- Joined
- Jan 31, 2010
- Messages
- 31,645
- Reaction score
- 7,598
- Location
- Canada, Costa Rica
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Because a doctor would know better than you whether a woman's life is at risk or not.
why up to the doctor? when did the doctor get the legal right to force a person to risk their life against their will?
no thanks i want rights to remains where they should
I didn't say you did. I pointed out a fact.
Because a doctor would know better than you whether a woman's life is at risk or not.
what are you talking about?
"i" havent decided anything, i stated a fact
oh so you were making a meaningless post that nobody was talking about and qouted me by accident then? got it, im fine with that, your mistake
Do you not understand that doctors can assess risk? That is a discussion that would take place between the doctor and the patient.
No, I was pointing to a fact for your education....You're welcome.
nope, already knew it but since it was meaningless to the topic at hand nobody was discussing it because that would be illogical, again your mistake
no thanks i want rights to remains where they should
Ok, so when you said:
Then you were purposely being misleading in your statement so you could play this game.
And you really don't think that women have a right to an abortion...Got it.
why up to the doctor? when did the doctor get the legal [B]right to force a person to risk their life against their will?[/B]
no thanks i want rights to remains where they should
From where does the "right" originate?
-- I purpose that this so called "right" of the woman to have the complete say of whether or not to allow the unborn child to live is not a right at all, and actually takes away the rights of not only the man involved in creating the pregnancy, but the rights of the unborn child as well.
It's fine if it's used in the medical profession, of course, but now it is being used by the non-medical profession, such as politicians and the courts. Deciding someone's life or death because of their 'viability' was probably never intended by the originators of the term.
And why not? Unless there are lies being told then all information should be made available.
Morality has to play a part in these decisions. How can it not?? Also it will probably encourage more young women to take extra precautions and make the right decisions in her life.
-- There are plenty of good people ready to help with the care, feeding and attention of children. We need to have more trust in our fellow citizens rather than assuming the worst and heading directly to the abortion clinic.
If this is aimed at starting a discussion on whether the right exists in the American constitution - I'm going to point out that abortion is not just an American issue and the treatment or view of what a person can do with their own body in western culture is fairly common. I bow out if you want to argue about the US constitution and abortion, I'm not American and I'm not interested.
Society places some limits on rights - after 24 weeks and viability has been established, a woman's rights are limited by the child's growing rights but these are minimal before 24 weeks.
Regarding your comment about men's rights - your rights to a woman's body or to do what you will with a woman's body should never be enforcible in law.
Well, the OP was about an American State, and the law they passed on a Breaking News forum that deals mostly with American issues, or issues that effect America. So, yes the constitutional question has bearing.
-- Why? Is there some magic that happens between the 23rd, and the 25th week? Is it not still growing inside the mother?
What we are talking about is the state of medical, and technological advance at this moment in time. That is a moving target. For the pro abortion to say that it is more a baby at 25 weeks than it was at 23 weeks is ridiculous.
-- Is there some advance in pregnancy that allows a woman to become pregnant without the male sperm now? Did I miss it? Until that happens the man should have a say.
What happens in hospitals is still affected and defined by courts and politicians who represent the views of the public. This is not an argument about good or bad politicians but the role politicians should play - advocates of the public.
I'm not sure what you're arguing, I thought I was agreeing with you about information being available for pregnant mothers?
Conception is not always planned or convenient, sex is not always done at the right time with all the right information, equipment, state of mind. What I find interesting is that countries with the widest availability of abortion and sexual reproductivity information tend to have lower abortion rates than those with greater limits on abortion and less planned information about sexual reproduction. The evidence is against the anti-abortion crowd. Abortion rates in Holland, Sweden, Finland and other such countries is much lower than many other western countries such as the UK and US.
US children's foster and care centre statistics don't support this.
Agreed, but "viability" is a medical term and once the politicians begin using it, it can lead to other areas as well.
-- We were, until you said "I have no problem with high quality information being presented to a pregnant mother about alternatives she may have if she allowed the baby to carry to term however anti-abortionists already use emotive and highly charged terms to describe abortion and mothers who have abortions. I don't trust that alternatives won't be presented in ways that pressurise women to keep their unwanted babies or simply end up with many unwanted children living in childcare where the next problem arises which is who will pay for them".
That seems to mean that you are all for women having information but that it should be selective information.
-- There are many reasons for this but it could sidetrack the debate into other areas.
That's quite an extensive report. Can you summarize briefly what the negatives are?
Yes but the constitutional argument is of no interest outside the USA where abortion still happens. I am not interested in the constitution - just a mother's rights to her own body and choices.
No one ever said differently, but please tell me how that extends to killing a defenseless child in the womb....Their choice should begin before they contemplate committing the act that results in the pregnancy to start with. Now, you say "She/They" as if you think that the father of that unborn child has a say one way or the other. This is how disingenuous the pro abortion side of the argument really is.
My husband always has a say in things concerning our children. How many we wanted,how many we could afford, how far apart we should plan them , if a woman has good relationship with her husband or lover she would most likely discuss whether or not she have an abortion with the father of the unborn.
If however, he abuses her or she is scared of of him, if he left her, if she was raped then she might decide not to include the father of the unborn in her decision.
While you consider a pre viable fetus to be a child many pro choices do not believe it becomes a child/baby/person until it is born.
I understand what you are saying, and if everyone was like you, and thought like you did, then it may not be as bad, but the sad fact is that they don't. An overwhelming number of abortions in this country are used as contraceptive measures. And the fact that most women getting those abortions don't feel it is a child, is of no concern to me, it is what it is...It's not a toaster, or a rubber ducky...It is a child. That feels pain at 9 weeks, and has a heartbeat earlier than that. Use what ever term you want to help you sleep better, but it is only one thing, a child.
1981 6.87
1982 6.79
[By]2008 they fell to 3.99
SNIP>
The project tracked more than 9,000 women in St. Louis, many of them poor or uninsured.
They were given their choice of a range of contraceptive methods at no cost — from birth control pills to goof-proof options like the IUD or a matchstick-sized implant.
When price wasn't an issue, women flocked to the most effective contraceptives — the implanted options, which typically cost hundreds of dollars up-front to insert.
These women experienced far fewer unintended pregnancies as a result,
reported Dr. Jeffrey Peipert of Washington University in St. Louis in a study published Thursday.
The effect on teen pregnancy was striking:
There were 6.3 births per 1,000 teenagers in the study. Compare that to a national rate of 34 births per 1,000 teens in 2010.
There also were substantially lower rates of abortion, when compared with women in the metro area and nationally:[/B]
4.4 to 7.5 abortions per 1,000 women in the study, compared with 13.4 to 17 abortions per 1,000 women overall in the St. Louis region,[/B]
Peipert calculated. That's lower than the national rate, too, which is almost 20 abortions per 1,000 women.
.
But when cost and other barriers are lifted, the opinion notes that the Contraceptive CHOICE Project found that
]U]more than two-thirds of women age 14-20 chose LARC methods.[/U]
The project, at the Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, recruited 9,256 women and studies the effect of free access to birth control methods.
Perhaps the biggest consideration for women -- and especially adolescent girls -- is a contraceptive's upfront cost.
At an average of about $700-$800 before insurance, the $10-$50 cost of a monthly pack of birth control pills can seem favorable.
Without a reduced fee, the lowest price Planned Parenthood of Western Pennsylvania can offer Mirena is $800, said Rebecca Cavanaugh, vice president for public affairs for the local chapter.
There’s good news from researchers at the Guttmacher Institute. “Only” 7% of teens and “only” about 16% of sexually experienced teens got pregnant in 2008, the most recent year for which data is available.
It’s good news because the U.S. teen pregnancy rate continues to drop. Way back in 1990, the teen pregnancy rate peaked at 116.9 pregnancies per 1,000 teen females. That means 11.7% of all teens got pregnant that year.
Among sexually experienced teens — those who ever had intercourse — 22.3% got pregnant in 1990.
The teen birth rate and the teen abortion rate also went down:
4% of teens gave birth in 2008, down from the 1991 peak of 6.2%.
1.8% of teens had an abortion in 2008 — the lowest abortion rate since abortion was legalized and down from the 1988 peak of 4.35% in 1988.
From 1986 to 2008, the proportion of teen pregnancies ending in abortion dropped by a third, from 46% to 31%.
Why is the teen pregnancy rate dropping? According to a 2007 study, it’s mainly due to better use of birth control. Teens are using more effective forms of contraception.
I've done some research and seen mostly 19-21 weeks. That makes more sense to me. Wouldn't it have to be at least as low as the youngest premature baby known to survive? Could a sense of pain develop after birth?One question..
Where did you read or hear that a fetus can feel pain at 9 weeks gestation?
I have read a lot of studies and from everything I read experts agreed that fetus cannot feel pain before 24 weeks gestation. Most feel it would fall somewhere between 26 weeks gestation and 39 weeks gestation.
I've done some research and seen mostly 19-21 weeks. That makes more sense to me. Wouldn't it have to be at least as low as the youngest premature baby known to survive? Could a sense of pain develop after birth?
One question..
Where did you read or hear that a fetus can feel pain at 9 weeks gestation?
Abortion is difficult and painful for the unborn child. Surgeon Robert P. N. Shearin states that: [1]
As early as eight to ten weeks after conception, and definitely by thirteen-and-a-half weeks, the unborn experiences organic pain…. First, the unborn child's mouth, at eight weeks, then her hands at ten weeks, then her face, arms, and legs at eleven weeks become sensitive to touch. By thirteen-and-a-half weeks, she responds to pain at all levels of her nervous system in an integrated response which cannot be termed a mere reflex. She can now experience pain.
President Ronald Reagan stated in 1984 that during an abortion:
The fetus feels pain which is long and agonizing.
After President Ronald Reagan said this then it set off a furious reaction by pro-choice advocates. They did not want to believe this, nor did they want the public to believe it. But twenty-six medical authorities, including two past presidents of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, stepped forward with a letter documenting that the unborn does in fact feel pain during an abortion.
Their letter says in part: [2]
Mr. President, in drawing attention to the capability of the human fetus to feel pain, you stand on firmly established ground…. That the unborn, the prematurely born, and the new-born of the human species is a highly complex, sentient, functioning, individual organism is established scientific fact…. Over the last eighteen years, real time ultrasonography, fetoscopy, study of the fetal EKG [electrocardiogram] and the fetal EEG [electroencephalogram] have demonstrated the remarkable responsiveness of the human fetus to pain, touch, and sound.
Pioneer fetologist Albert Iiley, of the University of Auckland, says that by the fifty-sixth day after conception, the baby's spinal reflexes are sufficiently developed to feel pain. He adds: [3]
When doctors first began invading the sanctuary of the womb, they did not know that the unborn baby would react to pain in the same fashion as a child would. But they soon learned he did.
Dr. Liley's observation is graphically demonstrated in Dr. Bernard Nathanson's classic film, The Silent Scream, the first widely circulated ultrasound of an actual abortion. [4] It shows a child serenely resting in her mother's womb. Suddenly the child is alarmed because of the intruding abortion device. She moves as far away as she can, trying desperately to save her life. Just before her body is torn to pieces and sucked out through the vacuum tube, her tiny mouth opens in an unheard scream of terror. After the abortion the doctor who performed it was invited to view the ultrasound. He was so upset with what he saw that he left the room. Though he had performed over ten thousand abortions, he never performed another one. [5]
Fact #13: The 8 week+ unborn baby feels real physical pain during an abortion.
I would like to share with you that the numbers of abortions per 1000 women are falling .
In 1982 they stated falling and by 2008 ( the lastest stats I could find) a bit more than one third.
United States abortion rates, 1960-2008
Yes we still have quite a ways to go but as better methods of birth control are made available the numbers could reduce significantly.
I think making birth control availble to anyone with no co pay is a step in the right direction.
Delaying parenthood until one wants to become a parent would cut down the number of "welfare" moms as well as the number of abortions that are occuring at the present time.
In the following privatly funded study the poor used free contraceptives and unwanted pregnancies dropped dramatically.
I can agree that the use of contraceptives among those sexually active will prevent unwanted pregnancies, as well as cut down on disease. You are either ignoring, or purposely dismissing not only the abundance of lower cost contraceptives like the pill, or condoms to use the most expensive example, then demand that someone else other than the people committing the act take responsibility of that act...PP, and free clinics will give you brown bags full of condom's free for the asking. Don't tell me that you need an $800. per month prescription, then tell me that I have to pay for it so that you can have sex. I don't owe you that. Get your own contraception.
This has been known for decades. Although there is some debate from pro abortionist doctors, (probably to justify the procedure, or ease their own coscience)...
It is only those whom wish to cloud the facts that would deny that the fetus feels the pain of being torn apart and taken from the womb in the name of convenience of the woman consenting to kill the child....
<SNIP>
If a fetal pain bill passes during the 83rd legislative session, which begins in January, Texas would become the 10th state to ban abortions after 20 weeks. Although some scientists have reported that fetuses have sufficient nerve development to feel pain at 20 weeks of development, a study by the Journal of the American Medical Association published in 2005 found “evidence regarding the capacity for fetal pain is limited but indicates that fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester.”
The UK-based Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has published a government commissioned scientific review and concluded that a fetus is not conscious at 24 weeks of age.
It is also not able to feel pain.
<SNIP>
About the manner in which the report was put together, the RCOG website is completely transparent, saying that
A wide range of stakeholders including scientists, doctors, midwives and lay representatives were involved in producing these reports.
Relevant international scientific studies published since the 1990s were considered by the respective working parties as was evidence submitted to the Science and Technology Committee.
An online public consultation followed and the public were invited to submit their views.
] Both documents went through rigorous peer-review which included academics, ethicists and lawyers.
The tricky part comes when these definitions of life get applied at the beginning of life. The landmark 1973 case Roe v. Wade replaced an old marker of life — the “quickening” or first movements of the fetus — with one based on fetal viability, which typically occurs at about the 23d week.
This was a tactical move meant to provide a firmer marker for legal purposes. Law seeks clarity. Which is where a consciousness meter could be quite tempting to the courts — and discouraging to anti-abortion conservatives:
As leading neuroscientist Michael Gazzaniga, a member of President Bush’s Council on Bioethics, describes in his book The Ethical Brain, current neurology suggests that a fetus doesn’t possess enough neural structure to harbor consciousness
until about 26 weeks, when it first seems to react to pain.]
Before that, the fetal neural structure is about as sophisticated as that of a sea slug and its EEG as flat and unorganized as that of someone brain-dead.
The consciometer may not put the abortion issue to rest—given the deeply held religious and moral views on all sides, it’s hard to imagine that anything could.
But by adding a definitive neurophysiological marker to the historical and secular precedents allowing abortion in the first two-thirds of pregnancy, it may greatly buttress the status quo or even slightly push back the 23-week boundary.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?