Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. My attempt to interpret both sides[W:139, 451]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

Removable Mind said:

Howard, that's simply not the norm and you know that. Look,your obviously a smart guy. I'm truly surprised that you bothered to ask me that question.

Click to expand...

I know it's not the "norm," but it's the question we've been discussing.

If there's is a level of development that a fetus would more likely survive being removed from the womb - then I think it's common sense that about 99.9% of women realize that they host pretty much a full matured fetus. And they'll follow through with giving birth.

Reproductive issues like prenatal, birthing, and post-natal care (where available) are between a woman and her medical providers.

I think if you look at Canada's methods of dealing with such matters, you'll find that after a fetus reaches a certain level of development, most doctors simply refuse to provide in services that would possibly result in the demise of a virtual mature fetus...despite there being no restrictions.

I've been participating in this forum a fairly long time and nobody had seem me post, kill the little 38 week old bastards at will, but government doesn't need to be involved with telling women how many children they should or shouldn't have or intervene in the many possible health consequences of being pregnant.

Click to expand...

I understand your feelings but why should the burden land on the doctor's shoulders? That opens the door for a doctor who doesn't care about performing late abortions to set up shop and welcome women in their third trimester.

I'm simply trying to get to the heart of posters' feelings. Suppose you had a sister who was 38 weeks along and she suddenly decided she didn't want the baby. Would you try to talk her out of aborting (assuming it was legal and someone would do it), or would you support her choice and drive her to the clinic?

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

HowardBThiname said:

I know it's not the "norm," but it's the question we've been discussing.



I understand your feelings but why should the burden land on the doctor's shoulders? That opens the door for a doctor who doesn't care about performing late abortions to set up shop and welcome women in their third trimester.

I'm simply trying to get to the heart of posters' feelings. Suppose you had a sister who was 38 weeks along and she suddenly decided she didn't want the baby. Would you try to talk her out of aborting (assuming it was legal and someone would do it), or would you support her choice and drive her to the clinic?

Click to expand...

Are you really trying to shift the goal posts to third trimester abortions and apathetic doctors? Because even in countries where abortion has no limits, abortions after 30 weeks are not the norm. Most people find it morally reprehensible and good luck finding a doctor who will do it. If a woman has a medical complications at that stage in pregnancy then it's better to just induce labor or do a c-section.

You'll be hard pressed to find a pro-choicer who supports unlimited abortion. They are rare. I'm certainly not one of those people. The vagina is not a magical canal that confers life and personhood once traversed. A 38 week fetus is no different inside or outside the uterus.

It's not about burdening doctors. Their credentials qualify them to know medical matters better than you. It's part of their professional and civic responsibility, and the oaths they took. I would much rather doctors decide than lay people with an ideological bent. We don't need to "relieve" doctors of this burden just to replace them with religious nuttos who don't know anything about medicine or social wellbeing.

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

Northern Light said:

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Of course there's a distinction. Pretending it's all the same is a total cop out from science, ethics and morals.

Click to expand...

Both you and RM have this really bad habit of declaring a counterargument invalid and then running away from the actual counterargument...

There's a difference between an ectopic pregnancy and a crackhead who didn't use birth control.

Click to expand...

Indeed there is, and I have already said that a pregnancy that would result in a dead mother or a dead baby are valid reasons to end a pregnancy. THe problem is that no abortion supporter ever stops their support for abortion there so I am not talking about our points of agreement. Also, your second statement sounds creepily like it was pulled from a eugenics pamphlet.

There's a difference between a rape victim and someone who simply can't keep their legs shut.

Click to expand...

Indeed. That doesn't mean there is a difference in the value of the lives in their wombs, though.

There's a difference between a planned pregnancy and a family of 10 who doesn't want more children.

Click to expand...

Indeed. That doesn't mean there is a difference in the value of the lives in their wombs, though.

There is always a difference.

Click to expand...

There is a difference in the mothers, no doubt. That doesn't mean that the lives in their wombs have different values. You have to actually argue the different values in the unborn, or a universal lack of value of the unborn, for your point to be worthy of considering, otherwise your distinctions are useless emotionalism.

Our society does not value universal right to life in any way.

Click to expand...

False.

We have murder laws but then we have wars.

Click to expand...

Right to life isn't a guarantee of life. We have specific laws written to delineate when a life can be taken, and generally those laws boil down to whether or not the life in question is bent on denying others of the right to life.

Some want to stop abortion but then allow capital punishment.

Click to expand...

Indeed, and I am not one of them.

There is ALWAYS a distinction.

Click to expand...

But you aren't arguing a distinction. Your argument is an appeal to the rights of the mother against government intrusion and against the rights of the unborn against being killed. It ALWAYS boils down to whether you view the unborn as humans deserving of protections, otherwise your argument is self defeating since you can't argue an immutable right of the woman while arguing the other human in the question can have their rights removed. To have a logically consistent argument you would need to argue that the unborn human is in fact not human, otherwise the argument of the rights of the mother would be subject to the same whimes you give the life of her child.

The problem is, and I think you realize this, there is no rational argument to prove the unborn child isn't a living human, and therefor no rational argument for denying them rights.

Pretending there isn't is precisely why the courts tear the pro-life to shreds every time.

Click to expand...

Again, no, the courts don't "tear pro-life to shreds", that is simply not true. THe rulings are deeply divided and along ideological battle lines, and the most recent challenges to abortion law have been wins for the pro-life side.

You want to boil reality down to black and white but it never will be. That's why your only hope is an ideological takeover, rather than secular evidence. On secular grounds the pro-life lose every time.

Click to expand...

I am boiling my argument down to legal philosophy and science since that is the real meat of the abortion debate.

I have no interest in when life begins or ends. It's 100% irrelevant.

Click to expand...

LOL. It is the whole point.

I will address the rest later as I have time.

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

jmotivator said:

You have gotten it wrong, surprise, surprise. While the population differentiated from north to south on slavery, it was not as much a moral differentiation as you seem to think, and federal courts, and the federal government upheld slavery for 70 years. The final fix for slavery wasn't a correction in the federal court, either, it was an amendment.

Roe .v Wade has enjoyed a progressive court through most of its challenges, but that won't be the case much longer. And these rulings aren't the "smack down" that you seem to believe. They were mostly 5-4 decisions which the decision going mostly towards the ideological majority on the court. That being said, times they are a'changing. Partial birth abortion restrictions were upheld by the court in 2006. Likewise, recently, expansions of the requirement for informed consent as established in Casey were upheld on appeal.

I know that pro-abortion folks have been taught that SCOTUS has vaulted the pro-abortion position, but that is far from true. The law has persisted more due to the ideological balance on the court than on overwhelming merit of the argument in favor of legal abortion.

Click to expand...

Balonly ....Roe v Wade was a 7 to 2 decision with the majority of Justices who were appointed by Republican Presidents .

Partial Birth abortions were just a type of a D and E abortion that kept the fetus intact instead of having to remove remove the fetus in pieces. Partial Birth abortions are still allowed in cases where the fetus is dead before removal of the fetus begins.

The undue burden was upheld in Whole Woman's Health ruling.
The Court ruled in June 2016, 5-3 that Texas cannot place restrictions on the delivery of abortion services that create an undue burden for women seeking an abortion.

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

HowardBThiname said:

I know it's not the "norm," but it's the question we've been discussing.


I understand your feelings but why should the burden land on the doctor's shoulders? That opens the door for a doctor who doesn't care about performing late abortions to set up shop and welcome women in their third trimester.

I'm simply trying to get to the heart of posters' feelings. Suppose you had a sister who was 38 weeks along and she suddenly decided she didn't want the baby. Would you try to talk her out of aborting (assuming it was legal and someone would do it), or would you support her choice and drive her to the clinic?

Click to expand...

Are you still asking me such a question after my previous post? Seriously?

And you're forecasting a potential future issue about what doctors might do - is a total waste of mind energy.

This isn't abort feelings. It's about the ability of most people applying logic and moral reasoning that's congruent to there belief systems. Women aren't to forced to have abortions. And the thing about pregnancy is that they're unpredictable in terms of health consequences for women and thousands of women die each year from complications caused by pregnancy.

Most conceptions are actually brought to full term. Women have a handle own their reproductive roles. Most make responsible decisions regarding their pregnancies whether that involves bringing their pregnancies to full or when choosing to abort. Late term abortion are rare - and that will remain to be regardless of laws and restrictions.

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

minnie616 said:

Balonly ....Roe v Wade was a 7 to 2 decision with the majority of Justices who were appointed by Republican Presidents .

Partial Birth abortions were just a type of a D and E abortion that kept the fetus intact instead of having to remove remove the fetus in pieces. Partial Birth abortions are still allowed in cases where the fetus is dead before removal of the fetus begins.

The undue burden was upheld in Whole Woman's Health ruling.
The Court ruled in June 2016, 5-3 that Texas cannot place restrictions on the delivery of abortion services that create an undue burden for women seeking an abortion.

Click to expand...

:applaud

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

Northern Light said:

Are you really trying to shift the goal posts to third trimester abortions and apathetic doctors? Because even in countries where abortion has no limits, abortions after 30 weeks are not the norm. Most people find it morally reprehensible and good luck finding a doctor who will do it. If a woman has a medical complications at that stage in pregnancy then it's better to just induce labor or do a c-section.

Click to expand...

I'm not shifting any goal posts. We've been discussing third trimester abortions for weeks. You just jumped in late in the game.

You'll be hard pressed to find a pro-choicer who supports unlimited abortion. They are rare. I'm certainly not one of those people. The vagina is not a magical canal that confers life and personhood once traversed. A 38 week fetus is no different inside or outside the uterus.

Click to expand...

I agree but we have a couple here who support aborting at that time based on some odd theories. I'm just trying to pin down individual opinions.

It's not about burdening doctors. Their credentials qualify them to know medical matters better than you. It's part of their professional and civic responsibility, and the oaths they took. I would much rather doctors decide than lay people with an ideological bent. We don't need to "relieve" doctors of this burden just to replace them with religious nuttos who don't know anything about medicine or social wellbeing.

Click to expand...

Not sure where you dredged up the "religious nuttos" thing. Ethics is not based on religion -- not to most at any rate. Not to me -- I've been an atheist for a long time. But, you have stated here what others are afraid to state -- that you would not support a late term abort for no good reason. Now, instead of leaving that up to a doctor to decide, the best society can do is to set an ethical standard to follow.

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

Removable Mind said:

Are you still asking me such a question after my previous post? Seriously?

Click to expand...

Yes, I am asking you -- and you are copping out. So, I'll ask again.

Suppose you had a sister who was 38 weeks along and she suddenly decided she didn't want the baby. Would you try to talk her out of aborting (assuming it was legal and someone would do it), or would you support her choice and drive her to the clinic?​

And you're forecasting a potential future issue about what doctors might do - is a total waste of mind energy.

This isn't abort feelings. It's about the ability of most people applying logic and moral reasoning that's congruent to there belief systems. Women aren't to forced to have abortions. And the thing about pregnancy is that they're unpredictable in terms of health consequences for women and thousands of women die each year from complications caused by pregnancy.

Click to expand...

None of this is relevant to what I'm trying to get at, which is your personal opinion of the right or wrong of very late term abortion. And, it's not wrong to foresee potential issues that might arise. That's why I asked about Canada's laws concerning cloning human beings. Those laws are based on forecasting future potential issues that might cross ethical boundaries.

It's a thing. It happens. More often than you might know.

Most conceptions are actually brought to full term. Women have a handle own their reproductive roles. Most make responsible decisions regarding their pregnancies whether that involves bringing their pregnancies to full or when choosing to abort. Late term abortion are rare - and that will remain to be regardless of laws and restrictions.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree with this but answer the question I posed about your sister. There's a lot of side-stepping going on here.

Just because late-term abortions are rare does not mean they don't need to be regulated. Have you ever stopped to think that perhaps because they're regulated (by law in the States and by doctor choice in Canada) that they are rare? If a woman can't abort - of course it's going to be rare. That just makes sense.

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

This case in Canada exemplifies why not having clear-cut guidelines on late term abortion is ridiculous. Currently, Canada allows the decision to be made between a woman and her doctor, but in this case - a 35 week gestational abortion - the doctors (and the facility) refused to abort because the woman's reasons did not meet their criteria for aborting so late.

The fetus had "abnormalities" that the mother would not define, but they didn't meet the criteria of "serious congenital anomalies" and "exceptional" circumstances set forth by the physician's board.

She was turned down by one facility at 30 weeks and then she was turned down by another. She finally hired a lawyer and they arranged for a doctor to terminate the pregnancy at 35 weeks.

That's the kind of thing that happens when there are no clear-cut regulations.

Woman's request for late-term abortion blocked by MUHC - Montreal - CBC News

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

minnie616 said:

Balonly ....Roe v Wade was a 7 to 2 decision with the majority of Justices who were appointed by Republican Presidents .

Click to expand...

Roe v Wade was also not directly about abortion, it was about privacy. The ruling was that any attempt to police abortion law would constitute a violation of privacy. Also the 7-2 split was still ideological. But the statement I was referring to was the silly hyperbole of challenges to Roe being "slammed" or "beaten" or whatever terminology was used. They weren't. The challenges have been getting more narrow, and in the last decade the challenges have actually succeeded.

In my opinion the real civil rights movement of the last 30 years has been for the rights of the unborn. It has been a slow fight, but it is progressing. In fact, minority voters who are pro-life are increasingly seeing abortion as a more important issue while the Democrats are pushing for purity tests for all future Democratic candidates.

Partial Birth abortions were just a type of a D and E abortion that kept the fetus intact instead of having to remove remove the fetus in pieces. Partial Birth abortions are still allowed in cases where the fetus is dead before removal of the fetus begins.

Click to expand...

"Partial Birth Abortion" refers to any procedure where the baby is killed after being partially extracted alive. So no, there is no "partial birth abortion" if the baby is dead before extraction begins.

In fact, the only real reason for intact extraction of a baby that died in utero is when the mother requests an intact baby for grieving purposes... which would suggest that the procedure you describe has nothing to do with abortion to begin with. If the mother wanted to kill her baby then the baby would be chopped into pieces, the head deflated by sucking it's brain out, and then plucked out.

The undue burden was upheld in Whole Woman's Health ruling.
The Court ruled in June 2016, 5-3 that Texas cannot place restrictions on the delivery of abortion services that create an undue burden for women seeking an abortion.

Click to expand...

The SCOTUS ruled against Planned Parenthood in the Casey decision.

The ruling you reference is a good example of what I was talking about with regard to the duplicitous nature of the abortion movement. They fought AGAINST mandating better care and more precaution for abortion clinics. Had it been a Republican arguing against better care for women they'd be excoriated, but the pro-abortion sheep applaud it when Planned Parenthood pushes for dirtier clinics with less access to medical care...

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

HowardBThiname said:

Yes, I am asking you -- and you are copping out

Click to expand...

This is a very distinct trend among the pro-choice people on this forum. When faced with a tough question they will just dismiss it as being irrelevant. They are all for inalienable rights until challenged ... then rights are unimportant, they are all for labeling the unborn in non-human terms until faced with the science... then the fact that the unborn are living humans is unimportant, they are all for arguing that SCOTUS has set a precedent until faced with actual case history ... and then the law is unimportant. I mean the last one is really the most bizarre since the whole argument is that pro-choice is the law ... but then they deny the very foundation of law that lends the pro-choice argument any legal gravitas.

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

HowardBThiname said:

I'm not shifting any goal posts. We've been discussing third trimester abortions for weeks. You just jumped in late in the game.



I agree but we have a couple here who support aborting at that time based on some odd theories. I'm just trying to pin down individual opinions.



Not sure where you dredged up the "religious nuttos" thing. Ethics is not based on religion -- not to most at any rate. Not to me -- I've been an atheist for a long time. But, you have stated here what others are afraid to state -- that you would not support a late term abort for no good reason. Now, instead of leaving that up to a doctor to decide, the best society can do is to set an ethical standard to follow.

Click to expand...

I don't support third term abortions except in cases of the woman's health or the health of the fetus.

I just don't see the need for a law prohibiting third term abortions.

The only reason third term abortions take place are for health reasons.

You seem to think a third term abortion law is necessary.

I have no objection to the 43 ( ?) states that put in the feel good law banning third term abortions ( exception life/irrepable health of woman ) I just don't see theym as necessary.

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

minnie616 said:

I don't support third term abortions except in cases of the woman's health or the health of the fetus.

I just don't see the need for a law prohibiting third term abortions.

The only reason third term abortions take place are for health reasons.

You seem to think a third term abortion law is necessary.

I have no objection to the 43 ( ?) states that put in the feel good law banning third term abortions ( exception life/irrepable health of woman ) I just don't see theym as necessary.

Click to expand...

I think these "feel good" laws detract from pragmatic discussions to drastically decrease abortion rates.

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

minnie616 said:

I don't support third term abortions except in cases of the woman's health or the health of the fetus.

Click to expand...

You've actually been one of the more forthcoming posters and I appreciate that.

I just don't see the need for a law prohibiting third term abortions.

The only reason third term abortions take place are for health reasons.

You seem to think a third term abortion law is necessary.

Click to expand...

I'm not saying they should be prohibited, but they should be regulated. The story I posted of what happened to the Canadian woman was preventable if only Canada put clear-cut directives in place. In her case, and I'm sure she's not the only one, the doctors were burdened with making a decision, and they decided not to perform a late term abortion. She was turned down more than once because she did not meet physician criteria. She actually had to file a suit, which pushed the abortion back to 35 weeks.

That should not have happened, and it would not have happened if there were clear-cut guidelines. They won't tell us what the fetus' "abnormalities" were, but whatever they were, they did not meet the physicians' criteria.

I think you'll agree with me that a 30-week abortion is risky, but a 35-week abortion is even more risky. Yet, Canada's law put the woman in that position.

I have no objection to the 43 ( ?) states that put in the feel good law banning third term abortions ( exception life/irrepable health of woman ) I just don't see theym as necessary.

Click to expand...

Don't those laws also allow for abortion on the grounds of a damaged fetus?

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

jmotivator said:

Roe v Wade was also not directly about abortion, it was about privacy. The ruling was that any attempt to police abortion law would constitute a violation of privacy. Also the 7-2 split was still ideological. ...

Click to expand...

Yes, Roe v Wade was more about the doctor and his/her patients right to privacy.

No , the split was not ideological.

Six of the seven justices in the majority were Republican appointees. The only Democrat appointee, Byron White, voted against Roe v. Wade.

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

jmotivator said:

?..


The SCOTUS ruled against Planned Parenthood in the Casey decision.

...

Click to expand...

Not so even with an extreamly conservative SCOTUS the Justices still had to recognize the right to privacy and could not over rule Roe Wade , the best the could up was undue burden and that came back and bit Texas lawmakers in the Whole Woman's Supreme Court case in June 2016.

Re: Casey:

The Court's plurality opinion upheld the constitutional right to have an abortion while altering the standard for analyzing restrictions on that right, crafting the "undue burden" standard for abortion restrictions.

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

year2late said:

I think these "feel good" laws detract from pragmatic discussions to drastically decrease abortion rates.

Click to expand...

What pragmatic ideas do you know of to "drastically decrease abortion rates?"

I doubt the "feel good" laws detract from those ideas at all. In fact, I think they're in two completely separate areas. The laws restrict late term abortions in some cases, while, if you really want to decrease abortions, it's going to be by better educating people about birth control.

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

HowardBThiname said:

You've actually been one of the more forthcoming posters and I appreciate that.



I'm not saying they should be prohibited, but they should be regulated. The story I posted of what happened to the Canadian woman was preventable if only Canada put clear-cut directives in place. In her case, and I'm sure she's not the only one, the doctors were burdened with making a decision, and they decided not to perform a late term abortion. She was turned down more than once because she did not meet physician criteria. She actually had to file a suit, which pushed the abortion back to 35 weeks.

That should not have happened, and it would not have happened if there were clear-cut guidelines. They won't tell us what the fetus' "abnormalities" were, but whatever they were, they did not meet the physicians' criteria.

I think you'll agree with me that a 30-week abortion is risky, but a 35-week abortion is even more risky. Yet, Canada's law put the woman in that position.



Don't those laws also allow for abortion on the grounds of a damaged fetus?

Click to expand...

No, they do not allow for a damaged fetus.
They allow for a non viablibe fetus as a non viablible fetus puts the woman at risk for a life threatening infection.

Doctors usually perform ultrasounds between 18 to 20 weeks looking for fetal abnormalities. If the fetus has abnormalities that only the gives the woman/couple and doctor a few weeks for more testing to determine how serious and to arrange an abortion before 24 window ( in states with a 20 week window the woman will often have to travel to another state).

The vast majority of abortions between 20 and 24 weeks are because of fetal abnormalies.

Remember my abortion stats from Kansas in 2008?

There were 323 abortions that took place at or after 22 weeks gestation.

131 were because the fetus was non viable ( it was dead, dying, so malformed it would not live more than a few minutes or hours.)

The other 192 abortions were because irreparable damage to a major bodiliy function ( kidney damage , liver damage , stroke, heart attack, paralysis from the neck down, etc. ) would occur if the pregnancy continued.

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

jmotivator said:

This is a very distinct trend among the pro-choice people on this forum. When faced with a tough question they will just dismiss it as being irrelevant. They are all for inalienable rights until challenged ... then rights are unimportant, they are all for labeling the unborn in non-human terms until faced with the science... then the fact that the unborn are living humans is unimportant, they are all for arguing that SCOTUS has set a precedent until faced with actual case history ... and then the law is unimportant. I mean the last one is really the most bizarre since the whole argument is that pro-choice is the law ... but then they deny the very foundation of law that lends the pro-choice argument any legal gravitas.

Click to expand...

Reality is difficult for so many pro-life. Their arguments entail every possible topic but the most important.

Want to challenge yourself? You know make an honest effort to research and examine real life dilemmas for born persons related to issues around abortion.

Can you name say 3 possible negative unintended consequences to women, men, and society that are inevitable if a zygote up to seconds before birth if the yet to be born are given personhood rights?

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

HowardBThiname said:

What pragmatic ideas do you know of to "drastically decrease abortion rates?"

I doubt the "feel good" laws detract from those ideas at all. In fact, I think they're in two completely separate areas. The laws restrict late term abortions in some cases, while, if you really want to decrease abortions, it's going to be by better educating people about birth control.

Click to expand...

Improving accessibility and availability of the most reliable birth control methods. People who are at most risk for abortion - too rich for Medicaid, too poor for insurance should be able to be educated on such methods and be able to afford them.

Development of long tern birth control options for men.

The harder pragmatic solution is to turn unwanted pregnancy into wanted pregnancy. But that would require many on the pro-life side to understand when they are spewing ignorant crap about "abortion for convenience" that frequently it is more about true fear of inability to maintain a safe secure place to live and keep the utilities on. Interrupting school may mean a life of minimum wage jobs and insecure surroundings. If the person already is stuck in that cycle there is even less hope of clawing her way out while pregnant. Finding ways to keep a family safe, secure, and with adequate healthcare to assure medical safety and well being would be helpful.

The reality is that efforts to make abortion illegal are as far from pragmatism as you can get.

It is almost like people think that making abortions illegal will seriously reduce the numbers of abortions.

If they were made illegal there would be no "back alley" abortions. Your local pusher would get the meds for you. Perhaps a less safe option...but as we saw when abortion were illegal...desperate (yes desperate, not simply inconvenienced)will take desperate measures.
For some women, abortions might even become MORE accessible....and cheaper.

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

HowardBThiname said:

This case in Canada exemplifies why not having clear-cut guidelines on late term abortion is ridiculous. Currently, Canada allows the decision to be made between a woman and her doctor, but in this case - a 35 week gestational abortion - the doctors (and the facility) refused to abort because the woman's reasons did not meet their criteria for aborting so late.

The fetus had "abnormalities" that the mother would not define, but they didn't meet the criteria of "serious congenital anomalies" and "exceptional" circumstances set forth by the physician's board.

She was turned down by one facility at 30 weeks and then she was turned down by another. She finally hired a lawyer and they arranged for a doctor to terminate the pregnancy at 35 weeks.

That's the kind of thing that happens when there are no clear-cut regulations.

Woman's request for late-term abortion blocked by MUHC - Montreal - CBC News

Click to expand...

"I didn't want my child to suffer their whole life," she said.

Click to expand...

This is not an elective abortion. It's an abortion for fetal anomaly.

Funny how you didn't mention this:

Dr. Yves Robert, secretary of Quebec's College of Physicians, said requests for abortions after 23 weeks are rare.

Click to expand...

Women do NOT gestate to 30 weeks (when this woman first requested a termination) just to abort without a compelling reason. Abortion at this stage is a lot more involved than a vacuuming out of the uterus or taking a couple pills and expelling the uterine contents.

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

HowardBThiname said:

You've actually been one of the more forthcoming posters and I appreciate that.



I'm not saying they should be prohibited, but they should be regulated. The story I posted of what happened to the Canadian woman was preventable if only Canada put clear-cut directives in place. In her case, and I'm sure she's not the only one, the doctors were burdened with making a decision, and they decided not to perform a late term abortion. She was turned down more than once because she did not meet physician criteria. She actually had to file a suit, which pushed the abortion back to 35 weeks.

That should not have happened, and it would not have happened if there were clear-cut guidelines. They won't tell us what the fetus' "abnormalities" were, but whatever they were, they did not meet the physicians' criteria.

Click to expand...

Did you even read the whole article? Quebec's College of Physicians *is* updating it's guidelines. This is how it should be - doctors and their governing bodies deciding policy, not the govt.

But Robert said the college is in the midst of updating its guidelines, which date back to the mid-2000s, to ensure women have access to an abortion in Quebec.

Click to expand...

And if the woman wants to keep the specifics of her situation out of the public eye, that is her business.

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

Scrabaholic said:

This is not an elective abortion. It's an abortion for fetal anomaly.

Funny how you didn't mention this:


Women do NOT gestate to 30 weeks (when this woman first requested a termination) just to abort without a compelling reason. Abortion at this stage is a lot more involved than a vacuuming out of the uterus or taking a couple pills and expelling the uterine contents.

Click to expand...

It is too bad they discovered the anomaly so late in pregnacy. Don't doctor's in Canada do an ultrasound around 18 to 20 weeks looking for fetal anomalies ?

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

jmotivator said:

So out of curiosity, is it your position that life has always existed? If only life can create life then where did life start?
.

Click to expand...

You want to revert to an arguement on abiogenesis? And no my position is that the pro life use of an arbitrary point of life beginning is nothing more than a red herring to take attention away from the fact that they just want to control the rights of others.

On your specific point, life did create life in the case of human conception. A living woman and a living man had sex, and in the process they created an environment for their gametes to commingle, when joined together, these gametes create another human life. Neither Gamete on its own meets the criteria of being a living organism.

Click to expand...

Yet they fall into any of the definitions of living so far. As well as the fact that the point of conception they are just cells dividing which falls into your attempt to call it not life.

There is DNA, I never said their wasn't. The human gametes (the egg and the sperm) carry the human genetic code, but only carry half of the chromosomes necessary to perform the functions of a living organism. Gametes are haploid (half) parts of the Human diploid (two) chromosomes. So an egg and a sperm carry one set of chromosomes, and on conception the single cell has the two chromosomes that are necessary for the human life to begin. Upon becoming diploid, the single cell shows all characteristics of a living organism

Click to expand...

.
Which makes my point that you simply pick an arbitrary point. Just as relevnt to say the starting point is when the brain forms or when the fetus is developed enough to live outside the womb.

That is absolutely hilarious. There are only a few people I have met online who are as clueless on even the most basic concepts of biology as you are.

Click to expand...

Coming from the one who has failed to give any definition of life that makes any sense to create a division between life and not life.

My arguments are logically consistent and also correct. I realize many people of both sexes have convinced themselves of very illogical positions in order to justify their support for legalized abortion... they are just incorrect and can't defend their positions beyond illogical and wholly inconsistent appeals to emotion or troublingly nefarious rejections of human rights

Click to expand...

No, your argument is nothing more than a poor attempt to dictate your beliefs onto others.

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

year2late said:

Improving accessibility and availability of the most reliable birth control methods. People who are at most risk for abortion - too rich for Medicaid, too poor for insurance should be able to be educated on such methods and be able to afford them.

Development of long tern birth control options for men.

The harder pragmatic solution is to turn unwanted pregnancy into wanted pregnancy. But that would require many on the pro-life side to understand when they are spewing ignorant crap about "abortion for convenience" that frequently it is more about true fear of inability to maintain a safe secure place to live and keep the utilities on. Interrupting school may mean a life of minimum wage jobs and insecure surroundings. If the person already is stuck in that cycle there is even less hope of clawing her way out while pregnant. Finding ways to keep a family safe, secure, and with adequate healthcare to assure medical safety and well being would be helpful.

The reality is that efforts to make abortion illegal are as far from pragmatism as you can get.

It is almost like people think that making abortions illegal will seriously reduce the numbers of abortions.

If they were made illegal there would be no "back alley" abortions. Your local pusher would get the meds for you. Perhaps a less safe option...but as we saw when abortion were illegal...desperate (yes desperate, not simply inconvenienced)will take desperate measures.
For some women, abortions might even become MORE accessible....and cheaper.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree with any of the methods you promote here. They all sound good. I just don't think the feel good laws are hurting us from implementing those methods.