Abortion Warnings?

[Fantasea]

Originally Posted by Fantasea
Your saying it proves nothing except that you have expressed an unfounded opinion.

I asked for biological fact. I don't see it. Where is it?

Why not humor me with some biological fact? I am confident that if you had any, you'd try to bury me with it.

Well, you don't have any, eyt you claim so. So why should we bother with you? What purpose is served by any attempt at serious interaction with somebody who is not truthful?

The word "vacuous" describes your posts most accurately.

 

[Enola/Alone]

" A study published in the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry has found that women who have abortions are more likely to suffer psychological problems than those who don't."

"Those having an abortion had elevated rates of subsequent mental health problems including depression, anxiety, suicidal behaviors and substance use disorders," reports David Fergusson, a scientist at New Zealand's Christchurch School of Medicine & Health Science."

The study tracked 1,265 girls. Of the 14 perecent who sought abortions 4 in 10 later suffered from major depression, 35 percent higher than those who continued their pregnancies.

" The risk of anxiety disorders rose in a similar fashion, the study found. Women who had abortions, for instance, were twice as likely to drink alcohol at dangerous levels compared to those who did not."

"The New Zealand study echoed a 2003 report by the Elliot Institute, a nonprofit, pro-life corporation focused on post-abortion research and education. That study found that women who have abortions are 65 percent more likely to experience clinical depression than those who carry their pregnancies to term."






Should doctors be required to inform women of this before they perform an abortion? Any other medical procedure would require such a warning. If not for abortion why not?

I'm not really sure how relevent the "corelation" of Elliot Institute studies is: a pro-lifer organisation is obviously going to conduct their research in a manner that fits their purpose i.e. to make abortion look so dangerous that women won't seek the procedure.

But the study you describe doesn't prove anything because it doesn't look at the other factors in the livesof these women that could have caused the problem described. And think about some of the things that could have caused the abortions in the first place: poverty, relationship breakdown, unsafe or violent relationships, fetal deformity, pre-existing mental illness...So isn't it possible that it's things like those could be responsible for any sadness happening in the period after the abortion, and not the abortion itself? In the UK, Doctors aren't (to my knowledge) obliged to mention such studies to women because there's been just as many studies showing that abortion causes no more negative mental effects than pregnancy, although they do have to assertain that continuing the pregnancy would damage the woman's memntal health more than an abortion would.

 

[Fantasea]

Originally Posted by Fantasea
The term “abortion on demand” means that any woman, at any time during a pregnancy, for any reason or no reason at all, may abort the child she is carrying.

There are no limitations or conditions which may be imposed.

Ah, so you are talking about a fantasy, a situation that does not exist. So when somebody claim this to exist, they are, of course lying!

If you would care to define the term differently, please do so.

If you need help, a google search on the key words "abortion on demand" will produce more than 54,000 pages referencing abortion on demand. All views are represented; Pro-Life, Pro-Death, and Atheist.

 

[Fantasea]

I'm not really sure how relevent the "corelation" of Elliot Institute studies is: a pro-lifer organisation is obviously going to conduct their research in a manner that fits their purpose i.e. to make abortion look so dangerous that women won't seek the procedure.

But the study you describe doesn't prove anything because it doesn't look at the other factors in the livesof these women that could have caused the problem described. And think about some of the things that could have caused the abortions in the first place: poverty, relationship breakdown, unsafe or violent relationships, fetal deformity, pre-existing mental illness...So isn't it possible that it's things like those could be responsible for any sadness happening in the period after the abortion, and not the abortion itself? In the UK, Doctors aren't (to my knowledge) obliged to mention such studies to women because there's been just as many studies showing that abortion causes no more negative mental effects than pregnancy, although they do have to assertain that continuing the pregnancy would damage the woman's memntal health more than an abortion would.

".......It's not like the Easter Bunny, your belief isn't necessary."​

Everyone I've ever encountered who sees nothing wrong with terminating the life of a "child in utero" has always judged any research or writings remotely connected to the opposition as false, skewed, or otherwise unreliable.

Would one expect to find similar information disseminated by the Pro-Death crowd?

 

[Fantasea]

Originally Posted by Fantasea
The political solution was arrived at by deliberately ignoring the biological aspects of the question. You have never been able to refute this.

What biological aspect is that. You seem to claim an awful lot of social and political stuff and non-scientific terminology is somehow biological science. That is patently a falsehood,

Please don't play dumb. It is the only biological aspect you deny.

 

[Fantasea]

God, that was a incredibly lame response. Read the former posts I've made in regards to this. You're going around in circular reasonings.

What a relief. Now I know what's making you dizzy.

:2funny:​

 

[afr0byte]

If you would care to define the term differently, please do so.

If you need help, a google search on the key words "abortion on demand" will produce more than 54,000 pages referencing abortion on demand. All views are represented; Pro-Life, Pro-Death, and Atheist.

Haha, what the heck? Pro-Choice, Anti-Choice, and....Atheist? Wha?

 

[Enola/Alone]

".......It's not like the Easter Bunny, your belief isn't necessary."​

Everyone I've ever encountered who sees nothing wrong with terminating the life of a "child in utero" has always judged any research or writings remotely connected to the opposition as false, skewed, or otherwise unreliable.

Would one expect to find similar information disseminated by the Pro-Death crowd?

Since I'm not a member of any Pro-Death crowd, I couldn't tell you.

But are you honestly saying that if you were a doctor, and you desperately believed abortion was wtrong, and had a chance to scare women and therefore reduce abortion rates, you wouldn't do it? Please. Post the specifics and proof of the competence and lack of bias of the Elliot Institute and then we can discuss it further.

 

[Fantasea]

Originally Posted by talloulou
Abortions don't all take place at 9 wks do they? And why isn't a human at 9 wks gestation a human being? 'Cause you don't want it to be?

The VAST amount does. You didn't know? :roll:

This is a ridiculous response. Regardless of when an abortion occurs, the result is the same: the death of a "child in utero".

FYI: Google shows more than 9,000 pages which reference "child in utero", including this one:

http://www.embryology.ch/anglais/jfetalperiod/gestalt02.html

 

[afr0byte]

This is a ridiculous response. Regardless of when an abortion occurs, the result is the same: the death of a "child in utero".

FYI: Google shows more than 9,000 pages which reference "child in utero", including this one:

http://www.embryology.ch/anglais/jfetalperiod/gestalt02.html

"fetus in utero" gets 908,000

 

[steen]

Haha, what the heck? Pro-Choice, Anti-Choice, and....Atheist? Wha?

Well, pro-lifers never make much sense when looking at facts. It is all emotional histrionics.

 

[steen]

FYI: Google shows more than 9,000 pages which reference "child in utero",

"Fetus" gets 18.5 MILLIONS. "Embryo" gets 22.3 MILLIONS. So your fringe sites of pro-life revisionist linguistics are rather irrelevant.

 

[talloulou]

"Fetus" gets 18.5 MILLIONS. "Embryo" gets 22.3 MILLIONS. So your fringe sites of pro-life revisionist linguistics are rather irrelevant.

You are not against aborting a fetus anyway so you are just being diversionary with these arguments.

 

[jfuh]

You say, “I’ve stated quite clearly this already.” This is quite true, and therein lies the problem. You make statements, but you offer no authoritative refutation. So, until you can back up your statements with scientific fact, they remain your statements; your unfounded, opinionated statements.

I can easily back up any of my claims as everything in that post which you are "refuting" is fact. Notice you do not deny any of my posting only that you require me to back it up with sources? Hahahaha, do you need sources as well then to back up the claim that water is comprised of two hydrogens and one oxygen?
Let me ask you this, do you deny that cancer cells do not contain unique DNA? By the way, if you deny that, why do you think cancer cells are cancerous?

The term “abortion on demand” means that any woman, at any time during a pregnancy, for any reason or no reason at all, may abort the child she is carrying.
There are no limitations or conditions which may be imposed.

A term that was coined by the pro-life side yes. Just more pro-life rhetoric.

As anyone who follows these things can tell you, over the years, opinions of an earlier court have been overturned by a subsequent court more than two hundred times.

There is nothing sacrosanct about “Roe”, in the sense of being untouchable, that is.

It protects the right of a woman to choice. So yes it is indeed sacrosanct.

 

[jfuh]

Go back and look at what you said the first time. This statement is very different.


[/B]
[/SIZE]
Oh okay no need to go back. Here is the very same fallicious statement presented as fact. It is a parasite? Got any medical or scientific literature that calls a fetus a parasite? For that matter got any info on parasites that are created by the host? How 'bout parasites that are the same species as the host.

You are a liar and if you don't believe me ask STEEN.

No, no falsehood here, why would I need to consult steen?
Here's the definition of a parasite:

One entry found for parasite.
Main Entry: par·a·site
Pronunciation: 'par-&-"sIt
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, from Latin parasitus, from Greek parasitos, from para- + sitos grain, food
1 : a person who exploits the hospitality of the rich and earns welcome by flattery
2 : [B]an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism
3 : something that resembles a biological parasite in dependence on something else for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return[/B]

So yes, regardless of how you try to deny it. A fetus is very much a parasite on the mother. And no, a fetus does not originate from the mother. Only after the external addition of a sperm does the fetus begin development. So yes it is a parasite.

 

[jfuh]

Here is the original statement and it too is still a lie! Either an outright lie or a display of incredible ignorance. Ask Steen.

In order to refute a statment by calling it a lie, you need to present your evidence that supports your claim. So show me that a fetus is not a parasite.
Again, I remind you. To not attach the negative conotation of parasite with my use of the terminology here.

 

[talloulou]

No, no falsehood here, why would I need to consult steen?
Here's the definition of a parasite:

One entry found for parasite.
Main Entry: par·a·site
Pronunciation: 'par-&-"sIt
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, from Latin parasitus, from Greek parasitos, from para- + sitos grain, food
1 : a person who exploits the hospitality of the rich and earns welcome by flattery
2 : [B]an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism
3 : something that resembles a biological parasite in dependence on something else for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return[/B]

So yes, regardless of how you try to deny it. A fetus is very much a parasite on the mother. And no, a fetus does not originate from the mother. Only after the external addition of a sperm does the fetus begin development. So yes it is a parasite.

Hmmm so you agree with the dictionary when you can make "Fetus" fit the definition of parasite yet you toss out the dictionary when it asserts that a fetus is a human being, baby, or child.

Interesting. Tell you what I 'll give you parasite....when you concede baby, child, and human being. How's that work for you?

Main Entry: ba·by
Pronunciation: primarystressbamacr-bemacron
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural babies
1 : an extremely young child; especially : INFANT
2 : an extremely young animal
- baby adjective
- ba·by·hood /-bemacron-secondarystresshudotd/ noun
- ba·by·ish /-ish/ adjective

Main Entry: child
Pronunciation: primarystresschimacr(schwa)ld
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural chil·dren /primarystresschil-drschwan, -dschwarn/
1 : an unborn or recently born person
2 : a young person especially between infancy and youth
- with child : PREGNANT

Main Entry: human being
Function: noun
: HUMAN

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/mplusdictionary.html

and mind you these all come from a medical dictionary

so they must be just as acceptable as parasite, right?

 

[talloulou]

In order to refute a statment by calling it a lie, you need to present your evidence that supports your claim. So show me that a fetus is not a parasite.
Again, I remind you. To not attach the negative conotation of parasite with my use of the terminology here.

show me evidence that a fetus is not a child, baby, and human being.

 

[Fantasea]

Originally Posted by Fantasea
".......It's not like the Easter Bunny, your belief isn't necessary."


Everyone I've ever encountered who sees nothing wrong with terminating the life of a "child in utero" has always judged any research or writings remotely connected to the opposition as false, skewed, or otherwise unreliable.

Would one expect to find similar information disseminated by the Pro-Death crowd?

Since I'm not a member of any Pro-Death crowd, I couldn't tell you.

I never said you were. However, there is a simple test to confirm whether one is, or isn't, a member of the Pro-Death crowd.

If one is not Anti-Death, then one is Pro-Death. Since the only choices included in Pro-Choice are either life or death, one who claims to be Pro-Choice cannot be Anti-Death, can one? Therefore one who claims to be Pro-Choice must be Pro-Death.

But are you honestly saying that if you were a doctor, and you desperately believed abortion was wtrong, and had a chance to scare women and therefore reduce abortion rates, you wouldn't do it? Please.

I assure you that anything I write in this forum is honest. You ask a hypothetical question which can receive only a hypothetical answer which is of no value.

However, I would expect that any doctor, being fully aware of the biological fact that abortion terminates the life of a living human being, and understanding that abortions are virtually never medically indicated to save the life of the mother, and knowing that abortions are sought primarily to avoid the embarrassment of an unwed pregnancy or because the pregnancy occurred at an inconvenient time, and that the mental health "industry" thrives on PASS patients, would counsel against the procedure.

Post the specifics and proof of the competence and lack of bias of the Elliot Institute and then we can discuss it further.

The Eliot Institute is just one of may of its kind which has studied the question and arrived at similar conclusions.

On the other side of the fence are, I suppose, similar studies with differing results.

Be that as it may, the one inescapable conclusion is that every successful abortion terminates a human life.

 

[FallingPianos]

According to Merriam-Websters:

Main Entry: gam·ete
Function: noun
Pronunciation: 'ga-"met also g&-'met
Etymology: New Latin gameta, from Greek gametes husband, from gamein to marry
: a mature male or female germ cell usually possessing a haploid chromosome set and capable of initiating formation of a new diploid individual by fusion with a gamete of the opposite sex

yes, its a gamate is a type of cell. what more than a cell is it?

 

[steen]

You are not against aborting a fetus anyway so you are just being diversionary with these arguments.

No, I am documenting the lies and deceptions of the pro-life revisionist linguistics.

 

[steen]

Hmmm so you agree with the dictionary when you can make "Fetus" fit the definition of parasite yet you toss out the dictionary when it asserts that a fetus is a human being, baby, or child.

Interesting. Tell you what I 'll give you parasite....when you concede baby, child, and human being. How's that work for you?

Main Entry: ba·by
Pronunciation: primarystressbamacr-bemacron
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural babies
1 : an extremely young child; especially : INFANT
2 : an extremely young animal
- baby adjective
- ba·by·hood /-bemacron-secondarystresshudotd/ noun
- ba·by·ish /-ish/ adjective

Not a word about unborn entities of any kind. Sinks the pro-life lies right there. AS USUAL.

 

[talloulou]

Not a word about unborn entities of any kind. Sinks the pro-life lies right there. AS USUAL.

Yes except very young child includes fetus in many dictionaries. Do you really think people are fooled by your incredible lack of substance in debate at times?

 

[talloulou]

Oh and for that matter where was fetus ever under parasite or parasitic in any dictionary?????????????

Oh and where is pregnancy related to slavery anywhere other than planned parenthoods website?????

Oh I see Steen logic requires that Steen accept what Steen feels like accepting and everything that is unacceptable to Steen becomes hyperbole and lies. Yeah I'd like to see how that went over on some legit debate.

 

[Fantasea]

Originally Posted by Fantasea
You say, “I’ve stated quite clearly this already.” This is quite true, and therein lies the problem. You make statements, but you offer no authoritative refutation. So, until you can back up your statements with scientific fact, they remain your statements; your unfounded, opinionated statements.

I can easily back up any of my claims as everything in that post which you are "refuting" is fact. Notice you do not deny any of my posting only that you require me to back it up with sources?

I deny the validity of every one of your abortion related contentions.

I repeat: “So, until you can back up your statements with scientific fact, they remain your statements; your unfounded, opinionated statements.”