Banning Abortion: Does It Make Sense?

[steen]

I think your thoughts about the sanctity of life and the limits that goverment should impose is a good one. (forced to donate blood, kidneys, (and now partial liver donations to save another's life). And trust me, most physicians who deal with blood loss and the need for blood transfusions probably wish blood donation was mandatory.

I am anitabortion but oppose mandating it illegal in part for this very reason. If a man was told that he must give up a part of his body to save a life, he would resist every effort to have the government control his body in such a manner.

Absolutely. So the way to reduce abortions is not through punitive control over the woman's body. I think we are in agreement. tell me what you think about the following.

If we don't want women to have abortions, we need to be supportive, not punitive. For one, better, more accurate and earlier sex-ed is needed. Likewise, better, cheaper and more universably available contraceptions is ammust. And finally, if the woman is opregnant, any support she needs to alleviate worries that might make her speculate on abortions should be addressed. Finances, education, employment and such must be addressed rather than forcing her against her will to give of her bodily resources in physical bondage and slavery.

What do you think?

 

[bandaidwoman]

Absolutely. So the way to reduce abortions is not through punitive control over the woman's body. I think we are in agreement. tell me what you think about the following.

If we don't want women to have abortions, we need to be supportive, not punitive. For one, better, more accurate and earlier sex-ed is needed. Likewise, better, cheaper and more universably available contraceptions is ammust. And finally, if the woman is opregnant, any support she needs to alleviate worries that might make her speculate on abortions should be addressed. Finances, education, employment and such must be addressed rather than forcing her against her will to give of her bodily resources in physical bondage and slavery.

What do you think?

exactly!:mrgreen:

 

[Visceria]

So if somebody is dying from kidney failure, then he should have the right to have your extra kidney even against your will?

The danger to you is less than that of giving birth, and it is MUCH SHORTER in time than being pregnant. And it will spare a life. So should you be forced to give your kidney? Can your bodily recourses be used against your will if it is to save another life?

After all, this is much less than what you want the pregnant woman to endure.

And how about being forced to give blood against your will? That only lasts 15 minutes, barely a blip in your life? How come that isn't mandatory? Why shouldn't you be forced, be strapped down and a pint of blood extracted from you never mind how much you object?

After all, it could save lives. Or is it only OTHERS that you want to assign duties and burdens on? Is it only OTHERS who should be able to handle the burden? Is it different for you?
********************
I don't see how that can be compared to being pregant. When you have sex, you assume the risk. Using birth control is proof of your acknowlegment of that risk.
I see what you are saying though. You think that "being forced" to give birth is wrong. You are not being forced to. And if you were raped and got pregnant, it is still your child, not a complete stranger, and I think that you should let it live and not kill it because it will inconveniece you. There is no reason to destroy another life. Put it up for adoprion and move on. (killing the life created by an unfortunate crime or accident does not make the emotional scars go away. On the contrary, I imagine some people must feel guilty years later.)

 

[steen]

So if somebody is dying from kidney failure, then he should have the right to have your extra kidney even against your will?

The danger to you is less than that of giving birth, and it is MUCH SHORTER in time than being pregnant. And it will spare a life. So should you be forced to give your kidney? Can your bodily recourses be used against your will if it is to save another life?

After all, this is much less than what you want the pregnant woman to endure.

And how about being forced to give blood against your will? That only lasts 15 minutes, barely a blip in your life? How come that isn't mandatory? Why shouldn't you be forced, be strapped down and a pint of blood extracted from you never mind how much you object?

After all, it could save lives. Or is it only OTHERS that you want to assign duties and burdens on? Is it only OTHERS who should be able to handle the burden? Is it different for you?

I don't see how that can be compared to being pregant.

But it matters whether you are forced to give of yuor bodily resources.

So AGAIN, and this time please don't evade the question. If a life depends on your bodily resources, should you be froced to give these resources against your will? Does that life override your right to control your own bodily resoures?

Could you please provide some form of answer this time?

When you have sex, you assume the risk.

But not the consent. Sex is no more consent to pregnancy that smoking is consent to lung cancer or driving is consent to accidents.

Using birth control is proof of your acknowlegment of that risk.

And proof that you are not consenting to pregnancy any more than the driver using seatbelt is not consenting to head injuries in accidents.

I see what you are saying though. You think that "being forced" to give birth is wrong.

Yes.

You are not being forced to.

If you want an abortion and are being denied this safe, legal medical procedure, then you MOST CERTAINLY are being forced to endure a pregnancy against your will, being forced to give off your bodily resources gainst your will.

And if you were raped and got pregnant, it is still your child,

there is no child until birth.

not a complete stranger, and I think that you should let it live and not kill it because it will inconveniece you.

Ah, yes. that is what you BELIEVE. What we are talking about here is whether there should be a legal duty to do so.

Is it OK to FORCE you to give off your bodily resources against your will?

That is the ONLY question relevant in abortions.

Until prolifers deal with that, it is just ever so more of the same irrelevant stuff.

There is no reason to destroy another life. Put it up for adoprion and move on.

Adoption is a parenting decision. Abortion is a pregnancy decision. That you WANT her to continue the pregnancy doesn't mean that she has to. And if you want to FORCE her to do so, then you seek to force her to give her bodily resources against her will, just as if I FORCED you to give blood against your will.

(killing the life created by an unfortunate crime or accident does not make the emotional scars go away. On the contrary, I imagine some people must feel guilty years later.)

Yes, you can speculate all you want. That measn little outside of your own head.

 

[doughgirl]

Bandaidwoman said, "Should the "fools" that allow themselves to become morbidly obese be denied medical treatment for their complications? Should the "fools" who fall after a rock climbing accident be told that their foolhardiness in scaling a 700 foot sheer wall "suffer their folly?" Should the "fool" who accidently overdosed on medications because they did not read the labels properly "suffer their folly"?"


Those you sited only involve that person.... the obese woman, the fool rock climbing, the overdose victim....they do not involve anyone else.
They choose to kill themselves.

An abortion is different. There is the unborn child to consider. When a woman decides to have an abortion she decides to end the life of her child, the child she carries inside her body. What about taking ownership and responsibility for the actions that got her into the mess. Two wrongs do not make a right.
BEing inside something is NOT the same as being part of something. Ones body does not belong to anothers body merely because of proximity. She is deciding he fate of her child. Will I choose to let it live or will I choose to kill it?

In July 2000 The U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill making it illegal to execute a pregnant woman.
Odd isnt it? They state there are two people, not one. Yet they allow woman to get abortions.

 

[Visceria]

What bodily resources are you so concerned about expending that you would end a life? Comparing an abortion to giving blood is absurd. Like I said, if your health is at risk there may be reason to abort, as your life is more established. But other than that it seems frivolous that you would end a life because it you don't want to assume the responsibility for the life you created.
Also, how can you rationalize killing a potential human being?
I wish there was an easy way to judge whether something that is living should be fully valued as a life, but there isn't.
In my opinion, an early abortion should be legal. I don't think it is the right thing to do though. However, my objection is when the fetus is old enough to cause debate over whether it is human yet, or even truly a separate life. Then I believe there is no excuse (other than the mother's health) to potentially ending a life. I believe it is a selfish thing to do.

 

[steen]

An abortion is different. There is the unborn child to consider.

There is no such thing any more than you are a pre-dead corpse. It is revisionist linguistic hyperbole designed for emotional appeal to divert away from the lack of facts in your purely emotional claims.

When a woman decides to have an abortion she decides to end the life of her child, the child she carries inside her body.

But then, that is not a child, as "child" is a developmental stage beginning after birth.

What about taking ownership and responsibility for the actions that got her into the mess.

And she can do so by having an abortion.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

But then, an abortion isn't a wrong, so your argument doesn't make sense.

BEing inside something is NOT the same as being part of something.

Ah, so your kidney is an individual person. Now I get where you are coming from :roll:

Ones body does not belong to anothers body merely because of roximity. She is deciding he fate of her child. Will I choose to let it live or will I choose to kill it?

There still is no child before birth, your revisionist linguistics, and she still is not obligated to use her bodily resources to keep anybody or anything alive unless she wants to.

In July 2000 The U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill making it illegal to execute a pregnant woman.
Odd isnt it? They state there are two people, not one. Yet they allow woman to get abortions.

And political claims have little to do with reality. Politics is not about science and facts, it is about emotional appeal. Hmm, not unlike the prolifers. WOW - you are politicians! :shock: Now that is a scary thought.

 

[steen]

What bodily resources are you so concerned about expending that you would end a life?

Comparing an abortion to giving blood is absurd.

No, it isn't. In both cases, you are asked to give of your bodily resources to save a life. Granted, giving blood is much easier and shorter, and thus not nearly as much of a burden, but none the less.

So instead of avoiding the issue, are you actually going to address it? Or will we se FURTHER evasions form you on this issue?

Like I said, if your health is at risk there may be reason to abort, as your life is more established.

But if not, like is the case with giving blood, then you should be forced to give of your bodily resources against your will?

But other than that it seems frivolous that you would end a life because it you don't want to assume the responsibility for the life you created.

And so what? It seems frivilous to buy a $20,000 handbag, yet there is no law against it. The State has no business legislating people's private lives per what only some people see as 'frivilous." Or do I get to push the state on you in anythign YOU do that I would consider frivilous?

Also, how can you rationalize killing a potential human being?

Potential is not actual. masturbation results in no birth. Wasted potential. Should it be prohibited? Should people be forced to breed? you sure are getting more and more intrusive into people's private lives with the consequenses

I wish there was an easy way to judge whether something that is living should be fully valued as a life, but there isn't.

So why err on the side of enslaving the woman?

In my opinion, an early abortion should be legal. I don't think it is the right thing to do though. However, my objection is when the fetus is old enough to cause debate over whether it is human yet, or even truly a separate life.

"human" is a speciesdesignation. Even the sperm is "human," so that doesn't make sense to me. Perhaps you can clarify? As for"separate life," I don't see that occuring until the cord is clamped/cut, and that happens at birth.

Then I believe there is no excuse (other than the mother's health) to potentially ending a life. I believe it is a selfish thing to do.

Ah, but do we legislate selfishness? Again, should you be forced to give blood, or can you selfishly decline even if it results in somebody else dying?

 

[Hornburger]

As antiabortionists, we should be tackeling the underlying problem, not painting false pictures and statistics. we need to address accessable contraceptive, objective sex ed, good perinatal care and supporting medicaid which provides the majority of perinatal care for the economically disadvantaged who have the most to gain by aborting, think of some kind of way to subsidize childcare so women who don't have the support of a husband do not abort out of financial desperation etc.

Yes, sex ed should be taught much better. But as for medical care, I don't think the answer is through lower quality coverage for more people. I think it would be better instead to have tort reform and get to the bottom of the problem-jury award caps to medical malpractice suits. As for subsidizing childcare, yes, I would agree with that, but we'd have to be careful at what we'd set the number it, it can't be too high...lol such a general statement, but whatever, I'm just giving my general opinion on what to do to reduce all these abortions.

Another way to reduce these abortions is through banning. Why ban them, you ask? In my opinion, as I have stated before, I feel that abortion is murder. I define "living" as at the point of conception, when the DNA is injected into the egg. That DNA individualizes it from every SINGLE human being EVERYWHERE. It is important to protect this individual-the one who has made no choices in this life and has done nothing wrong. I don't think we can just let murder "slide by". Now, don't have these huge penalties for the people taking part in such an act, if we did that our jails would be packed, I don't know what the exact penalties we should set abortion laws at, but the first step would be actually overturning the case Roe v. Wade.

 

[DeeJayH]

and as usual the debate boils down to:

1. its a baby
2. its just a bunch of cells until born, and I, as a woman, can do whatever i want with it, whenever i want

SYMANTICS

i would rather err on the side of life, than drink an abortion milkshake in celebration of terminating a life

bottoms up baby killers / life terminators / murderers / weaker end of the gene pool

 

[Antonia]

Not to mention the fact that there would be a revolution in this country if abortion were banned. And I would be a part of it.

Yeah! youre right! abortion must be banned! No Questions Why? only GOD can take the life of every living thins here on earth!

 

[bandaidwoman]

Yeah! youre right! abortion must be banned! No Questions Why? only GOD can take the life of every living thins here on earth!

so you must also oppose the death penalty? I oppose both abortion and death penalty.

 

[bandaidwoman]

Bandaidwoman said, "Should the "fools" that allow themselves to become morbidly obese be denied medical treatment for their complications? Should the "fools" who fall after a rock climbing accident be told that their foolhardiness in scaling a 700 foot sheer wall "suffer their folly?" Should the "fool" who accidently overdosed on medications because they did not read the labels properly "suffer their folly"?"


Those you sited only involve that person.... the obese woman, the fool rock climbing, the overdose victim....they do not involve anyone else.
They choose to kill themselves.

An abortion is different. There is the unborn child to consider. When a woman decides to have an abortion she decides to end the life of her child, the child she carries inside her body. What about taking ownership and responsibility for the actions that got her into the mess. Two wrongs do not make a right.
BEing inside something is NOT the same as being part of something. Ones body does not belong to anothers body merely because of proximity. She is deciding he fate of her child. Will I choose to let it live or will I choose to kill it?

In July 2000 The U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill making it illegal to execute a pregnant woman.
Odd isnt it? They state there are two people, not one. Yet they allow woman to get abortions.

One poster made the comment that only"stupid" women got pregant and should suffer the folly of their stupidity. Since quite a few abortions are from failed contraceptive practices this was a big flaw in his thinking. I also don't think anyone can say a woman who got pregnant from rape or incest should suffer the "folly" of her "stupidity". I just pointed out that according to that logic an illness from a person's fallacious decision making should forbid the medical community from treating them.(that includes lung cancer from smoking, type II diabetes from obesity, wind shield injuries from not wearing seat belts etc) He agreed to that in essence.

I keep having to remind people I am anitabortion, but not anti illegal abortion because I know these women will get one anyway ( I am in a profession that sees these women regularly and they will get one just as easily (illegally) as anyone on the streets can decide to obtain illegal marijuana.)

 

[DeeJayH]

One poster made the comment that only"stupid" women got pregant and should suffer the folly of their stupidity. Since quite a few abortions are from failed contraceptive practices this was a big flaw in his thinking. I also don't think anyone can say a woman who got pregnant from rape or incest should suffer the "folly" of her "stupidity". I just pointed out that according to that logic an illness from a person's fallacious decision making should forbid the medical community from treating them.(that includes lung cancer from smoking, type II diabetes from obesity, wind shield injuries from not wearing seat belts etc) He agreed to that in essence.

I keep having to remind people I am anitabortion, but not anti illegal abortion because I know these women will get one anyway ( I am in a profession that sees these women regularly and they will get one just as easily (illegally) as anyone on the streets can decide to obtain illegal marijuana.)

are you than in favor of overturning R v W so that abortion on demand is illegal
yet you would still be able to save the mothers life, or terminate a rape/incest victims pregnancy

 

[bandaidwoman]

are you than in favor of overturning R v W so that abortion on demand is illegal
yet you would still be able to save the mothers life, or terminate a rape/incest victims pregnancy

I look at this from a public health perspective.

#1 legalizing abortion has not necessarily increased the number of abortions (in fact the trend has been decreasing over the last few years and is starting to approach pre 1973 levels The stats pre roe vs wade flucuated from half a million to over a million abortions a year but we will never know since most were under reported. Currently we are at 800,000 a year and it continues to decline. (I believe pre roe vs wade was a lot more since contraception was not as easily obtained.)

But legalizing abortion has drastically reduced the morbidity and mortality associated with illegal abortions.

To reiterate from my earlier post, Roe v Wade did not invent abortion, what it did was smash down the death and morbidity rate associated with abortions. The current death rate from abortion at all stages of gestation is 0.6 per 100,000 procedures. This is twice as safe as a penicillin injection It also trickled down in terms of more open access to birth control, sexual ed teaching etc.

These women will get the abortion. I see them personally and know they would have obtained it legally or illegally and access to illegal abortion will be as easy or easier than obtaining illegal marijuana except it will not be done by a qualified health professional.

Can we change their mind by refering them a social worker who will try to place their child for adoption or reassure them that prenatal care with a obstetrician by enrolling them in medicaid etc? Yes, I do that as much as I can. (Unfortunately, if they are black, their black baby has very little to no chance of being adopted here in Georgia.)

So, unless I am reassured these women will not get an abortion, a black baby has just as much chance of being adopted as a white baby, access to birth control unlimited, and that there is some state or federal subsidy of child care (so the mother is not afraid to lose her job or becomes desperate because she cannot afford to pay for daycare), I am going to stomach legal abortion.


By the way, i had one women abort because her husband of 15 years did not want a child and told her he would divorce her if she had it. (She had been on the birth control patch). There was nothing I could do to dissuade her since her marriage was more important to her than the child. She has a job that pays $1200 a month and would not be able to affford rent and day care of a child (runs about $600/ month) here in Atlanta should her husband leave her. ( he was going to divorce her before the birth of the child to avoid child custody)

 

[callmearac]

i wish people would stop concerning themselves so much with potential life, and rather concern themselves with the countless unwanted lives already in the world.

abortions will never cease no matter what the law says. some women would risk death to avoid the problems brought by pregnancy.

the abortion will be around until the day where pregnancy can be prevented with a 100% success rate. and that seems far off.

so if you really care about preserving life, worry more about the thousands of people elsewhere starving, or succumbing to disease in the world.

 

[DeeJayH]

I look at this from a public health perspective.

#1 legalizing abortion has not necessarily increased the number of abortions (in fact the trend has been decreasing over the last few years and is starting to approach pre 1973 levels The stats pre roe vs wade flucuated from half a million to over a million abortions a year but we will never know since most were under reported. Currently we are at 800,000 a year and it continues to decline. (I believe pre roe vs wade was a lot more since contraception was not as easily obtained.)

:2rofll: OMG are you kidding me. you are providing stats for abortions that went unREPORTED? are you kidding me?

By the way, i had one women abort because her husband of 15 years did not want a child and told her he would divorce her if she had it. (She had been on the birth control patch). There was nothing I could do to dissuade her since her marriage was more important to her than the child. She has a job that pays $1200 a month and would not be able to affford rent and day care of a child (runs about $600/ month) here in Atlanta should her husband leave her. ( he was going to divorce her before the birth of the child to avoid child custody)

just what is your job? and how could you not know that the woman would be entitled to alimony(and probably the house and car), she would also get child support for the living children. and NEWSFLASH, just because the father leaves prior to the birth, it does not relieve him of his responsibilities for that child

 

[bandaidwoman]

just what is your job? and how could you not know that the woman would be entitled to alimony(and probably the house and car), she would also get child support for the living children. and NEWSFLASH, just because the father leaves prior to the birth, it does not relieve him of his responsibilities for that child

I am a physician. I am an associate professor of medicine in Internal Medicine. I have a web site. I can pm you the information if you want. ( I don't publically broadcast it for obvious reasons). I usually diagnose the patient with pregnancy when they come to me wondering why they have vague abdominal complaints, refractory nauseau, bleeeding after intercourse, etc...all different manifestations of first trimester pregancy. Many women do not have normal menstrual cycles (especially those who have polycystic ovaries, long distance athletes etc.) so they don't think about pregnancy at first ( so they don't think about visiting their gynecologist) ..... especially when they are using contraceptives they think are pretty much fool proof.


I also have to sign lots of papers when it comes to matters of custody and legal battles that are waged regarding children, rape etc. and the law does not always prevail on the side of justice (the children involved or the rape victim). So yes, I have intimate knowledge of what can happen to a pregnant woman who does not have access or money to a good legal counslor. I am not a lawyer, but I do have patients who do not get the child custody they needed, or the rape victim (especially by a seperated husband) get the justice they deserve. As for the legal loopholes that allowed this, only a lawyer can respond to that in great detail.

 

[DeeJayH]

I am a physician. I am an associate professor of medicine in Internal Medicine. I have a web site. I can pm you the information if you want. ( I don't publically broadcast it for obvious reasons). I usually diagnose the patient with pregnancy when they come to me wondering why they have vague abdominal complaints, refractory nauseau, bleeeding after intercourse, etc...all different manifestations of first trimester pregancy. Many women do not have normal menstrual cycles (especially those who have polycystic ovaries, long distance athletes etc.) so they don't think about pregnancy at first ( so they don't think about visiting their gynecologist) ..... especially when they are using contraceptives they think are pretty much fool proof.


I also have to sign lots of papers when it comes to matters of custody and legal battles that are waged regarding children, rape etc. and the law does not always prevail on the side of justice (the children involved or the rape victim). So yes, I have intimate knowledge of what can happen to a pregnant woman who does not have access or money to a good legal counslor. I am not a lawyer, but I do have patients who do not get the child custody they needed, or the rape victim (especially by a seperated husband) get the justice they deserve. As for the legal loopholes that allowed this, only a lawyer can respond to that in great detail.

*shakes head*
another sad commentary on the state of affairs in the state of Georgia
you got your work cut out for you
and you can maintain your privacy, i have no reason to doubt you
I just couldnt beleive that, what is commonplace elsewhere, is substandard there
deadbeat dads are everywhere, but it is getting harder to get away with