Woman uploads abortion video - goes viral

steddyeddy · 10-05-2014 10:38AM

Muise... wrote: »

It's a description, not a policy-making argument.

As has been pointed out numerous times, an abortion of pregnancy at 38 weeks is the same as an early induced delivery.

You say pointed out. You realise that this is your opinion. It's not a fact. Scientific descriptions force medical policy in every possible way. Based on the parasite criteria there is no scientific reason to disallow late abortions.

GalwayGuy2 · 10-05-2014 10:38AM

Am I rare among the pro-choicers?

I do see it as akin to losing a life, but not murder.

But I deliberately ignore that and am still pro-choice?

I don't view it as murder, but it is the loss of a potential lifeform.

Muise... · 10-05-2014 10:39AM

steddyeddy wrote: »

You say pointed out. You realise that this is your opinion. It's not a fact. Scientific descriptions force medical policy in every possible way. Based on the parasite criteria there is no scientific reason to disallow late abortions.

It's not my opinion - it is what happens.

steddyeddy · 10-05-2014 10:40AM

Chattastrophe! wrote: »

Your comparisons are getting more and more ridiculous.

How many pro-choice people do you know who support abortions at 38 weeks? Seriously? What an absolute joke.

I'm pro choice but that's the argument the poster is trying to make. If you class a developing foetus as a parasite then late stage abortions should be allowed.

steddyeddy · 10-05-2014 10:42AM

Muise... wrote: »

It's not my opinion - it is what happens.

You said it's the same. Why is it worse to Abort a 38 week old parasite?

Muise... · 10-05-2014 10:42AM

steddyeddy wrote: »

I'm pro choice but that's the argument the poster is trying to make. If you class a developing foetus as a parasite then late stage abortions should be allowed.

Gaping hole in that logic there. Classifying something as parasitic does not mean anything more than classification.

steddyeddy · 10-05-2014 10:43AM

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

Am I rare among the pro-choicers?

I do see it as akin to losing a life, but not murder.

But I deliberately ignore that and am still pro-choice?

I don't view it as murder, but it is the loss of a potential lifeform.

No you're not rare. I'm the same. The emotive changing of facts to suit both sides is ridiculous. Call it what it is.

Muise... · 10-05-2014 10:44AM

steddyeddy wrote: »

You say pointed out. You realise that this is your opinion. It's not a fact. Scientific descriptions force medical policy in every possible way. Based on the parasite criteria there is no scientific reason to disallow late abortions.

steddyeddy wrote: »

You said it's the same. Why is it worse to Abort a 38 week old parasite?

The abortion of a pregnancy at 38 weeks is the same as an early, induced, devlivery.

It is not done because of a classification - no abortions are, that is disingenuous of you - it is done because of medical need. And very rarely too.

steddyeddy · 10-05-2014 10:45AM

Muise... wrote: »

Gaping hole in that logic there. Classifying something as parasitic does not mean anything more than classification.

You classified its relationship to the mother as parasitic. Based on this why are some late stage abortions not allowed? Is it for emotive reasons or scientific ones?

Muise... · 10-05-2014 10:46AM

steddyeddy wrote: »

You classified its relationship to the mother as parasitic. Based on this why are some late stage abortions not allowed? Is it for emotive reasons or scientific ones?

see above.

steddyeddy · 10-05-2014 10:46AM

Muise... wrote: »

The abortion of a pregnancy at 38 weeks is the same as an early, induced, devlivery.

It is not done because of a classification - no abortions are, that is disingenuous of you - it is done because of medical need. And very rarely too.

Muise you're misunderstanding me. I am not asking what is the current policy. I'm asking why are late abortions worse based on your definition of the parasitic relationship or otherwise?

Chattastrophe! · 10-05-2014 10:46AM

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

Am I rare among the pro-choicers?

I do see it as akin to losing a life, but not murder.

But I deliberately ignore that and am still pro-choice?

I don't view it as murder, but it is the loss of a potential lifeform.

The way I see it, the woman's right to bodily integrity is far more important than that potential life.

I think abortion is generally viewed as a pretty major decision by most women. And it's rarely a happy occasion, which is why that video gets to me - it's like she's making out that it's a good positive thing, an enjoyable experience. No. If she didn't want to have a baby, she should have taken the appropriate precautions. Had she done so, I think people might be a bit more sympathetic towards her.

It doesn't stop me from being pro-choice, though. If you're going to support the right to abortion, it's not really realistic to pick and choose the cases that are "acceptable." (Personally I am fully supportive of the right to first-trimester abortion, in all cases, and I think that there are definitely circumstances where second-trimester abortion should be made available.)

_Redzer_ · 10-05-2014 10:47AM

fullaljackeen wrote: »

They're just parasites. - They're not even human. - They don't deserve rights - It's their fault - etc...

Blaming someone else, taking their rights from them, absolving your responsibility, rationalising your behaviour and reinforcing it with mob mentality.

Every civil rights issue since history has begun has had people like this trying to topple them

*insert expletives here*

See, you're derailing this with emotion and sensationalist language.

You're not looking at this rationally at all, you're making a cheap claim to feelings. That does not a good, well-rounded argument make.

What right does a blastocyst have, for example? It's not human. It's a hollow ball of embryonic stem cells that have not yet differentiated into anything. They haven't even implanted into the endometrium. The only special thing about them is that they are stem cells -that's it. You're jumping the gun way too early to claim that is "human", when it is about as characteristic of human life as your cheek cells are.

Why the need for blaming? Why the need for this emotive and sensationalist language claiming lack of rights?

What about the mother, does she not have rights?

Have you ever considered the rational reasoning for abortion?

-physically or mentally not able to endure the process.

-circumstantially not able to support the child and not being able to provide an adequate life for that child.

-finding out the foetus has a medical condition which will result in death once born, yet still having to complete the pregnancy because termination is not an option available to them.

-falling pregnant due to rape and having to cope with childbirth as well as the emotional trauma of how it came to be.

So you see, there are many legitimate and rational reasons why an abortion is the right decision and a viable option that is needed, and even then to disagree would show your complete lack of empathy for the mother herself.

Honestly, you're looking at this as black and white, good and bad with next to no regard for the actual mother and the very real circumstances she could find herself in.

steddyeddy · 10-05-2014 10:48AM

Muise... wrote: »

see above.

Yes you gave me the current policy on abortion and not your opinion.

Muise... · 10-05-2014 10:48AM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Muise you're misunderstanding me. I am not asking what is the current policy. I'm asking why are late abortions worse based on your definition of the parasitic relationship or otherwise?

Why are they worse? Let's see, why don't you knock me up twice and we'll try both and compare. You know, Science!

steddyeddy · 10-05-2014 10:50AM

Muise... wrote: »

Why are they worse? Let's see, why don't you knock me up twice and we'll try both and compare. You know, Science!

No need to get Vulgar about it. I'll drop the question. I'm pro choice as I well but I don't like some terms thrown around by both sides.

Boombastic · 10-05-2014 10:53AM

I love the old

'her body, her choice, her parasite, her rights, she should have full control'

what about late term abortions

splutter, splutter, that's not what I meant or referring to'

Grayson · 10-05-2014 10:54AM

steddyeddy wrote: »

That's extremely hypocritical. Why not after 12 weeks?

If someone was in an accident, suffered massive cranial trauma and was considered brain dead. We're talking about a case there there was no consciousness at all. Feck it, we'll say that the whole area of the brain that is used for consciousness was completely destroyed just so we can make it a clear cut case.

the physical body is only being kept alive by a machine.

Would you support the families decision to switch off the respirator?

Most people would say yes. That's because they recognise that everything that ever made that person who they are is gone. All that is in the hospital bed are the remains of a person that once was.

Now would consider it to be hypocritical of someone who said they were ok with switching off life support in that case but was against shooting someone who broke their leg?

Probably not right? One is ending life support for a body without conscientiousness, the other is killing a person.

That's how people who are pro-choice feel about abortion. A bunch of cells without sufficient neural development or neural activity is just a bunch of cells. At 9 months though that's a different matter. That's why it's ok at 8 weeks but not at 9 months.

LETHAL LADY · 10-05-2014 10:55AM

The woman in the video comes across as a major pain in the hole to me. I'm fully aware of what an abortion entails and I don't need some annoying biddy to show me. A close friend of mine had an abortion and it wasn't as simple to her as is made out by this video.

steddyeddy · 10-05-2014 10:56AM

Grayson wrote: »

If someone was in an accident, suffered massive cranial trauma and was considered brain dead. We're talking about a case there there was no consciousness at all. Feck it, we'll say that the whole area of the brain that is used for consciousness was completely destroyed just so we can make it a clear cut case.

the physical body is only being kept alive by a machine.

Would you support the families decision to switch off the respirator?

Most people would say yes. That's because they recognise that everything that ever made that person who they are is gone. All that is in the hospital bed are the remains of a person that once was.

Now would consider it to be hypocritical of someone who said they were ok with switching off life support in that case but was against shooting someone who broke their leg?

Probably not right? One is ending life support for a body without conscientiousness, the other is killing a person.

That's how people who are pro-choice feel about abortion. A bunch of cells without sufficient neural development or neural activity is just a bunch of cells. At 9 months though that's a different matter. That's why it's ok at 8 weeks but not at 9 months.

Grayson we don't know if a 12 week foetus has a consciousness but it probably doesn't.

Grayson · 10-05-2014 10:58AM

Boombastic wrote: »

I love the old

'her body, her choice, her parasite, her rights, she should have full control'

what about late term abortions

splutter, splutter, that's not what I meant or referring to'

Nobody ever has said that.

Saying that is like me saying "pro-life people want every woman to be pregnant all the time and be constantly be producing babies" It's taking the basics of what you're saying and twisting it.

You won't find a single pro choice person here that is in favor of a woman getting a termination in the 8th month.

I personally think the limit should be 16 weeks at the very most.

_Redzer_ · 10-05-2014 10:58AM

steddyeddy wrote: »

That's extremely hypocritical. Why not after 12 weeks?

It isn't hypocritical, I actually don't see it as an issue for a few weeks after that either because it is still a very early, underdeveloped foetus.

That said, when you start to go beyond that marker it makes it harder to draw the line. I am not in favour of terminations late into a pregnancy, that just doesn't sit right with me at all. People differ on where that line is drawn and when it is ok and not ok to go ahead with a termination.

My reasoning for under 12 weeks is because there is no brain activity, no neural function. Brain activity is a characteristic of life. Because of this, it should make the process easier to mark and agree on and still gives an adequate amount of time for the mother to decide her options.

I feel after this point the mother already had roughly 3 months to decide, and she she should know what she wants to do.

I think as far as regulating abortions, only allowing them under 12 weeks seems the most rational and least controversial, in my view.

I should add to that that I think terminations due to medical issues and complications should always be permitted through the entire pregnancy , which would include situations late in pregnancy where the baby would be born brain dead.
I think women should have the option to terminate their pregnancy when they receive such a diagnosis rather than going through with childbirth, which would be highly traumatic.

Grayson · 10-05-2014 11:01AM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Grayson we don't know if a 12 week foetus has a consciousness but it probably doesn't.

See, even at say 4-6 weeks, we can be 100% certain that it doesn't. but anti choice people say that at 4 weeks (or even at two weeks) that its a human being in there.
I can understand people arguing about 22-26 weeks, but 2-4 weeks? seriously?

Muise... · 10-05-2014 11:02AM

Grayson wrote: »

Nobody ever has said that.

Saying that is like me saying "pro-life people want every woman to be pregnant all the time and be constantly be producing babies" It's taking the basics of what you're saying and twisting it.

You won't find a single pro choice person here that is in favor of a woman getting a termination in the 8th month.

I personally think the limit should be 16 weeks at the very most.

Unless it is medically necessary to save the life or health of the mother. Savita Halappanavar was 17 weeks pregnant.

Boombastic · 10-05-2014 11:02AM

Grayson wrote: »

Nobody ever has said that.

Saying that is like me saying "pro-life people want every woman to be pregnant all the time and be constantly be producing babies" It's taking the basics of what you're saying and twisting it.

You won't find a single pro choice person here that is in favor of a woman getting a termination in the 8th month.

I personally think the limit should be 16 weeks at the very most.

I think you'll find there are people who support it up until the umbilical chord its cut (It may have been the other thread this was discussed)

^^^ they're you go, support already, thanks muise...!

Chattastrophe! · 10-05-2014 11:04AM

The line has to be drawn somewhere. Obviously!

I don't know how that's so difficult for some to understand?

At 38 weeks, a baby can absolutely survive on its own with minimal/no medical intervention. Very few people are going to say an abortion at that stage is OK.

In contrast, in the first trimester, when most abortions take place, the pregnancy is basically just a bunch of developing cells, with no consciousness. Certainly not capable of independent life.

For those who are vehemently pro-life - how about the morning-after pill? Do you also disagree with that? It's also halting the process, just much earlier on.

Penny Tration · 10-05-2014 11:05AM

For people who can't take the morning after pill, what about the coil being inserted up to 5 days after unprotected sex? Are pro-life people against this too?

ryan101 · 10-05-2014 11:07AM

_Redzer_ wrote: »

I think as far as regulating abortions, only allowing them under 12 weeks seems the most rational and least controversial, in my view.

Killing another human life, making it younger doesn't exonerate that.
Killing people before, or after they are born, is barbaric.

Muise... · 10-05-2014 11:07AM

Boombastic wrote: »

I think you'll find there are people who support it up until the umbilical chord its cut (It may have been the other thread this was discussed)

^^^ they're you go, support already, thanks muise...!

WTF - are you seriously saying Savita should have died?

Grayson · 10-05-2014 11:09AM

Muise... wrote: »

Unless it is medically necessary to save the life or health of the mother. Savita Halappanavar was 17 weeks pregnant.

17 weeks is still within the legal limit in countries that allow abortion and long before 8 months. I think that if there's a chance the foetus can survive then a caesarian should be attempted.

I actually did an assignment on the savita case for my masters. I read the HIQA report back to front. Although abortion is what got the publicity it was only a small issue in her treatment. UCHG fecked up so many times when they could have saved her. It's true that a termination could have saved her, but it might not have even been necessary if the hospital had treated her correctly in the first place.

I think the biggest shame wasn't that she was refused a termination, it's that even without that she should have survived and the health service let her down.

Woman uploads abortion video - goes viral

Comments