancy - NBCNews.com

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I understand full well that nothing pulls extremist automatons from all sides out of the woodwork faster than an abortion thread, but since we now have a clean debate forum I'm going to try anyway.

I ask that if you wish to participate in this debate you first concede the following two points:

1) Aborting a fetus within a week of conception is not murdering a child.

2) Aborting a fetus after 8 months of gestation, that could survive outside the womb, is murdering a child.

The debate I'm interested in is where between point 1 and point 2 should that line be drawn? At what point in the pregnancy has the mother forfeited the right to 'choose' so to speak?

I personally think at no point in the pregnancy, past the day or two after the act of creating the child, is acceptable. I would be willing to even go up to week 3/4 when the brain and spinal cord begin to form as far as a "law" would go but my personal opinion is if its too late for the morning after pill then its too late. Supposedly at around week 9 the fetus can feel pain, at this point it is DEFINATELY too late for any law to allow it in my opinion.

Notice my personal opinion and my personal view of what the law could allow are different.


However there are instances such as rape, incest, or the life of the mother where I would be willing to overlook that position of mine.

 

[saveliberty]

I trust you read these before you posted them correct?


Every day two to three women die in the United States from pregnancy-related complications. According to the report , Deadly Delivery: The Maternal Health Care Crisis in the USA from Amnesty International about half of those deaths are believed to be preventable.


A key concern is the lack of prenatal care. Women who do not receive proper prenatal care are three to four times more likely to die than women who do.

Shocking number of American women die from childbirth, pregnancy

 

[catzmeow]

I trust you read these before you posted them correct?


Every day two to three women die in the United States from pregnancy-related complications. According to the report , Deadly Delivery: The Maternal Health Care Crisis in the USA from Amnesty International about half of those deaths are believed to be preventable.


A key concern is the lack of prenatal care. Women who do not receive proper prenatal care are three to four times more likely to die than women who do.

Shocking number of American women die from childbirth, pregnancy

Even with pre-natal care, women can suffer adverse effects from pregnancy, labor, and delivery that exceed the adverse health risks of abortion.

Per 100,000 pregnancies, 13 women die. Per 100,000 abortions, .6 women die. That means women are 22 times more likely to die from full-term labor/delivery than from an abortion. The complications and medical problems caused by full-term pregnancy and L/D are also much greater and more severe.

You are not entitled to force other people to experience these risks in order to shore up your ethical views.

 

[Amelia]

I understand full well that nothing pulls extremist automatons from all sides out of the woodwork faster than an abortion thread, but since we now have a clean debate forum I'm going to try anyway.

I ask that if you wish to participate in this debate you first concede the following two points:

1) Aborting a fetus within a week of conception is not murdering a child.

2) Aborting a fetus after 8 months of gestation, that could survive outside the womb, is murdering a child.

The debate I'm interested in is where between point 1 and point 2 should that line be drawn? At what point in the pregnancy has the mother forfeited the right to 'choose' so to speak?

As long as there are loud people who seem inclined to virtually shut down abortion, and who seem like they might be finding a political foothold where they could affect law, my position will be to err on the side of choice for the mother.

I personally find myself wanting to draw the line at the point where the fetus can feel pain, and even more specifically and personally I never could see myself having an abortion even if I was raped, but as long as there are people such as Chuck Winder of Idaho who would put rape victims on the defensive about making the choice to have an abortion, I am in favor of erring on the side of greater access.


So I hope that the 20 week rule doesn't hurt women and I am fine at this time with those who want to keep the rule somewhere around 24 weeks.

 

[saveliberty]

I trust you read these before you posted them correct?


Every day two to three women die in the United States from pregnancy-related complications. According to the report , Deadly Delivery: The Maternal Health Care Crisis in the USA from Amnesty International about half of those deaths are believed to be preventable.


A key concern is the lack of prenatal care. Women who do not receive proper prenatal care are three to four times more likely to die than women who do.

Shocking number of American women die from childbirth, pregnancy

Even with pre-natal care, women can suffer adverse effects from pregnancy, labor, and delivery that exceed the adverse health risks of abortion.

Per 100,000 pregnancies, 13 women die. Per 100,000 abortions, .6 women die. That means women are 22 times more likely to die from full-term labor/delivery than from an abortion. The complications and medical problems caused by full-term pregnancy and L/D are also much greater and more severe.

You are not entitled to force other people to experience these risks in order to shore up your ethical views.

You aren't entitled to kill over 100,000 babies in your statistic .

 

[catzmeow]

I trust you read these before you posted them correct?


Every day two to three women die in the United States from pregnancy-related complications. According to the report , Deadly Delivery: The Maternal Health Care Crisis in the USA from Amnesty International about half of those deaths are believed to be preventable.


A key concern is the lack of prenatal care. Women who do not receive proper prenatal care are three to four times more likely to die than women who do.

Shocking number of American women die from childbirth, pregnancy

Even with pre-natal care, women can suffer adverse effects from pregnancy, labor, and delivery that exceed the adverse health risks of abortion.

Per 100,000 pregnancies, 13 women die. Per 100,000 abortions, .6 women die. That means women are 22 times more likely to die from full-term labor/delivery than from an abortion. The complications and medical problems caused by full-term pregnancy and L/D are also much greater and more severe.

You are not entitled to force other people to experience these risks in order to shore up your ethical views.

You aren't entitled to kill over 100,000 babies in your statistic .

Legally speaking, you're mistaken.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Legally speaking, you're mistaken.

So you believe legality and ethics are one and the same?

Abortion up until breath is drawn is legal, does that make it ethical? Slavery was legal, was it ethical?

I notice you ducked the issue of when life begins.

 

[Paulie]

Is there a medical consensus on when the fetus can feel pain?

Yes, Amelia. I posted the video showing the fetus in an abortion trying to elude the things they were poking him with a couple of weeks ago. It fought for its life with all its being, somehow fully aware of the danger and the location of the extinguishing equipment. It was considered to horrible and removed by the mods.

The physician discussing the fetus' elusive actions was quite clinical, but the skull removed before the body was taken out was a little too much of an ick factor for most people.

I've had university work in the anatomy using human cadavers donated to science. I don't see life, disability, dismemberment and death as some others, although I was the first to faint on day one in class.

Even back in the 80s when I took that class, there were studies being examined that claimed fetuses can feel pain. I didn't know they knew they were being threatened, though, until I located that video which must not be shared here. Oh, and the fetus/victim was 12 weeks when it was trying to get away from its certain death by extermination equipment.

You get over ick after dissecting about 4 cadavers.

That's disturbing.

Can you PM me the link too?

 

[Steelplate]

Legally speaking, you're mistaken.

So you believe legality and ethics are one and the same?

Abortion up until breath is drawn is legal, does that make it ethical? Slavery was legal, was it ethical?

I notice you ducked the issue of when life begins.

by that same token, outsourcing good paying jobs and hiding massive profits in the Cayman's is legal, but is it ethical? dropping people from their health insurance when they get "too sick" is(or was) legal, but is it ethical? Calling a pregnancy a pre-existing condition in order to deny someone coverage was legal too. Paying wages that people can't afford to live in their own country, and still charging an arm and a leg to the consumer is legal.....

I mean, if we are going to dive into the abyss of ethics and morality, the rabbit hole goes far deeper than a scared teenager who has to make an emotional, life changing decision.

 

[Uncensored2008]

by that same token, outsourcing good paying jobs and hiding massive profits in the Cayman's is legal, but is it ethical?

Dunno, but it's an entirely different debate.

The question here is does one person have the ethical right to end the life of another for convenience?

Think about this, can a person take from another everything they have, everything they ever will have, and everything they are, because they are inconvenient?

dropping people from their health insurance when they get "too sick" is(or was) legal, but is it ethical? Calling a pregnancy a pre-existing condition in order to deny someone coverage was legal too. Paying wages that people can't afford to live in their own country, and still charging an arm and a leg to the consumer is legal.....

I mean, if we are going to dive into the abyss of ethics and morality, the rabbit hole goes far deeper than a scared teenager who has to make an emotional, life changing decision.

Perhaps, but these duck the subject at hand.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

by that same token, outsourcing good paying jobs and hiding massive profits in the Cayman's is legal, but is it ethical?

Dunno, but it's an entirely different debate.

The question here is does one person have the ethical right to end the life of another for convenience?

Think about this, can a person take from another everything they have, everything they ever will have, and everything they are, because they are inconvenient?

dropping people from their health insurance when they get "too sick" is(or was) legal, but is it ethical? Calling a pregnancy a pre-existing condition in order to deny someone coverage was legal too. Paying wages that people can't afford to live in their own country, and still charging an arm and a leg to the consumer is legal.....

I mean, if we are going to dive into the abyss of ethics and morality, the rabbit hole goes far deeper than a scared teenager who has to make an emotional, life changing decision.

Perhaps, but these duck the subject at hand.

Granted: A human should never be allowed to end another human's life for convenience, or else there's really no point in everyone coming together to form a society in the first place: pure force in whatever hands happened to wield it would rule, period.

I beseech you, for this next bit, to put aside your dogma and try to think about this from a completely objective stance.

One reason that abortion is a trickier ethical question is that one might reasonably classify a fetus as subhuman, perhaps even as a parasite, albeit a temporary one. During the pregnancy, the fetus -LITERALLY- survives by forceably rerouting its host's (mother's) nutrients, much like a tape worm. Once the baby is born, this transfer of nutrients becomes a voluntary process (breast feeding), and at this point there can be no question about whether the child is its own entity. While it's still in the womb, however. . . that little motherfucker is stealing and not paying rent.

That last bit of levity might have offended you, and I would totally understand. If the comparison of fetuses. . . feti. . . whatever. . . and parasites offended you, however, then you clearly didn't follow the instructions, and you're probably blissfully unaware that your unverifiable morals can't rightly be used as logical premises for argument.

 

[Amelia]

by that same token, outsourcing good paying jobs and hiding massive profits in the Cayman's is legal, but is it ethical?

Dunno, but it's an entirely different debate.

The question here is does one person have the ethical right to end the life of another for convenience?

Think about this, can a person take from another everything they have, everything they ever will have, and everything they are, because they are inconvenient?

dropping people from their health insurance when they get "too sick" is(or was) legal, but is it ethical? Calling a pregnancy a pre-existing condition in order to deny someone coverage was legal too. Paying wages that people can't afford to live in their own country, and still charging an arm and a leg to the consumer is legal.....

I mean, if we are going to dive into the abyss of ethics and morality, the rabbit hole goes far deeper than a scared teenager who has to make an emotional, life changing decision.

Perhaps, but these duck the subject at hand.

I thought the question here was at what point between one week and 8 months the line should be drawn for legal abortions.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Granted: A human should never be allowed to end another human's life for convenience, or else there's really no point in everyone coming together to form a society in the first place: pure force in whatever hands happened to wield it would rule, period.

Isn't this the ultimate argument FOR abortion, that I have the power, ergo this imbues the right?

I beseech you, for this next bit, to put aside your dogma and try to think about this from a completely objective stance.

What dogma?

From an objective and scientific perspective, we are dealing with a human. This is verifiable by conducting a DNA test, that will confirm the species as human.

After 6 weeks gestation we are dealing with a life, per the medical definition of the AMA, heart and brain activity.

We are dealing with separate and distinct being verified by blood type, EEG, and DNA.

One reason that abortion is a trickier ethical question is that one might reasonably classify a fetus as subhuman, perhaps even as a parasite, albeit a temporary one.

Ah, so here is the dogma.

But of course your claim is utterly false and defies objective reality.

{an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment. }

The pro-abort position must trash scientific fact and rely on dogma in order to survive.

During the pregnancy, the fetus -LITERALLY- survives by forceably rerouting its host's (mother's) nutrients, much like a tape worm. Once the baby is born, this transfer of nutrients becomes a voluntary process (breast feeding), and at this point there can be no question about whether the child is its own entity. While it's still in the womb, however. . . that little motherfucker is stealing and not paying rent.

Dogma, I see how you discard fact and objective reality in favor of it.

That last bit of levity might have offended you, and I would totally understand.

It simply confirms that abortion is a religion to many, and highly irrational.

If the comparison of fetuses. . . feti. . . whatever. . . and parasites offended you,

Ignorance doesn't offend me in and of itself. I do have concerns about forming public policy based on ignorance.

however, then you clearly didn't follow the instructions, and you're probably blissfully unaware that your unverifiable morals can't rightly be used as logical premises for argument.

Ethics are not morals, nor are they "unverifiable" as you claim.

Gain some basic knowledge.

Kant's Moral Philosophy (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)