Abortion debate thread

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

If the unborn is human then killing them for personal convenience is not - or should not - be a compelling argument.

I like to concern myself with the born. What do you do to help unwanted born children? As I've said, there are circumstance in which abortion/termination/killing my unborn child (delete as appropriate) would be the right choice not just for me but for my born children.

I don't agree with forced pregnancy and childbirth.

lazygal wrote: »

As I've said, there are circumstance in which abortion/termination/killing my unborn child (delete as appropriate) would be the right choice not just for me but for my born children.

But not the unborn child. That means that we are left with the bizarre situation where the right to life is granted based upon location. If you have passed down the birth canal your right to life is enshrined in law. If you haven't made that trip of a few inches then we may choose to kill you.

What do you think the unborn is, lazygal? Is it a clump of cells? A human? A human non-person?

lazygal wrote: »

Do you think a 14 year old pregnant child should have to have surgery like that to deliver her rapist's child?

... what are the alternatives? ... vaginal delivery, if medically safe ... or an invasive surgical procedure to kill and remove her unborn child?

Difficult choices indeed, in this hardest of hard cases.

That is one of the reasons why rape is punished by up to life imprisonment ... to make men think about their responsibilites to women ... and the enormous damage (both physical and psychological) that rape causes.

J C wrote: »

... what are the alternatives? ... vaginal delivery, if medically safe ... or an invasive surgical procedure to kill and remove her unborn child?

And BTW early abortion/termination/killing of the unborn doesn't require a surgical procedure, unlike later term abortions/terminations/killing and removing the unborn child. Most abortions/terminations/killing of the unborn take place before 12 weeks.

Zombrex wrote: »

I'm not a particular fan of Planned Parenthood, but they didn't "endorce post birth abortion"

The Planned Parenthood representative was discussing a law that would require the abortion doctor to call for emergency medical attention for foetus that were still alive after the abortion.

Sounds reasonable, who would object to that, right? Well the issue that is not reported in any of the anti-abortion websites is that all this is taking place in a state where abortions after 24 weeks are illegal anyway.

The odds of a foetus surviving or being viable if they are aborted before 24 weeks are tiny. But this law would require doctors to call for medical attention if the foetus is alive at the time, irrespective of whether the doctor believes the foetus is viable.

Now if you are having a heart attack, or have just been in a car crash, or any other reason that you need urgent medical attention, would you be happy that the ambulance that is supposed to be on its way to you was actually tracing out to an abortion clinic in order to "save" a 18 week old foetus that probably has about 3 minutes of life no matter what they do anyway

This is why the Planned Parenthood representative said the decision should be left up to the mother and the doctor. If the doctor assess that the foetus is alive and viable then under medical practice he is required to call for emergency medical attention anyway.

If the doctor decides the foetus is not viable but the mother for some reason desperately wants him to try and save it anyway, he can also call for emergency medical care.

But when the foetus isn't viable what is the purpose of having a law that requires that resources are wasted attempting to save a foetus that is not savable at the expense of other Flordians who may require medical attention much more urgently than a 18 week old clump of cells.

Spinning this as Planned Parenthood (which are a rather unsaviourable organization, lets be honest) as supporting or calling for infanticide is very disingenious of the anti-abortion side.

But then I suppose when you have already lost the argument you get desperate to paint your opponents in the worst possible light.

I think there are a number of problems with this post.

When the Pland Parenthood (PP) lobbyist, Alisa LaPolt Snow, was asked a direct question she gave a rather straightforward answer. In cases of a failed abortions the decision on the fate of the child, she contended, rests with "the woman, the family and the physician". The rather obvious point being made by LaPolt Snow is that that the baby should not have an automatic right to life just because it has change geographical location from inside the womb to outside.

As this legislation is currently written, we believe that it attempts to interfere with a woman’s ability to make her own personal medical decisions with her physician, her family and her faith.

Now it is possible that she is an extraordinarily bad communicator and we should actually reinterpret her words to mean something like "doctors should protect the life of the born at all costs". However, subsequent press releases from PP were to my mind as clear as mud, and they did not distance themselves from what LaPolt Snow said.

For context, LaPolt Snow was contesting the now approved Senate Bill 1636 (2013) which states:

"Infants Born Alive; Providing that an infant born alive during or immediately after an attempted abortion is entitled to the same rights, powers, and privileges as any other child born alive in the course of natural birth; requiring health care practitioners to preserve the life and health of such an infant born alive, if possible; providing for the transport and admittance of an infant born alive to a hospital; requiring a health care practitioner or certain employees who have knowledge of any violations with respect to infants born alive after an attempted abortion to report those violations to the Department of Health, etc."

Part of the problem is that PP, the largest abortion provider in the US, has in the past admitted that they induce labour in women with babies aged 22+ weeks and that these babies die after birth. This is what happens in abortion clinics (at least some of them) and the words of LaPolt Snow should therefore be taken at face value. If this is not the promotion and practice of infanticide - defined as the killing of a newborn within a certain time frame of birth - then I don't know what is.

Speaking of definitions, I believe that it is definitionally incorrect to refer to the born as a fetus. The word fetus refers to the unborn and only the unborn. The Latin meaning is something along the lines of "the young in the womb". In these type of conversations I tend to avoid using the word fetus, not because it is inherently unhelpful, because the assumption made by some is that the unborn is just a "clump of cells" - a term you have already used - and fetus is good way of getting this accross. The thing is, we are all clumps of cells in some sense. So the distinction is rather meaningless. Again, it all comes down to what the unborn is.

For arguments sake I'll be extremely charitable and give PP the benefit of the doubt and say that they would never condone or practice abortion after the magical 24 week period has been reached. Dealing with premature births (in which I would count failed abortions) you are correct that the odds of survival for the child are not good before 24 weeks. According to Wikipedia the survival rates for babies born between 22 and 23 weeks can be anything from as low as 0% all the way up to 35%. I would imagine that that the odds of survival in babies that have survived abortion attempts are lower because of the physical trauma involved in the procedure. Now that those admittedly aren't great odds, but I personally wouldn't call them "tiny".

Finally, and in brief -

1) It's not a case of wasting resources. Medical staff are there to care for their patient whether this patient is expected to die in 5 minutes or make a full recovery. That is it. It is not a waste of resources.

2) Beyond the emergency departments in hospitals (not to be confused with abortion clinics, btw), it is not quite so clear cut that Florida law prior to this bill requires a physician to call for medical assistance in the case of children who survive an abortion attempt. More on this about 30 - 34 mins into the hearing. Alisa LaPolt Snow appears about 40 mins in.

You are correct in one thing - PP are a very unsavoury organisation. More is the pitty that they are state funded and that Obama, in a recent PP event, lavished them with praise without ever mentioning the thing they do most - abort abort children.

@ Jernal
I still want to reply to you about Singer. I think it may be via PM at this stage.

J C wrote: »

We are not forcing the woman to have a child to teach her about the consequence of sex ... we are only asking her to have the child to save a Human life.

Should humans be obliged to donate organs, blood and bone marrow to save another human life, even if there are short or long term health consequences for the donors and its against their wishes, and might possibly cause them to feel suicidal?

If abortion/termination/killing the unborn is illegal, except in the event of a real and substantial risk to a woman's life, one is not asking but forcing women to gestate and birth children regardless of their wishes, its not "asking her to have the child". If your only option under the law is to remain pregnant, that is not being asked to do something, its being forced to do something.

J C wrote: »

Chemical abortion may be less physically onerous than surgery ... but it isn't trauma free. Women know they are pregnant at the time ... and they know that their child is being deliberately killed.

And some women are perfectly fine with having the abortion/termination/killing their child deliberately. There's circumstances in which I would chose abortion/termination/killing my unborn child, and I would find it significantly less traumatic than continuing an unwanted pregnancy or gestating a foetus with fatal abnormalities to full term.

Not every woman finds abortion/termination/killing the unborn a traumatic event that causes them lifelong suffering. Some move on perfectly well and don't dwell on it, the same way not every woman who miscarries reacts the same way. Pregnancy and birth can come with its own life long physical and mental challenges, and is not trauma free.

lazygal wrote: »

Should humans be obliged to donate organs, blood and bone marrow to save another human life, even if there are short or long term health consequences for the donors and its against their wishes, and might possibly cause them to feel suicidal?

There is no moral obligation on somebody to donate body parts ... even if it results in death as an indirect consequence.
However, there is a moral responsibility to not directly kill somebody - except where they are threatening the life of others and there is no other practical alternative.

lazygal wrote: »

If abortion/termination/killing the unborn is illegal, except in the event of a real and substantial risk to a woman's life, one is not asking but forcing women to gestate and birth children regardless of their wishes, its not "asking her to have the child". If your only option under the law is to remain pregnant, that is not being asked to do something, its being forced to do something.

... 'forcing' only in the sense that, if I have a child in my care ... I am 'forced' not to kill them ... even if they create all kinds of problems for me.
Law 'forces' us to do many morally responsible things for the good of others ... and ultimately ourselves.
Most people do these things naturally ... but law is correctly there to deal with people who don't.

lazygal wrote: »

Its a foetus. I have one in my uterus right now, as it happens. I had one in there last year too. And I will not put my life at risk - if this foetus was causing me possible life threatening complications I'd have a termination because I wouldn't want to leave my born child without a mother.

Well congratulations! To clarify, I'm specifically talking about the elective abortion. I'm not arguing for abortion under no circumstances.

lazygal wrote: »

There's no comparison between my living, breathing child in the cot sleeping now and the foetus in my womb, and to suggest they are precisely the same is not how I see it.

I contend there is. Do you want to know why?

lazygal wrote: »

And by the way not every birth involves a trip down the birth canal. You do realise some women have to deliver via invasive abdominal surgery, don't you? Do you agree with forcing women to undergo abdominal surgery to deliver a child they don't want safely? I had to have a c-section, otherwise me and my child would have been in serious danger with a high likelihood of death if anything went wrong with a vaginal birth. Do you think a 14 year old pregnant child should have to have surgery like that to deliver her rapist's child?

Yes, I'm aware of that not every birth involves a trip down the birth canal. My phrase was illustrative of what I see as the arbitrary nature of granting/ denying the right to life based upon factors like location in relation to the womb. It was not a description of the nature of all births. I'm also aware that all surgery is invasive, not just c-sections.

Now the question you are asking me is should women "be forced" to undergo c-sections. I think the phrasing is unhelpful. But let me answer this way - if the unborn is human then I think that very little can justify the murder or this boy or girl.

Now let me ask you a question (and this can probably be asked of Zombrex from his response a couple of pages back). If we agree for a moment that the unborn is human does the bodily autonomy of the mother always trump the unborn's life?

And again, can you please tell me what you think the unborn is? The word fetus, as I've already mentioned, refers to an offspring growing in the womb, so that doesn't really help me understand your perspective.

nowanathiest wrote: »

never has the saying "I'm alright Jack" resonated so loudly as on this thread.........perhaps it should be renamed "a pro-life thread - for those who are indifferent, uncaring and downright misogynistic.........

If any posters were indifferent, uncaring and downright misogynistic ... they wouldn't bother posting on this thread.
People who are pro-life are just as concerned, in most cases even more so, about the life and welfare of the mother.
I know that when my wife was pregnant, her life and welfare was my top priority, followed by the life and welfare of our unborn child.

Nobody is suggesting that a termination is never required ... some are unfortunately necessary - and nobody is suggesting that doctors should sit on their hands and let a pregnant woman needlessy die.

I don't envy doctors in all of this, they would need the wisdom of Solomon, in some cases.
As a man, I'm not even going to begin to say that I understand what some women go through with unwanted pregnancies ... but as a man, I do criticise any man who doesn't 'step up to the plate' and support their pregnant girlfriends and wives in going through with a pregnancy that they are also responsible for.