Is it ever ok to have an Abortion?

Lysistrata

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2017
Messages
12,456
Reaction score
2,423
Points
290
You know what should resolve the abortion debate? Technology. Developing a machine that can take a fertilized egg And nurture / Incubate it until it is ready to live independently. Boom. Problem solved!
I don't know why this is not done. If they want the fertilized egg so badly, they should have a method of removing it and developing it. This way it would not be an "abortion," it would be a "removal" and then the right-wingers can do their thing.
 

Lysistrata

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2017
Messages
12,456
Reaction score
2,423
Points
290
You have a mental problem. This is not my fault. You should see somebody.
You have a morals/ethics problem. A severe one.

That you see morals and ethics as a “mental problem” is very telling, and very damning. An indication of a sort of hyper-sociopathy.
Not everybody has a "moral" or "ethical" problem just because you do. You can't define such a thing for someone else. Your obsession is not everybody's.
 

Dragonlady

Designing Woman
Joined
Dec 1, 2012
Messages
23,133
Reaction score
6,083
Points
290
Location
Niagara Escarpment
Well. In an ectopic pregnancy it is just a growth. It will never be a baby. It will never be the size of a kidney bean. It isn't alive in any real sense of the word.
From a scientific standpoint, you're just plain wrong.

Even at that point, in that circumstance, it meets every accepted scientific definition of a living organism, and its DNA tells us, without question, what kind of organism it is, viz., a member of the species Homo sapiens, in other words a human being. Denying this puts you in the same category of nutcasery as those who believe that Bruce Jenner is a woman.
You poor thing. It is a growth that is a collection of human cells. But nothing will ever cause this collection of cells to live. Not even in a deformed condition. There is no either or. No decision as to who would live.
At what point do you consider the cells living?
I actually can't force you to understand. These cells will never be a baby. Not even a horribly deformed baby. A fallopian tube is .05 cm around. The cells grow until that .05 is reached. Then the tube ruptures. In ten minutes the woman is dead. The cells are much the same as a tumor. They are alive like a tumor they they survive on blood flow.
The abortion issue is a behavior one.
The abortion issue is an economic issue in the USA.

80% of women getting an abortion live below or just above the poverty line.

In Canada, abortions are free, and not governed by law. It’s a matter between a woman and her doctor and covered by her government funded healthcare.

The Canadian abortion rate is half that of the USA, where Republicans do everything possible to stop women from getting abortions.

Of course, our minimum wage is $14 per hour, and that includes health care. We have a one year paid maternity leave with job security, geared to income child care, and income supports for low income families, of up to $5000 per child.

If you really cared about the poor innocent babies, you’d do the same. And your abortion rate will come down too. Until then, I don’t buy the argument that you care about the children at all.
 

Lysistrata

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2017
Messages
12,456
Reaction score
2,423
Points
290
Well. In an ectopic pregnancy it is just a growth. It will never be a baby. It will never be the size of a kidney bean. It isn't alive in any real sense of the word.
From a scientific standpoint, you're just plain wrong.

Even at that point, in that circumstance, it meets every accepted scientific definition of a living organism, and its DNA tells us, without question, what kind of organism it is, viz., a member of the species Homo sapiens, in other words a human being. Denying this puts you in the same category of nutcasery as those who believe that Bruce Jenner is a woman.
You poor thing. It is a growth that is a collection of human cells. But nothing will ever cause this collection of cells to live. Not even in a deformed condition. There is no either or. No decision as to who would live.
At what point do you consider the cells living?
I actually can't force you to understand. These cells will never be a baby. Not even a horribly deformed baby. A fallopian tube is .05 cm around. The cells grow until that .05 is reached. Then the tube ruptures. In ten minutes the woman is dead. The cells are much the same as a tumor. They are alive like a tumor they they survive on blood flow.
The abortion issue is a behavior one.
The abortion issue is an economic issue in the USA.

80% of women getting an abortion live below or just above the poverty line.

In Canada, abortions are free, and not governed by law. It’s a matter between a woman and her doctor and covered by her government funded healthcare.

The Canadian abortion rate is half that of the USA, where Republicans do everything possible to stop women from getting abortions.

Of course, our minimum wage is $14 per hour, and that includes health care. We have a one year paid maternity leave with job security, geared to income child care, and income supports for low income families, of up to $5000 per child.

If you really cared about the poor innocent babies, you’d do the same. And your abortion rate will come down too. Until then, I don’t buy the argument that you care about the children at all.
Canadians have a decent society. In the US, we don't. This whole anti-abortion thing is driven by the politics of culthead right-wingers, many of whom are deeply into misogyny, male supremacy, and white-supremacist politics. The US has a cancer that you Canadians don't have.
 

Bob Blaylock

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2015
Messages
11,821
Reaction score
3,616
Points
360
Location
38°29′ North 121°26′ West
It seems the the "it is my body" theme works for abortions but not for taking potential medicines for the plague.
It's not a "theme." It's a fact.
If the issue over abortion was about the mother's body, then she'd be the one who dies as a result of a successful abortion.
 
OP
Slade3200

Slade3200

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
30,563
Reaction score
2,766
Points
1,140

Dragonlady

Designing Woman
Joined
Dec 1, 2012
Messages
23,133
Reaction score
6,083
Points
290
Location
Niagara Escarpment

Tipsycatlover

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2016
Messages
39,532
Reaction score
10,583
Points
1,370
You know what should resolve the abortion debate? Technology. Developing a machine that can take a fertilized egg And nurture / Incubate it until it is ready to live independently. Boom. Problem solved!
I don't know why this is not done. If they want the fertilized egg so badly, they should have a method of removing it and developing it. This way it would not be an "abortion," it would be a "removal" and then the right-wingers can do their thing.
Like surrogacy.
 

Chuz Life

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2015
Messages
7,235
Reaction score
1,376
Points
275
Location
USA
I read this article about a mother who found out in her second trimester that the fetus had a condition that was preventing its bones and brain to grow. The doctor told her that the baby would likely not survive the term of her pregnancy and there was a risk to her health so she decided to terminate. I’m curious about what the pro-lifers think about this. Should this be legal or illegal?

While I prefer to be recognized as "anti-abortion" and not "pro-life," I will offer my answer for consideration, anyway.

In my view, it is misleading and counter productive to phrase the question in the way that you did. (namely, as an "Ok" verses a "Not Ok" dilemma)

I'm glad that you went further to include the terms and choices of "legal" verses "illegal."

I remain consistent and unwavering in my view that it is our Constitution (the basis for our laws) that should carry the most weight in these discussions.

Therefore, I conditionally support the decision to have abortions in the few (I think extremely rare) instances where the abortion is Constitutionally justifiable.

Most obviously, to save the life of the mother (self defense.)

That said, I see no Constitutional justification for getting an abortion to kill a child that is expected to die on its own, anyway.

People (regardless of age or stage of development) are supposed to be Constitutionally entitled to the "equal protections of our laws." Period.

That right is not lost, just because a person is likely to be dying soon, anyway.
 
OP
Slade3200

Slade3200

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
30,563
Reaction score
2,766
Points
1,140
I read this article about a mother who found out in her second trimester that the fetus had a condition that was preventing its bones and brain to grow. The doctor told her that the baby would likely not survive the term of her pregnancy and there was a risk to her health so she decided to terminate. I’m curious about what the pro-lifers think about this. Should this be legal or illegal?

While I prefer to be recognized as "anti-abortion" and not "pro-life," I will offer my answer for consideration, anyway.

In my view, it is misleading and counter productive to phrase the question in the way that you did. (namely, as an "Ok" verses a "Not Ok" dilemma)

I'm glad that you went further to include the terms and choices of "legal" verses "illegal."

I remain consistent and unwavering in my view that it is our Constitution (the basis for our laws) that should carry the most weight in these discussions.

Therefore, I conditionally support the decision to have abortions in the few (I think extremely rare) instances where the abortion is Constitutionally justifiable.

Most obviously, to save the life of the mother (self defense.)

That said, I see no Constitutional justification for getting an abortion to kill a child that is expected to die on its own, anyway.

People (regardless of age or stage of development) are supposed to be Constitutionally entitled to the "equal protections of our laws." Period.

That right is not lost, just because a person is likely to be dying soon, anyway.
Thanks for the well thought out response
 

Bo Didleysquat

VIP Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2019
Messages
6,195
Reaction score
546
Points
65
I read this article about a mother who found out in her second trimester that the fetus had a condition that was preventing its bones and brain to grow. The doctor told her that the baby would likely not survive the term of her pregnancy and there was a risk to her health so she decided to terminate. I’m curious about what the pro-lifers think about this. Should this be legal or illegal?



I have been pro choice all my life.

There are only 2 outcomes to an ectopic pregnancy:

1. Nothing is done, the woman dies or if she's lucky and lives, she's infertile permanently.
2. An abortion is performed. The woman lives to have children later.

There are over 65 thousand American women who face that each year.

The anti choice people would force those women to die.
You can decide for yourself. So can they. No men involved. Only the pregnant woman herself. She's essentisally on her own in American society anyway. Call it what it is.
 

SweetSue92

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2018
Messages
10,776
Reaction score
3,554
Points
360
Location
USA
I read this article about a mother who found out in her second trimester that the fetus had a condition that was preventing its bones and brain to grow. The doctor told her that the baby would likely not survive the term of her pregnancy and there was a risk to her health so she decided to terminate. I’m curious about what the pro-lifers think about this. Should this be legal or illegal?

The above is not a reason to abort. The "risk to her health" would be the risk to any mother's health in any pg, I'm assuming--or it seems to me, anyway.

However, the one exception I DO make is when the fertilized egg has implanted in a fallopian tube--an ectopic pg. The baby will not grow in such a tiny space, and in that case, the mother's life is actually at risk. A friend of mine actually almost did die--by the time she was in emergency surgery, her entire abdomen was filled with blood. The had to perform a hysterectomy right there to spare her life. I know some pro-lifers will not take the baby in even those cases but honestly, in almost all cases, that tube WILL rupture. The baby will not survive, and you WILL have emergency surgery anyway.
 

Lysistrata

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2017
Messages
12,456
Reaction score
2,423
Points
290
In the end, the ultimate decision-maker must be the woman herself. No one else is qualified. Not politicians. Not clergy of any religion. Not anyone else.
 
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
21,719
Reaction score
4,517
Points
290
Location
Tejas
Is it ever ok to have an Abortion?
Yes.

Goose-stepping commie fucks should always abort, lest they bring more goose-steppers into the world. And while they're at it, self-abort.

But I think everyone should abort going forward to thin the herd by 6 billion.

.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top