Abortion

[Biggles]

I've been a member of GTPlanet for well over 10 years now. I am an anatomically correct female and I also hold two degrees, one in nursing and one in teaching.

What would you like to know?

Thank you Mrs. Famine:

1) Why is my wife very cranky every few weeks?

2) Why is Mr. Famine very cranky all the time?

 

[HenrySwanson]

So there's been a pro-life film come out called "Unplanned".

It tells the "real-life" * story of Abby Johnson, a Planned Parenthood clinic director who after witnessing an ultrasound guided abortion turned to the other side and became a pro-life activist.

It's notable in that:
1. It was called something else during production to avoid potential controversy
2. Several music labels denied rights to use their music in the film
3. It was given an R rating in America
4. Most networks refused to air commericals for it
5. Its official Twitter was "accidentally" suspended for a few hours during its opening weekend

* I use quotation marks as on the other side of the fence, Abby Johnson's memoirs - the basis for the film - have been called into question



So, anyone seen it?

 

[TexRex]

Wow, several labels denied music rights? I guess there's little chance I'd get to hear "Cut Me Out" by Toadies. Pity, the lyrics seem fitting:

"Lay there with the sheets
Pulled up over your head
How long do you think you can play dead?

Underneath the skin I am
Pinchin and fingerin
Every nerve, every thought
Do you think you can cut me out

Do you think you can
Cut me out
Who you tryin to kid
Let me, tell you
A little 'bout myself
I live deeper than
Any blade can get at
So steady your hand
You think you can
Then cut me out

I been keepin me a list
Of every wicked thing you did
Scrawled across the walls of my cell

A little meat
A little skin
A little cage to keep me in
Do you think
You can let me go

Now do you think you can
Cut me out
Who you tryin to kid
Let me tell you
A little about myself
I live deeper than
Any blade can get at
So steady your hand
You think you can
Then cut me out

A little meat
A little skin
A little cage to keep me in

Lay there with the sheets
Pulled up over your head
How long do you think you can play dead?"

 

[UKMikey]

Wow, several labels denied music rights? I guess there's little chance I'd get to hear "Cut Me Out" by Toadies. Pity, the lyrics seem fitting:

Have you read the lyrics of Slayer's "Silent Scream"?

 

[TexRex]

Have you read the lyrics of Slayer's "Silent Scream"?

Can't say I have.

Edit: He said, realizing he probably ought to have simply read them prior to responding.

 

[UKMikey]

I didn't want to quote them because of the naughty word in one of the lines.

 

[TexRex]

Yeah, that's very "metal".

Hey, compiling a soundtrack for the movie without having seen it might be a worthwhile venture...certainly more than actually seeing it. Stacking rocks is another option.

Edit: So...I'm wondering...where does the church get off deciding when a life begins when its own existence revolves around stories being made up to explain how life itself began because it wasn't known at the time? It strikes me as them just arbitrarily "winging it" some more.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Yeah, that's very "metal".

Hey, compiling a soundtrack for the movie without having seen it might be a worthwhile venture...certainly more than actually seeing it. Stacking rocks is another option.

Edit: So...I'm wondering...where does the church get off deciding when a life begins when its own existence revolves around stories being made up to explain how life itself began because it wasn't known at the time? It strikes me as them just arbitrarily "winging it" some more.

I think it comes from them recognising that it's a new life at whatever stage of its development.

I'd say abortion laws are "winging it" when they impose restrictions. For example, why is the limit for abortions 24 weeks here (UK) when babies have been born and survived at 23 weeks?

 

[TexRex]

I think it comes from them recognising that it's a new life at whatever stage of its development.

I find it absolutely, knee-slappingly hilarious that you accept such a broad notion of what constitutes a life but so readily argue against broad notions of what constitutes intelligence.

 

[HenrySwanson]

I find it absolutely, knee-slappingly hilarious that you accept such a broad notion of what constitutes a life but so readily argue against broad notions of what constitutes intelligence.

I dunno. I give them props for arguing that it is a life no matter how many cells are present. I don't really see it as a stretch as it's simply a new organism formed, therefore a new "life".

If we go into narrow definitions of life, what do pro-choice people believe? That it becomes a life after a set number of weeks? Who decides that and what is their rationale?

 

[Famine]

I dunno. I give them props for arguing that it is a life no matter how many cells are present. I don't really see it as a stretch as it's simply a new organism formed, therefore a new "life".

Other genetically distinct cells within the human body:
* Sperm/egg
* Gut bacteria
* Tumours

 

[HenrySwanson]

Other genetically distinct cells within the human body:
* Sperm/egg
* Gut bacteria
* Tumours

Genetically distinct, but not genetically the same as a fertilised egg, the starting point of a new life.

 

[Famine]

Genetically distinct, but not genetically the same as a fertilised egg, the starting point of a new life.

A fertilised egg won't develop into "a new life" without a womb - and a surprising amount of them fail to do so anyway. Similarly a sperm needs an egg to develop into a new life, and vice versa. The process starts with the gametes, and each step needs a third party to complete - right up to weaning, in fact. Why is the sperm less special than the zygote?

Gut bacteria already are "a new life" - and we naturally play host to more than 20 completely distinct species of bacteria in our body. Tumours and fertilised eggs actually have a lot more in common than you might think, with many of the genes responsible for the enhanced proliferation of tumour cells also playing a role in zygote development.

It's pretty arbitrary to say this cell is special because it's a human cell that may, with appropriate conditions (like a host), develop into a human being, so it can't be removed from its host. For that matter, if you're treating human life as special, why is the host's life not special?

 

[HenrySwanson]

A fertilised egg won't develop into "a new life" without a womb - and a surprising amount of them fail to do so anyway. Similarly a sperm needs an egg to develop into a new life, and vice versa. The process starts with the gametes, and each step needs a third party to complete - right up to weaning, in fact. Why is the sperm less special than the zygote?

Gut bacteria already are "a new life" - and we naturally play host to more than 20 completely distinct species of bacteria in our body. Tumours and fertilised eggs actually have a lot more in common than you might think, with many of the genes responsible for the enhanced proliferation of tumour cells also playing a role in zygote development.

It's pretty arbitrary to say this cell is special because it's a human cell that may, with appropriate conditions (like a host), develop into a human being, so it can't be removed from its host. For that matter, if you're treating human life as special, why is the host's life not special?

I think the church recognises a fertilised egg rather than a sperm or egg as a human life because that is the result of the first stage of successful reproduction, and this product is the beginning of everyone on the planet. I don't know how much stock they put in science, but it is logically sound since the fertilised egg will have the full complement of DNA ready for growth. The womb is a necessary part of carrying it through pregnancy, but this doesn't detract from the opinion that what it is hosting is a human life.

The host's life is indeed special, hence the Catholic protesters that were around my local abortion clinic would provide services for the mother. I don't think pro-lifers value the unborn's life more than the mothers whereas pro-choice do make a distinction in how "special" the lives are.

 

[Joey D]

I don't think pro-lifers value the unborn's life more than the mothers whereas pro-choice do make a distinction in how "special" the lives are.

Pro-choice folks don't make any distinction. Being pro-choice != pro-baby killing.

I'm against abortion, but I'm also pro-choice. Who am I to tell someone what medical procedures they can or can't have performed? If you're ok with having an abortion performed, are aware of all risks associated with it, and can find a doctor to perform the procedure, then, by all means, go through with it. If you're against it, then, by all means, have the child.

Although I guess a caveat here is that I've never been in a situation where abortion was a possibility. I'm sure if I was, then my view on it would change and I probably wouldn't be against it personally.

 

[TexRex]

If we go into narrow definitions of life, what do pro-choice people believe?

That their access to safe, supervised means of terminating pregnancy should not be infringed upon by what the church believes or by those who subscribe to what the church believes, particularly (but certainly not limited to) when they themselves don't subscribe to what the church believes. And given that through action* and inaction, the church has long demonstrated the belief that it's permissible for prominent members of the church to diddle children, well...I can appreciate that.

*Relocation of abusers, litigation and/or slander against accusers, etc.

 

[Danoff]

I think the church recognises a fertilised egg rather than a sperm or egg as a human life because that is the result of the first stage of successful reproduction, and this product is the beginning of everyone on the planet. I don't know how much stock they put in science, but it is logically sound since the fertilised egg will have the full complement of DNA ready for growth. The womb is a necessary part of carrying it through pregnancy, but this doesn't detract from the opinion that what it is hosting is a human life.

The host's life is indeed special, hence the Catholic protesters that were around my local abortion clinic would provide services for the mother. I don't think pro-lifers value the unborn's life more than the mothers whereas pro-choice do make a distinction in how "special" the lives are.

You're all over the place here.

"The first stage of successful reproduction".... whew. That's a tough one. I don't know that the combination of egg and sperm are it. Maybe the release of sperm into an environment where an egg is present? Probably not. How about the production of sperm, or the production of an egg? Maybe successful courtship? There are so many barriers to successful reproduction.

For example, if you're trying to create an embryo in a lab (something I have a lot of experience with), the very first step is to cultivate eggs. This means essentially farming them from the woman. That generally starts with dosing her with various medication, but it doesn't have to. The woman can do this step on her own. So if you're looking at it from the perspective of a labcoat who is trying to create an embryo in a lab, the first step would be obtaining the eggs from the woman. The next step is obtaining the sperm from the man. These two steps can be pretty separated (using cryogenics) but ultimately generally the first concern is the eggs, as sperm are widely available (Dawkins goes into deeeeep detail on just how true this is and why). If our hypothetical labcoat person can't successfully complete these first two steps, they cannot create an embryo. And there are all kinds of reasons why these steps might fail, including botched timing for egg retrieval (also happens at home in bed), and all kinds of reasons why sperm retrieval might be difficult or impossible.

After that, an embryo can be created. But, and trust me I have experience with this too, the creation of an embryo is not the same as the creation of a healthy embryo. And so many of them fail to mature, all on their own. If this happened outside of a lab environment, it wouldn't even get noticed. You just had sex at the right time and nothing happened. You wouldn't even be aware of the fact that you "conceived" and "miscarried", because technically pregnancy didn't occur. As @Famine says above, you need a womb (science is working on the artificial version). You also need successful implantation. One could argue that successful implantation is really the first stage of successful reproduction, because it is the first time that all three components are brought together successfully. Egg, sperm, and implantation into a womb. That's really the recipe for the start of a pregnancy.

I could carry on about all of the ways that pregnancies fail. And they do, for who knows how many reasons. People who say "that embryo was going to become a human" are pretending that they can see the future and really quite wildly glossing over all of the countless hurdles that are yet to be crossed.

Really somewhat key in this conversation is where you stand on humans that are in a persistent vegetative state. These people are genetically human, and developed humans as well. Birthed, and separated from their mother. Pulling the plug on them is killing a human being in so much more concrete fashion than arresting the development of an embryo. It doesn't require seeing the future, or assuming that all the necessary hurdles will be cleared, it actually literally kills a human being. And yet... people are cool with it.

And the answer to that is really the big understanding when it comes to understanding human rights, and where they come into play during human development.

 

[Famine]

I think the church recognises a fertilised egg rather than a sperm or egg as a human life because that is the result of the first stage of successful reproduction, and this product is the beginning of everyone on the planet.

Meiosis and production of the gamete is the first stage.

I don't know how much stock they put in science, but it is logically sound since the fertilised egg will have the full complement of DNA ready for growth.

Religious bodies put exactly as much stock in science as suits them at any given moment. For instance, there's several steps after that, even at the level of the DNA before the fertilised egg is viable, for continued growth.

Around a third of fertilised eggs don't even implant and more than a half don't make it to four weeks. Excluding artificial terminations, two-thirds never make it to the outside world.

The womb is a necessary part of carrying it through pregnancy, but this doesn't detract from the opinion that what it is hosting is a human life.

And it is an opinion - by no actual measure or definition of life is the zygote alive. Fun shift of tenses involved there too.

Meanwhile the host very much is a human life.

The host's life is indeed special, hence the Catholic protesters that were around my local abortion clinic would provide services for the mother.

Except for the one service she needs...

I don't think pro-lifers value the unborn's life more than the mothers

They very much do.

Pregnancy is harmful. In some - thankfully rare - cases, it's fatal, but in all cases it causes harm to the host. And we're talking permanent, physical harm, as well as fairly common psychological trauma. There is no pregnancy that ends without a permanent, negative physical change of the host. This shouldn't be news to anyone.

Religious bodies tend to like to create a second entity from pregnancy and then suggest it's a case of trying to balance that entity's "rights" with the host's. They like to suggest that the host had a choice to expose itself to harm, while the entity that feeds off the host has no choice and so must be protected at the expense of harming the host (because all pregnancies cause harm). It's nice that they care about rights and choices, but it's a bit of a departure from their usual MO, and it's only the rights and choices that suit them. Mind you, ignoring women and being quite keen on kids is pretty much a bullseye.

The issue with it is that the second entity doesn't exist. Until it's at the point where it is capable of survival outside of the womb (with support, by choice, from other entities), it is not a life and it is not alive. Sure, it has will be have going to have been alive possibly, but it isn't. Stopping the process doesn't harm any humans, but it does prevent any further harm coming to the one human involved.

Up to that point, the host must be allowed to choose its own wellbeing over that of an invasive bundle of cells, because it is the only entity that exists.

After that point it gets a bit tricky, precisely because it is a viable entity which meets the classifications for life. Rationally the only route for someone who does not want to carry that entity through to term would be a surgical extraction (both natural delivery and section would cause harm to the host at that point, so either is valid) and extra-uterine care once born.

 

[TenEightyOne]

doesn't detract from the opinion that what it is hosting is a human life.

As a man of medicine you'd surely agree that by no physioligical definition at all is that a human life. It's a life, but it isn't sentient and it isn't humanoid. It's effectively a dumb collection of baby fish cells.

 

[TexRex]

Sure, it has will be have going to have been alive possibly, but it isn't.

Edit: Speaking of dumb collections of cells...

 

[Dogwolf77]

Let's see. Don't have sex if you don't want a baby. That seems simple enough to me. Just because you can't put a condom on or use birth control doesn't mean you should be able to slice a fetus to death with a coathanger.

If you're raped, I believe it is very rare that you will be impregnated as a result of the shock to your system. This may just be a fallacy but it makes sense to me. Someone please inform me if I'm wrong. In the cases where you are pregnant post-rape, you should be able to vacuum the fetus out of your womb as long as it is done within the first month after the rape. They do use a vacuum, right?

On the other hand, it may be better if the baby were born and set up with a foster family. I mean, I'd be pretty pissed if I were aborted. I know there would be no way of knowing that, but you get the idea I hope.

I can prop this up. Sounds like a rather common sense approach to me.

 

[Danoff]

I can prop this up. Sounds like a rather common sense approach to me.

Which part? The "don't have sex if you don't want a baby" part? or the bit about the vacuum or the foster family? It's pretty much a mess.

The "don't have sex if you don't want a baby" bit might have made sense before contraception or abortion. With the advent of those two technologies, it's no longer necessary. You can have sex and still not get a baby because that's what contraception and abortion are for. To suggest otherwise is to presume your conclusion and commit a logical fallacy.

 

[Dogwolf77]

So first, let's all take a step back and look at this at a high level just so I understand:

Are we talking about "is abortion okay" (generally speaking)? Or are we talking about IF one is to abort, at what point, when and how should best practices be implemented? Because, if we take the later, we're assuming we're going to do it anyway, it's our only practical solution and so where should we draw the delineation points for performing abortions; between life, individual rights of the fetus, rights of the Mother and even Father, etc.

The lines become blurry whenever we mix in a real world case study, or individual situation, reference a faith/belief system, or for that matter political party alignment (for some "lemmings"). This is a very complex topic. It quickly spirals out of control because there are so many rabbit holes to fall down into. But I think in the end, we all agree on many levels.

That said, I do like the common sense approach to this. A basic "case-by-case" judgment call left to the individual parties involved and perhaps a doctor or parent.

Funny thing about my opinion is, I'm a very traditional, very conservative person who was raised a Catholic, is white/male, middle class, and white collar. The antithesis of those (I just call Democrats) who would traditionally be for abortion. However, I am for it too! 100%.

What absolutely never fails to amaze me is when I hear a Republican argue against it. Why on earth would they stand in the way?

Example: Let's say there's an impoverished girl, who financially cannot bring a child into her world. Say pregnancy is the result of some cheap one night fling with some dude she met at a party (oh, and the phone number he gave was not real)? She made a bad decision that felt way too good at the time. What would you chose if you were her?

On the other hand: Think about the demographics here, think about population for a moment, think about who's voting and who will never vote as a consequence. Democrats, in my opinion should rail against abortion all the way.

Are people so caught up in the weeds that they can't see the bigger picture, consequences or economics.

This is going to really upset some people....remember, just an opinion....

 

[Danoff]

Example: Let's say there's an impoverished girl, who financially cannot bring a child into her world. Say pregnancy is the result of some cheap one night fling with some dude she met at a party (oh, and the phone number he gave was not real)? She made a bad decision that felt way too good at the time.

Why is it a bad decision?

On the other hand: Think about the demographics here, think about population for a moment, think about who's voting and who will never vote as a consequence. Democrats, in my opinion should rail against abortion all the way.

The idea that you should be for or against abortion based on how it will affect the number of presumed votes your political party would get makes my head explode. The number of assumptions, and the absolute callousness that it approaches individual circumstance kinda boggles my mind.

 

[TexRex]

On the other hand: Think about the demographics here, think about population for a moment, think about who's voting and who will never vote as a consequence. Democrats, in my opinion should rail against abortion all the way.

...

The more I think about it, the more I turn to something that I've expressed elsewhere with regards to religious belief, which is the apparent implication that he who dies a member of the biggest group gets to take part in the afterlife espoused by that particular group.

Conversion is a popular theme with a number of groups, be they the "Have you found Jesus?" set (just one of these days I'd like to shed my modesty and my clothes and answer the door in nothing but a pair of navy blue socks and yellow rubber scrubbing gloves), the "We'll give you this food and water but you have to accept our beliefs" set or any number of other groups, including those who take a less civilized approach.

Well...a child may be born to "heathen" parents, but there's still an opportunity for conversion that is lost when a fetus is aborted.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Conversion is a popular theme with a number of groups, be they the "Have you found Jesus?" set (just one of these days I'd like to shed my modesty and my clothes and answer the door in nothing but a pair of navy blue socks and yellow rubber scrubbing gloves), the "We'll give you this food and water but you have to accept our beliefs" set or any number of other groups, including those who take a less civilized approach.

From what I've heard from those with experience, nothing turns these people away faster than saying "I'm Muslim"

 

[Dogwolf77]

Why is it a bad decision?



The idea that you should be for or against abortion based on how it will affect the number of presumed votes your political party would get makes my head explode. The number of assumptions, and the absolute callousness that it approaches individual circumstance kinda boggles my mind.

First: As far as a bad decision, well...let's say having unprotected sex with a person you've known for an hour could probably be considered reckless or irresponsible. Been there, done that right...Oh to be 21 and back in my Metal band again.

Second: You're upset, and rightfully so. You wouldn't be human if that didn't inspire some emotions to stir within you. This is to think outside of the box. Outside of the normal conventional wisdom and popular opinions floating around.

Look at the argument you see in the news. Look at the people who argue it, in government, in the media. Why do they care so much what I do or you do and what gives them the right? I see it as its none of anyone's concern unless you are living with the decision personally. It's not about being reckless, calloused or sinister, it's about being a grown adult making a tough/painful life decision. Can we be trusted to know what's best for us? Or do we truly need the courts to force our hand?

My perspective is born out of what we all hear and see as this debate continues and continues and continues....drags on...and on... It's no longer rational, or medical, its political. We wouldn't be talking about it if it were not. Would you? I know I wouldn't. I didn't give it a thought until it turned political decades ago. And it will never end.

I do apologise to you if I come off abrasive. I'm not at all. There is no inflection in the written word.

...

The more I think about it, the more I turn to something that I've expressed elsewhere with regards to religious belief, which is the apparent implication that he who dies a member of the biggest group gets to take part in the afterlife espoused by that particular group.

Conversion is a popular theme with a number of groups, be they the "Have you found Jesus?" set (just one of these days I'd like to shed my modesty and my clothes and answer the door in nothing but a pair of navy blue socks and yellow rubber scrubbing gloves), the "We'll give you this food and water but you have to accept our beliefs" set or any number of other groups, including those who take a less civilized approach.

Well...a child may be born to "heathen" parents, but there's still an opportunity for conversion that is lost when a fetus is aborted.

HEHE!!! That's an awesome visual! That's good stuff TexRex.

 

[TexRex]

From what I've heard from those with experience, nothing turns these people away faster than saying "I'm Muslim"

I can appreciate that, but it doesn't seem anywhere near as fun.

Of course saying that it wouldn't be as fun is in no way intended to be a derogatory mark against those of the Muslim faith. Just felt I ought to make that clear given a frequent participant in this discussion has demonstrated a propensity to wilfully misrepresent others' remarks.

 

[Danoff]

First: As far as a bad decision, well...let's say having unprotected sex with a person you've known for an hour could probably be considered reckless or irresponsible.

Why? And don't say STDs, it has nothing to do with abortion or pregnancy.

Second: You're upset, and rightfully so.

Not really. But there are a bunch of misplaced steps in your line of reasoning that democrats should want people to be forced to carry unwanted pregnancies because it will secure votes.

 

[Dogwolf77]

I'd better get out of here before you all boil me in oil or something.

I seem to recall you quoting a post wherein a question was asked of you, you half-responding to the quote, you subsequently being asked to address the question specifically, you claiming not to know what question to which they were referring, the person who originally asked the question making it clear that you'd even quoted it, someone else entirely asking if it's so hard to repeat the question, someone else else entirely (me) asking that individual if it's so hard for you to re-read what you quoted and then you disappearing for a day only to return with the topic having evolved slightly, at which point you quoted something else entirely as if the previous had never actually happened.

The above makes it seem as though you're not actually here to have thoughtful discussions, but instead to wax obnoxiously on aspects of society you find disagreeable as if...

View attachment 749085

...talking to a brick wall that, no matter how ridiculous the statement, just can't object.

You have a way with words my friend!