Abortion II

[brownjenkins]

It's not really about the embryos, it's about the votes and the money. That's why conservatives spend a lot more time on abortion than they do on babies. It doesn't cost nearly as much to debate concepts as it does to truly help human beings.

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

It's not really about the embryos, it's about the votes and the money. That's why conservatives spend a lot more time on abortion than they do on babies. It doesn't cost nearly as much to debate concepts as it does to truly help human beings.

The topic of this thread is 'abortion'. It's a typical dodge of the liberal side on this issue to heap abuse on conservatives by bringing up a WHOLE different topic (abortion alternatives, adoptions -whatever) - to keep from talking about the realities of what abortion truly is. If you like, start a thread about one of those - and don't avoid the truth of the issue.

Further - what you say about conservatives is both slanderous and baseless. Also - as a conservative myself, especially on this issue - I state emphatically that what you say is totally untrue.

Abortion is murder. It is cruel, and reprehensible treatment of innocents. And we do it to ourselves in America at a phenomenal rate.

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by Valandil

The topic of this thread is 'abortion'. It's a typical dodge of the liberal side on this issue to heap abuse on conservatives by bringing up a WHOLE different topic (abortion alternatives, adoptions -whatever) - to keep from talking about the realities of what abortion truly is. If you like, start a thread about one of those - and don't avoid the truth of the issue.

Um, if you haven't been following this topic, Valandil, it was started by inked on the science thread and we were told by Nurvingiel to take it to this thread:

We do have a thread about abortion here to discuss this subject. The abortion thread left off discussing zygotes as well so it should be pretty seamless to pick up the discussion.

General science discussion that doesn't have its own thread already can stay in this section.

with a nice little embedded link and everything.

Further - what you say about conservatives is both slanderous and baseless. Also - as a conservative myself, especially on this issue - I state emphatically that what you say is totally untrue.

Abortion is murder. It is cruel, and reprehensible treatment of innocents. And we do it to ourselves in America at a phenomenal rate.

Well, I guess we disagree on that- and certainly talking about the motivations, alternatives, or consequences of actions taken by all sides is part of the discussion, no?

Otherwise, it 's just an endless reiteration of

"Abortion is murder"

"No. it isn't "

"YES it is"

"NO it isn't"

Man: Look this isn't an argument.

Mr Vibrating: Yes it is.

Man: No it isn't, it's just contradiction.

Mr Vibrating: No it isn't.

Man: Yes it is.

Mr Vibrating: It is not.

Man: It is. You just contradicted me.

Mr Vibrating: No I didn't.

Man: Ooh, you did!

Mr Vibrating: No, no, no, no, no.

Man: You did, just then.

Mr Vibrating: No, nonsense!

Man: Oh, look this is futile.

Mr Vibrating: No it isn't.

Man: I came here for a good argument.

Mr Vibrating: No you didn't, you came here for an argument.

Man: Well, an argument's not the same as contradiction.

Mr Vibrating: It can be.

Man: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a definite proposition.

Mr Vibrating: No it isn't.

Man: Yes it is. It isn't just contradiction.

And so on....

[brownjenkins]

I disagree. But I still like Val, so I'll leave it at that!

I will say that for some like Val, it really is just about what they see as murder. But for very many others who are against it, it is not.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

I don't really get why the topic of 'what happens to babies that are born to women who would otherwise have chosen abortion' wouldn't be germane, anyway.

I recently read a great blog post on one woman's experience of adoption, and i don't think much thought is given to the aftereffects of destroying families through adoption. It's all about the happy NEW family, and the losses experienced by families who lose children to adoption aren't often discussion.

[Valandil]

Sorry - I was uncharacteristically 'on edge' when I first responded. I agree that these issues surrounding abortion are germaine to the topic (Oooo... I like that word, and haven't used it in a long time - a shame to only be copying its usage ).


Siscuz - I suppose there could be some regrets about giving a child up for adoption (is that what the point of the blog post was?), but at least it seems so much better than just ending the child's life!


Conservative views on care of the born babies: The conservatives I hang out with are VERY concerned about that. Some think it could be done with government assistance - but that group isn't so much conservative. Many think it should be done - but with private assistance, or at least governmental help that is other than federal (or even governmental partnerships with faith-based organizations - these have a VERY high rate of effectiveness in dealing with social issues). Our federal government programs of this type, at the scale necessary, seem to be rife with problems: lack of accountability, inefficiency, a self-propogating bureacracy (did I spell that right?), etc. As can be observed, the solution of throwing more money at a social problem often seems to just make it a bigger problem.


As for those who DON'T care about the babies who are born - mostly politicians I suppose. But I don't hold much to what any politician says - whether they claim to be conservative or liberal. Most are really just trying to win their next election, and conducting themselves accordingly. OK... I'll say 'seemingly' - because I'm sure that statement is otherwise overly harsh toward a few.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Another piece of abortion news...
http://www.blogher.com/charge-archbi...-tags/feminism

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Valandil

Siscuz - I suppose there could be some regrets about giving a child up for adoption (is that what the point of the blog post was?), but at least it seems so much better than just ending the child's life!

Val, it doesn't, to me. I don't see it as "ending a child's life." I haven't seen miscarriages as that, either.

[Nautipus]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Val, it doesn't, to me. I don't see it as "ending a child's life." I haven't seen miscarriages as that, either.

What do you see abortions as?

I have a vague view towards abortion, because I beleive that, like most cases in the human experience, conditions are that are involved in these situations are myriad, complex, and unique. Unfortunately this viewpoint can be (and is) abused.

BUT, I DO see miscarriage as a child's life "having been ended," but not someone ending its life. Your views? Or anyones?

[Tessar]

Originally Posted by Nautipus

What do you see abortions as?

I have a vague view towards abortion, because I beleive that, like most cases in the human experience, conditions are that are involved in these situations are myriad, complex, and unique. Unfortunately this viewpoint can be (and is) abused.

BUT, I DO see miscarriage as a child's life "having been ended," but not someone ending its life. Your views? Or anyones?

In my opinion, a person's views on abortion and miscarriage need to match up. A miscarriage cannot be a child's life ending if you don't also define the abortion of a fetus as the ending of a child's life. You can't allow yourself to see any baby still in the womb, whether the child is wanted or unwanted, as a 'person'... because then you'd be killing a person by abortion, just as it would be a person dying through miscarriage.

If you want to argue for abortion or what-have-you through scientific terms, then I don't see how there can be any difference between the meaning of an abortion/miscarriage in terms of 'is it a child's life?'

[Nautipus]

Originally Posted by Tessar

In my opinion, a person's views on abortion and miscarriage need to match up. A miscarriage cannot be a child's life ending if you don't also define the abortion of a fetus as the ending of a child's life. You can't allow yourself to see any baby still in the womb, whether the child is wanted or unwanted, as a 'person'... because then you'd be killing a person by abortion, just as it would be a person dying through miscarriage.

If you want to argue for abortion or what-have-you through scientific terms, then I don't see how there can be any difference between the meaning of an abortion/miscarriage in terms of 'is it a child's life?'

I agree.

The meaning I meant to convey was whether I think abortion is morally wrong, as in someone actively "ending a child's life", for conveniece's sake, or what-have-you. My views on abortion and miscarriage DO match up in regards to: Has a child's life ended? Yes. I believe so. Once you move past sperm and ovum and become a zygote, I believe it is alive and should be treated as a person. BUT, the flipside of this is that there are myriad conditions under which a woman can become pregnant, as well as many that may arise during the pregnancy, perhaps prohibiting the woman to give birth without inherent danger to herself that is greater than normal, or maybe economic status, etc.

I agree with Sis that the woman's part is VOLUNTARY, but I also believe that life is sacred even at its starting point, and should be treated as such. This viewpoint, as I said above, is more often than not abused, but it is mine.

[Lief Erikson]

My friends, please read this speech by Mother Teresa. One of the arguments for abortion is that the life of the poor is often horrible, that the children of teens who get pregnant are more likely to become criminals, that the likelihood that our children have miserable lives should be a factor when we're deciding whether or not to kill them.

Mother Teresa knew the poor better than anyone, and in her speech where she accepted the Nobel Peace Prize, she speaks about this experience and also about mothers, children and abortion. Please read it and God bless you.

http://www.catholic.org/internationa...d=34602&page=1

[Midge]

Something I've been discovering since I am engaged now, is that many birth control methods are inappropriate for people who consider life to begin AT CONCEPTION. Pretty much every hormonal method and IUDs as well do this. Even if they have several mechanisms to prevent conception from happening (like suppressing ovulation and thickening the cervical mucous so sperm can't survive), they also have a safeguard method in the unlikely chance of a sperm and egg meeting: they thin the lining of the uterus so that a fertilized egg has less of a chance of implantation and survival. For those who believe, like me, that life begins at the moment of conception instead of the moment of implantation or when the baby begins developing a brain or a heart or even after the first trimester, using these birth control methods is the equivalent to abortion, since it would mean that the drug was the cause of a fertilized egg not surviving.

CITATION: The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
This page talks about the birth control pill:
http://www.acog.org/publications/pat...tion/bp021.cfm
This page talks about injections, implants, vaginal rings and skin patches:
http://www.acog.org/publications/pat...tion/bp159.cfm
And this page talks about IUDs:
http://www.acog.org/publications/pat...tion/bp014.cfm

You will find text saying that every one of these methods thins the lining of the uterus on these pages.

If you do not believe that life begins at conception, this is obviously not an issue for you.

[Aikanáro]

Originally Posted by Tessar

In my opinion, a person's views on abortion and miscarriage need to match up. A miscarriage cannot be a child's life ending if you don't also define the abortion of a fetus as the ending of a child's life.

This is very true, Tessar, and not something I'd thought about before. Whatever a person's view, it ought at least to be consistent!

[romeo.juliano]

say no to abortion except when mommy lives in danger... baby must die

[Tessar]

Originally Posted by romeo.juliano

say no to abortion except when mommy lives in danger... baby must die

To me this seems to be a bit of an odd idea, because either way (in my opinion) you are talking about a life. It's an incredibly difficult decision to make, but I'd like to hear some of your justification for this view point .

[inked]

Australia and abortion ...

"BABIES that are surviving late-term abortions at Melbourne's Royal Women's Hospital might be being left on shelves to die, according to an Anglican minister.

Dr Mark Durie, minister of St Mary's Caulfield, said staff were finding it hard to cope with a reported six-fold increase in late-term abortions at the Women's since abortion was decriminalised in Victoria two years ago. He said because conscientious objection by medical staff was now illegal, the hospital could employ only people who endorsed late-term abortions."

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/ab...006-167u0.html

[inked]

Here, now, world babies and world abortions:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...155273928.html

[GrayMouser]

In a hospital room on the Greek island of Crete with views of a sapphire sea lapping at ancient fortress walls, a Bulgarian woman plans to deliver a baby whose biological mother is an anonymous European egg donor, whose father is Italian, and whose birth is being orchestrated from Los Angeles.
.She won't be keeping the child. The parents-to-be—an infertile Italian woman and her husband (who provided the sperm)—will take custody of the baby this summer, on the day of birth.

The birth mother is Katia Antonova, a surrogate. She emigrated to Greece from Bulgaria and is a waitress with a husband and three children of her own. She will use the money from her surrogacy to send at least one of her own children to university.
.........
"It's good that I can help these people have a family, and it's good for my family too," says Mrs. Antonova, who is 40. "I will have this baby, and move on with my life.

What a heart-warming story! And kudos to Rudy Rupak- in these days of greedy Wall Street crooks and supposedly respectable banks fraudulently foreclosing on home mortgages how refreshing to see a businessman with a sense of decency and morality.

Of course this business needs to be closely regulated- like any other form of free enterprise it needs to be properly supervised by the concerned government authorities to prevent exploitation and fraud.

[inked]

Ah, yes, so very heart-warming...

"Surrogacy's complexity can give rise to extraordinarily difficult decisions, such as whether or not to abort. This can happen because clinics sometimes implant multiple embryos into multiple surrogates to improve the odds: If one miscarries, there are still viable pregnancies. However, if several implants successfully lead to pregnancy, clients face ending up with not just one or two children, but many.

Mike Aki and his husband, a Massachusetts couple, confronted this question. The couple planned on having two children. But their two surrogate mothers in India each became pregnant with twins.

At 12 weeks into the pregnancies, Mr. Aki and his husband decided to abort two of the fetuses, one from each woman. It was a very painful call to make, Mr. Aki says. "You start thinking to yourself, 'Oh, my god, am I killing this child?'"

He didn't think of his decision as an abortion, but as a "reduction," he says. "You're reducing the pregnancies to make sure you have a greater chance of healthy children," Mr. Aki says. "If you're going to bring a child into this world, you have an obligation to take care of that child to the best of your abilities."

Today, Mr. Aki and his husband have two 21-month-old daughters. The girls share the same genetic mother. Each man is the genetic father of one of the girls. Next week, Mr. Aki and his husband will officially adopt each other's genetic daughter."

Final paragraphs, in more than one sense.