Abortion

[Joey D]

I don't really think it's a complicated enough issue to say it shouldn't "just be". It's a medical procedure and one that's been done countless times and proven to be relatively safe for the patient.

Ethically, it's really up to the patient and the doctor. If you don't believe in it, then don't have the procedure performed. If the doctor doesn't believe in it, then they are under no obligation to perform the procedure since most of the time it's not a matter of life and death for the patient. Outside of that, it's really no one else's business since medical treatment should only be between the doctor and the patient. If the patient wishes to include others in their decision-making process, that's also their prerogative.

 

[Imari]

I ask questions because I'd like to see the answers. I don't answer them myself because I'll just be barraged with requests for links and quotes and defending my answers when all I'm looking for is to see what someone else has to say on the subject. If I wanted to give my opinion, I'd just come along and give my opinion.

So you're saying that you want other people to share their opinions, but you're scared to share yours? Given that I or anyone else is just as likely to be barraged with requests for links, quotes and defense as you are? And you're surprised when people don't want to answer?

I think you just want to have your cake and eat it too. That's not how it works.

You seem to think that discussion forums are where people do drive-bys and just dump their opinion. Admittedly, that's how it works some of the time but I don't think it's really the best part. The best part are the discussions, where people share ideas with each other, ask questions and generally end up more enlightened than before. That involves some give and take, not "I want all your information now kthxbai.

If you want discussion forums to be actual discussion rather than one sided attacks, maybe look at doing your own part in that before you criticise others.

You should know this by now, I've come along and given my opinions freely on countless occasions and countless subjects on countless threads. After freely sharing my opinions for years on dozens and dozens of topics, your implication that I'm trolling by simply asking questions is both insulting and ludicrous at the same time.

Just because you've proven yourself capable of having sensible, productive discussions in the past, where both parties share and exchange information, doesn't mean that you are automatically assumed to do it all the time. You're just as capable as anyone else of having an off-day and posting trash.

You notice that you're still misinterpreting things to suit your agenda? I didn't say you were trolling simply by asking questions. I said you seemed like you were trolling by only asking questions and not offering any legitimate input of your own. And I didn't even say that was the only possible interpretation of what you were doing, or that you were intentionally trolling. I said that it came across that way.

You're choosing to find it insulting and ludicrous despite my comments being neither. I pointed out to you a particular posting style that you unarguably have fallen into in this thread and how it is perceived. You claim it to be intentional. You can take offence at how it's perceived, or you can accept that your posts came across in a way that you didn't intend and didn't accomplish getting the response that you wanted.

Don't bother answering the questions by the way, I've completely lost interest in this discussion in this forum.

Or you can take your toys and go home.

You had no real interest anyway other than curiosity. You wanted to see what other people said, and from the tone of your other posts the chance to mock their arguments, without any risk of exposing your own opinions. As above, that's not how it works. You can't just demand things of others and then get snotty when they don't comply.

Well, I guess you can but it's not a particularly adult response.

 

[TexRex]

Wait a hot minute...is he concerned about being harangued for sources?

Aaaaanywaaaaay...

It seems to me that opinion is what's being solicited here, even by the question he asked (if it's taken at face value), and I think the majority of individuals here are reasonable enough to not expect a source when someone states their opinion. Of course the moment supposed facts are provided as a basis for that opinion, or for anything really, the request for a source ought to be heeded.

 

[HenrySwanson]

So you're saying that you want other people to share their opinions, but you're scared to share yours? Given that I or anyone else is just as likely to be barraged with requests for links, quotes and defense as you are? And you're surprised when people don't want to answer?

I don't think it's trolling it's just the debate usually becomes a stalemate because it's so hard to answer said questions

Saying that, let's give it a go:

Should abortion in the 9th month just "be"? How about right before the due date? 8th month? 7th month? Should the father get a say? Does the child have any rights if it would be able to survive outside the womb? Do children only have rights outside the womb?

I believe that:

- 9th month, 8th month and 7th month shouldnt be unless there were grave danger to woman/possible disability to child
- The father should in an ideal world, but it would be impossible to police that. Maybe he should be involved in consultations but can't overrule a decision
- Yes I believe it should have rights that's why I believe our abortion limit should be less than 24 weeks to recognise this
- See above

I don't think you'll find many pro-choice people who advocate for third-trimester abortions. But hey, I recognize that's the low-hanging fruit for the other side.

Hmmm so pro-choice advocates recognise there's a switch from foetus to unborn child somewhere along the line....

 

[SlipZtrEm]

I can't tell if it's a pot-kettle-black situation going on earlier, or an Interludes homage. Weird.

Hmmm so pro-choice advocates recognise there's a switch from foetus to unborn child somewhere along the line....

I imagine that's the case with most, yes. Certainly out of all the people I know personally who've identified as pro-choice.

 

[Imari]

Hmmm so pro-choice advocates recognise there's a switch from foetus to unborn child somewhere along the line....

Just as people recognise that there's a transition from child to adult somewhere along the line. Some things, like birth, have clear physical events to delineate them. Others do not.

A sperm and an egg is not a child. A foetus in the womb 5 minutes before birth is. This much is not particularly controversial, unless you're a Catholic. Exactly where in those nine months you draw the line is a matter of choice, although like any important choice it should be supported by logic and reasoning.

For example, one could choose a date at which a certain (high) percentage of foetuseses would survive outside the womb. At this point they are not a totally dependent entity and could be said to have their own independent existence beyond being an appendage of the mother. Or one could choose an arbitrary date at which the foetus is sufficiently human in appearance with all major systems at least partially formed. One could choose a date beyond which the medical risks to the mother are unjustified, or anything else one might care to.

 

[Danoff]

For example, one could choose a date at which a certain (high) percentage of foetuseses would survive outside the womb.

Very rapidly we're developing the technology to grow an embryo into a child outside the womb altogether. Last time I checked, we actually don't even know how long we can grow one in a lab because once we got past a hurdle around... I think it was 5 or 6 days... it started just... growing. I think they terminated it at 2 weeks not expecting it to have survived that long. The problem is being solved from both ends. We increase our ability to keep premature babies alive with rapid advances in technology, and we increase our ability to keep embryos alive in a lab with rapid advances in technology. Eventually it seems inevitable that the two will meet, and we'll be able to grow a baby entirely in a lab.

At that point, whether it can survive outside the womb is irrelevant. Presumably all of the healthy ones could. Then you have to start wondering whether the entire bank of, well it must be in the many thousands, of frozen embryos are actually individuals with rights. But what rights do they have? To they have a right to be thawed and given a womb (natural or artificial) in which to grow?

How far into development do we allow the creators of an embryo to terminate it? Right now, the answer is "as far as it has ever gone". But the day is coming when that question will need to be answered.

Edit:

The world record for a premature birth survival is 21 weeks 5 days gestational age. And I believe the longest we have kept an embryo alive in a lab is 2 weeks. So right now the gap is about 19 weeks 5 days. But like I said, the 2 weeks survival was just terminated. Nobody knows how long that would have gone.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Very rapidly we're developing the technology to grow an embryo into a child outside the womb altogether. Last time I checked, we actually don't even know how long we can grow one in a lab because once we got past a hurdle around... I think it was 5 or 6 days... it started just... growing. I think they terminated it at 2 weeks not expecting it to have survived that long. The problem is being solved from both ends. We increase our ability to keep premature babies alive with rapid advances in technology, and we increase our ability to keep embryos alive in a lab with rapid advances in technology. Eventually it seems inevitable that the two will meet, and we'll be able to grow a baby entirely in a lab.

At that point, whether it can survive outside the womb is irrelevant. Presumably all of the healthy ones could. Then you have to start wondering whether the entire bank of, well it must be in the many thousands, of frozen embryos are actually individuals with rights. But what rights do they have? To they have a right to be thawed and given a womb (natural or artificial) in which to grow?

How far into development do we allow the creators of an embryo to terminate it? Right now, the answer is "as far as it has ever gone". But the day is coming when that question will need to be answered.

Edit:

The world record for a premature birth survival is 21 weeks 5 days gestational age. And I believe the longest we have kept an embryo alive in a lab is 2 weeks. So right now the gap is about 19 weeks 5 days. But like I said, the 2 weeks survival was just terminated. Nobody knows how long that would have gone.

Further to that (and without meaning to be a conspiracist) there are likely non-public experiments where such gestations have continued further.

 

[Liquid]

In the run up to Ireland's forthcoming referendum:

 

[UKMikey]

I hit like in support of the tweet rather than the advert.

 

[TexRex]

I hit like in support of the tweet rather than the advert.

That you felt the need to indicate the reasoning* behind your action sure illustrates just how divisive the whole thing is.

*Edit for spelling.

 

[Danoff]

In the run up to Ireland's forthcoming referendum:

Fetuses don't expect anything... because they're fetuses and have no concept of danger, protection, other life forms, or the ability of one human to protect another.

 

[Sander 001]

The topic of Abortion is just a political tool used to divide the masses in order to control and conquer them.

 

[TexRex]

The topic of Abortion is just a political tool used to divide the masses in order to control and conquer them.

 

[Sander 001]

Not that long ago, the Church was evenly divided about abortion. Then one day they decided an important move would be to villainize abortion, thereby vastly increasing their political power.

 

[wfooshee]

I've been sitting here trying to write a post, having followed this thread but never participated. I've felt that participating is almost pointless. I will sway no one, just as I see not a single change of view in the entire thread. I will educate no one. There will not be a single individual whose life will be changed by my words here. No one will read this and think, "Wow! He's RIGHT!!!! Why didn't I see that before ?!?!?!" Nor will anyone be able to change my mind about the subject. Nevertheless, this is an Opinions forum, so here is mine. No scientific, religious, ethical, social, educational, or financial basis for it, it's just how I feel about the subject. That's what an opinion is. Something you've decided without black-and-white, yes-and-no, here-or-there evidence.

Abortion is not birth control. Abortion on demand is repugnant to me. Pretty simple, really.

Abortion is a legitimate medical procedure, and like any legitimate medical procedure, should be available when truly needed. A woman's health is so poor that her life is at risk from a pregnancy? She should not have to go through such a risk. Rape victims (mentioned several times in the thread, including one that made my jaw drop, where someone said a rape victim probably wouldn't conceive because of shock...) should not be forced to carry such an unwanted, unasked-for burden of raising a criminal's child.

But abortion simply because you don't want the baby? That's so far beyond selfish, I can't really express how low I would hold such a person in my mind. "Pro-choice?" "My body, my choice?" If you don't want the baby, don't choose to share your body with a sperm donor. And before you ask, "But what about..." that counts for contraception errors, as well. Obviously the use of contraception indicates the lack of desire for a pregnancy, but the risk of pregnancy is still there, and by doing the deed, you should be acknowledging the possible result. If the risk is unacceptable, then don't have sex. Simple.

Same abstinence suggestion goes for the guys. If you don't want the responsibility of fatherhood, don't be tapping everything you see out there. When she comes to you with, "I'm pregnant! What are we going to do?" and your answer is, "Get rid of it," then you are a lowlife scumbag with no reason to be dumping your carbon dioxide into my oxygen reservoir.

 

[TexRex]

Not that long ago, the Church was evenly divided about abortion. Then one day they decided an important move would be to villainize abortion, thereby vastly increasing their political power.

Yeah...I gather that you're of the belief that you've explained yourself, but I assure you that you haven't.

How long ago was the Church "evenly split?" Please cite a source.

How do you get from a presumed shift to one that was deliberate as if to sew discord or implement a power grab?

Look, my view of organized religion is cynical enough that the idea such a change can be effected by one individual or a very small group isn't terribly farfetched, but I just don't see any logic in the reason for doing so that you've given.

Strength of a group comes with numbers, and taking a hard line against something is likely to alienate a group within the whole, so one has to imagine that taking such a stance is going to attract those whose position on the subject isn't dissimilar, thereby acknowledging that such a position has already been established and wasn't conjured up.

Nevertheless, this is an Opinions forum, so here is mine. No scientific, religious, ethical, social, educational, or financial basis for it, it's just how I feel about the subject. That's what an opinion is. Something you've decided without black-and-white, yes-and-no, here-or-there evidence.

It's informed by something. If your position is that it's wrong without reasonable justification, which the rest of your post seems to indicate, what part of the purely internal processing of the subject matter you claim to have used determines what justification is reasonable? Why is it wrong? I don't expect it'll change my mind or that any response I have to the answer will change yours, but I am genuinely curious.

My view is that the majority of women don't take the decision to terminate pregnancy lightly, and that's informed by my experiences with women who have decided to or not to. Whether someone says it's a "sin" doesn't enter into it for me. This may be callous, but I'm not entirely sure how fervently I object--if at all--to termination at any point prior to birth, it just hasn't come up in my own experience; of course that trepidation makes me unwilling to make a ruling should it come up. That said, I suspect a woman making the decision "late" would have gone through significant turmoil in coming to it, and if they haven't...

"I'm pregnant! What are we going to do?" and your answer is, "Get rid of it," then you are a lowlife scumbag with no reason to be dumping your carbon dioxide into my oxygen reservoir.

...surely a woman making the same decision--as if throwing out leftovers--is just as much a scumbag, and that's not someone I want to be responsible for a life if abortion were not possible for whatever reason.

 

[Danoff]

should not be forced to carry such an unwanted, unasked-for burden of raising a criminal's child.

Innocent child...

But abortion simply because you don't want the baby? That's so far beyond selfish, I can't really express how low I would hold such a person in my mind.

Not low enough that you don't want them to be parents apparently. Raising a child is not a punishment. And an embryo is not a child, I should know, I've made dozens.

 

[ryzno]

I should know, I've made dozens.

Wait, what?! I thought you did aeronautics.

 

[TexRex]

Innocent child...

While I acknowledge and can appreciate that sentiment, I can't help but be concerned for the mother's health, which includes her mental wellbeing, and I understand that that innocent child might be a constant reminder of the horrendous act that resulted in conception.

 

[HenrySwanson]

In the run up to Ireland's forthcoming referendum:

Those damn women doctors and firefighters destroying muh narrative!

On the referendum, poll results show it's likely to be a "yes"

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/pol...-headway-now-but-it-s-not-happening-1.3495143

I've been sitting here trying to write a post, having followed this thread but never participated. I've felt that participating is almost pointless. I will sway no one, just as I see not a single change of view in the entire thread. I will educate no one. There will not be a single individual whose life will be changed by my words here. No one will read this and think, "Wow! He's RIGHT!!!! Why didn't I see that before ?!?!?!" Nor will anyone be able to change my mind about the subject. Nevertheless, this is an Opinions forum, so here is mine. No scientific, religious, ethical, social, educational, or financial basis for it, it's just how I feel about the subject. That's what an opinion is. Something you've decided without black-and-white, yes-and-no, here-or-there evidence.

Abortion is not birth control. Abortion on demand is repugnant to me. Pretty simple, really.

Abortion is a legitimate medical procedure, and like any legitimate medical procedure, should be available when truly needed. A woman's health is so poor that her life is at risk from a pregnancy? She should not have to go through such a risk. Rape victims (mentioned several times in the thread, including one that made my jaw drop, where someone said a rape victim probably wouldn't conceive because of shock...) should not be forced to carry such an unwanted, unasked-for burden of raising a criminal's child.

But abortion simply because you don't want the baby? That's so far beyond selfish, I can't really express how low I would hold such a person in my mind. "Pro-choice?" "My body, my choice?" If you don't want the baby, don't choose to share your body with a sperm donor. And before you ask, "But what about..." that counts for contraception errors, as well. Obviously the use of contraception indicates the lack of desire for a pregnancy, but the risk of pregnancy is still there, and by doing the deed, you should be acknowledging the possible result. If the risk is unacceptable, then don't have sex. Simple.

Same abstinence suggestion goes for the guys. If you don't want the responsibility of fatherhood, don't be tapping everything you see out there. When she comes to you with, "I'm pregnant! What are we going to do?" and your answer is, "Get rid of it," then you are a lowlife scumbag with no reason to be dumping your carbon dioxide into my oxygen reservoir.

Whilst I like the post, I believe that forgiveness is higher in my list than condemnation, even if it is hard to do

Not low enough that you don't want them to be parents apparently. Raising a child is not a punishment. And an embryo is not a child, I should know, I've made dozens.

Hmmm so would you have an age limit with abortion?

 

[baldgye]

But abortion simply because you don't want the baby? That's so far beyond selfish, I can't really express how low I would hold such a person in my mind.

Sorry to cut your post to a single line, but I do have a question regarding this.
Personally, I find having children, to be the single most selfish thing a person, or two people can do.
Assuming that it's an abortion in the early stages of conception, why would it be selfish to not carry that child simply because you didn't want children/that child?

 

[TheCracker]

Personally, I find having children, to be the single most selfish thing a person, or two people can do.
Assuming that it's an abortion in the early stages of conception, why would it be selfish to not carry that child simply because you didn't want children/that child?

With an estimated 150 million already orphaned children worldwide i don't think we need any more unwanted children.

 

[Danoff]

Wait, what?! I thought you did aeronautics.

It was more of a hobby of mine.

While I acknowledge and can appreciate that sentiment, I can't help but be concerned for the mother's health, which includes her mental wellbeing, and I understand that that innocent child might be a constant reminder of the horrendous act that resulted in conception.

My point is that you can't take the position that abortion is murder and simultaneously take the position that in the case of rape it's somehow not. The child that resulted is still innocent, it would still be murder if you think abortion is murder. "It's only murder if the kid's father didn't commit a crime" is beyond ridiculous.

Hmmm so would you have an age limit with abortion?

For the mother or the fetus? No not for the mother. Fetus at birth.

 

[TexRex]

My point is that you can't take the position that abortion is murder and simultaneously take the position that in the case of rape it's somehow not. The child that resulted is still innocent, it would still be murder if you think abortion is murder. "It's only murder if the kid's father didn't commit a crime" is beyond ridiculous.

No I get that, and in hindsight I suppose I ought to have indicated that it wasn't you specifically that I was addressing in saying that, and the quote was to indicate the topic being addressed rather than the individual. So my apologies for any confusion my lack of specificity may have caused.

However, that the unborn child is innocent is a common sentiment, and I've even observed it being expressed to deny that conception through rape is reasonable justification because the innocent unborn child was not responsible for the act.

For what it's worth, I agree that if you insist it's muder in one instance, it's terribly hypocritical to not in another instance, but I'm not sure the individual in this instance was referring to it as murder, rather that it's "wrong" (whatever that means, and whatever informs that position) and that in such a situation as the one cited, perhaps it's not as "wrong," and I also appreciate that sentiment.

 

[Spurgy 777]

It was more of a hobby of mine.

You have strange hobbies.

 

[Sander 001]

Yeah...I gather that you're of the belief that you've explained yourself, but I assure you that you haven't.

How long ago was the Church "evenly split?" Please cite a source.

How do you get from a presumed shift to one that was deliberate as if to sew discord or implement a power grab?

Look, my view of organized religion is cynical enough that the idea such a change can be effected by one individual or a very small group isn't terribly farfetched, but I just don't see any logic in the reason for doing so that you've given.

Strength of a group comes with numbers, and taking a hard line against something is likely to alienate a group within the whole, so one has to imagine that taking such a stance is going to attract those whose position on the subject isn't dissimilar, thereby acknowledging that such a position has already been established and wasn't conjured up.


It's informed by something. If your position is that it's wrong without reasonable justification, which the rest of your post seems to indicate, what part of the purely internal processing of the subject matter you claim to have used determines what justification is reasonable? Why is it wrong? I don't expect it'll change my mind or that any response I have to the answer will change yours, but I am genuinely curious.

My view is that the majority of women don't take the decision to terminate pregnancy lightly, and that's informed by my experiences with women who have decided to or not to. Whether someone says it's a "sin" doesn't enter into it for me. This may be callous, but I'm not entirely sure how fervently I object--if at all--to termination at any point prior to birth, it just hasn't come up in my own experience; of course that trepidation makes me unwilling to make a ruling should it come up. That said, I suspect a woman making the decision "late" would have gone through significant turmoil in coming to it, and if they haven't...


...surely a woman making the same decision--as if throwing out leftovers--is just as much a scumbag, and that's not someone I want to be responsible for a life if abortion were not possible for whatever reason.

Source? It’s called ‘Global Christianity’ and a subtitle which I don’t recall right now. The Lausanne Congress took place in the 1970’s. Before that, the Church was rapidly losing influence and their answer was to create hardlines and radicalize. What good is “strength in numbers” if all you’re getting is half hearted pledges and shrugging loyalty? Initially, the Church did lose a great deal of followers but for those who stayed, they found far more loyalty and from that loyalty a much more effective grassroots campaign could be engineered for the disenfranchised. This is a very general and rough overview of a very complex, multi layered initiative, decades in the making.

 

[TexRex]

Source? It’s called ‘Global Christianity’ and a subtitle which I don’t recall right now.

https://libguides.mit.edu/citing

 

[Sander 001]

https://libguides.mit.edu/citing

I gather that you're of the belief that you've successfully refuted my post. I assure you, you haven't.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I gather that you're of the belief that you've successfully refuted my post. I assure you, you haven't.

It's simpler than that; you made a claim about quite a striking fact but we're supposed to a) believe your claim at face value or b) do our own research to find out if what you say is correct. Neither of those are how it works - you need to provide a source