Changes in my Abortion Position

[digsbe]

I feel like it's important to continuously learn and always evaluate what we believe and why we believe it. I've been staunchly pro-life and completely opposed to nearly all abortions outside of the need to terminate to save the mother's life. After going through life, learning, evaluating, and seeing people in a healthcare setting I've changed what I believe and what I support.

You could say I'm "pro-choice" to an extent. I support the ability for a woman to terminate a pregnancy in the first trimester or only early on in pregnancy and only in the first trimester/early on (depending on what embryology says about the fetal development). I believe in the absence of complete human development and the fetus not having a mind I believe it's not unethical to terminate pregnancy in this stage. I do, however, believe it's inhumane and wrong to do so after the first trimester or when he child may have a functioning brain and/or mind. Many pregnancies naturally terminate early on, and most women will delay a pregnancy announcement until they are roughly 16 weeks out because there is still a high risk of losing the baby and wouldn't want to announce before they know they have a believable healthy pregnancy.

I've seen women in crisis who followed all the "right" steps, did all the "right" things that still wound up conceiving and I wouldn't put it past them to chose to terminate or not. I've never been in this kind of situation and that's not the reason behind my position change.

Basically, I don't believe it's inhumane to terminate a pregnancy in the earliest stages, I do believe it is wrong to do so in later stages and support full bans on mid-late term abortion as I believe that's unethical killing of a human life that has a mind, may feel pain, or is a viable human life. Prior to this though while it is an embryo or in the earliest stages of development I do not see a problem with it and believe a woman should be able to chose to abort if she feels it's the best decision for her and/or her partner.

 

[iacardsfan]

Independent of your beliefs, I applaud you for being open minded and willing to evaluate situations and form your own opinion. Too often people put their blinders on once they first make a judgement and they never come back off. If only everybody was willing to challenge their own beliefs, maybe we would be able to make changes that would positively impact the future generations.

 

[calamity]

I feel like it's important to continuously learn and always evaluate what we believe and why we believe it. I've been staunchly pro-life and completely opposed to nearly all abortions outside of the need to terminate to save the mother's life. After going through life, learning, evaluating, and seeing people in a healthcare setting I've changed what I believe and what I support.

You could say I'm "pro-choice" to an extent. I support the ability for a woman to terminate a pregnancy in the first trimester or only early on in pregnancy and only in the first trimester/early on (depending on what embryology says about the fetal development). I believe in the absence of complete human development and the fetus not having a mind I believe it's not unethical to terminate pregnancy in this stage. I do, however, believe it's inhumane and wrong to do so after the first trimester or when he child may have a functioning brain and/or mind. Many pregnancies naturally terminate early on, and most women will delay a pregnancy announcement until they are roughly 16 weeks out because there is still a high risk of losing the baby and wouldn't want to announce before they know they have a believable healthy pregnancy.

I've seen women in crisis who followed all the "right" steps, did all the "right" things that still wound up conceiving and I wouldn't put it past them to chose to terminate or not. I've never been in this kind of situation and that's not the reason behind my position change.

Basically, I don't believe it's inhumane to terminate a pregnancy in the earliest stages, I do believe it is wrong to do so in later stages and support full bans on mid-late term abortion as I believe that's unethical killing of a human life that has a mind, may feel pain, or is a viable human life. Prior to this though while it is an embryo or in the earliest stages of development I do not see a problem with it and believe a woman should be able to chose to abort if she feels it's the best decision for her and/or her partner.

This is pretty close to my position as well. I'm 100% in support of first trimester abortion rights and very much against abortion after week-20. I do have exceptions though over and above health of the mother such as if the fetus is deformed or found to be ill beyond the point of having a normal, healthy life. Second Trimester abortions sould also require some sort of special circumstance, IMO.

 

[Goshin]

I feel like it's important to continuously learn and always evaluate what we believe and why we believe it. I've been staunchly pro-life and completely opposed to nearly all abortions outside of the need to terminate to save the mother's life. After going through life, learning, evaluating, and seeing people in a healthcare setting I've changed what I believe and what I support.

You could say I'm "pro-choice" to an extent. I support the ability for a woman to terminate a pregnancy in the first trimester or only early on in pregnancy and only in the first trimester/early on (depending on what embryology says about the fetal development). I believe in the absence of complete human development and the fetus not having a mind I believe it's not unethical to terminate pregnancy in this stage. I do, however, believe it's inhumane and wrong to do so after the first trimester or when he child may have a functioning brain and/or mind. Many pregnancies naturally terminate early on, and most women will delay a pregnancy announcement until they are roughly 16 weeks out because there is still a high risk of losing the baby and wouldn't want to announce before they know they have a believable healthy pregnancy.

I've seen women in crisis who followed all the "right" steps, did all the "right" things that still wound up conceiving and I wouldn't put it past them to chose to terminate or not. I've never been in this kind of situation and that's not the reason behind my position change.

Basically, I don't believe it's inhumane to terminate a pregnancy in the earliest stages, I do believe it is wrong to do so in later stages and support full bans on mid-late term abortion as I believe that's unethical killing of a human life that has a mind, may feel pain, or is a viable human life. Prior to this though while it is an embryo or in the earliest stages of development I do not see a problem with it and believe a woman should be able to chose to abort if she feels it's the best decision for her and/or her partner.

I'm appalled at you, Digsbe. Shocked and appalled.




No, I'm not, I'm just joking.


I probably shouldn't joke, it is a serious subject, but my sense of humor runneth over.



I feel where you are coming from. Twenty years ago I was about as staunchly and immovably pro-life as it gets. No exceptions unless Mama's life is seriously endangered.

Things in real life, and things certain persons have said here on DP, got me to thinking though.


I'm still pro-life. I still think abortion is a terrible choice to make in most cases, and I'm perfectly willing to say so to anyone. I think the unborn are human and deserve to be treated as such.


What's changed is I'm no longer comfortable with the idea of imposing my viewpoint on abortion on anyone.


I still believe abortion is a terrible thing... but so is telling someone they have no choice in enduring a nine-month pregnancy with all the difficulties, burdens and risks that such can bring. Pregnancy is far more than an "inconvenience", it is a massive burden and trial and everything can be going along fine when suddenly it becomes life-threatening.


I don't feel comfortable anymore taking that choice away from those who are to endure it... at least, as you say, within reason (first trimester, maybe second if there are health reasons).


I'd rather persuade than coerce.


It is my hope that one day abortions will be FAR more rare, but I've also considered that there are worse things for the unborn than simply dying in the womb... being born into a family of meth-head gang members might actually be worse.


It's a tough subject to make up one's mind on and I salute you for applying your good mind and sense of compassion to the question rather than just sticking with knee-jerk responses.

 

[Crovax]

I feel like it's important to continuously learn and always evaluate what we believe and why we believe it. I've been staunchly pro-life and completely opposed to nearly all abortions outside of the need to terminate to save the mother's life. After going through life, learning, evaluating, and seeing people in a healthcare setting I've changed what I believe and what I support.

You could say I'm "pro-choice" to an extent. I support the ability for a woman to terminate a pregnancy in the first trimester or only early on in pregnancy and only in the first trimester/early on (depending on what embryology says about the fetal development). I believe in the absence of complete human development and the fetus not having a mind I believe it's not unethical to terminate pregnancy in this stage. I do, however, believe it's inhumane and wrong to do so after the first trimester or when he child may have a functioning brain and/or mind. Many pregnancies naturally terminate early on, and most women will delay a pregnancy announcement until they are roughly 16 weeks out because there is still a high risk of losing the baby and wouldn't want to announce before they know they have a believable healthy pregnancy.

I've seen women in crisis who followed all the "right" steps, did all the "right" things that still wound up conceiving and I wouldn't put it past them to chose to terminate or not. I've never been in this kind of situation and that's not the reason behind my position change.

Basically, I don't believe it's inhumane to terminate a pregnancy in the earliest stages, I do believe it is wrong to do so in later stages and support full bans on mid-late term abortion as I believe that's unethical killing of a human life that has a mind, may feel pain, or is a viable human life. Prior to this though while it is an embryo or in the earliest stages of development I do not see a problem with it and believe a woman should be able to chose to abort if she feels it's the best decision for her and/or her partner.

You are changing your views based on anecdotal experiences, that's pretty silly did you never think of those scenarios before. You claimed they did all "right" things, that's extremely ignorant. All birth control has a failure rate the only right way to ensure that you don't get pregnant is not to have sex.

 

[Crovax]

I think the unborn are human and deserve to be treated as such.

What's changed is I'm no longer comfortable with the idea of imposing my viewpoint on abortion on anyone.

If you honestly believed that then you wouldnt be forcing your views on people you would be protecting the rights of people who can't protect themselves.

 

[Goshin]

If you honestly believed that then you wouldnt be forcing your views on people you would be protecting the rights of people who can't protect themselves.

Not everything comes in clear black and white.


I do firmly believe the unborn are human and deserve to be treated as such. When the moment of truth arrived and I discovered I had an unexpected child on the way, I followed my beliefs and accepted that responsibility even though it was a REALLY bad time for it. I find the idea of abortion-as-birth-control appalling.


However, though I believe the unborn are human and deserving of consideration as such.... not all humans deserve to live, and not all humans who deserve to live actually get to. Now let me explain that...


It was Viktyr who pointed out to me that I was neglecting to note that killing humans was acceptable under some circumstances, such as self-defense. I didn't accept the idea at first, but we went through various analogies, such as the uninvited intruder in your home who won't leave and eats everything in sight and might kill you at some point... a lot of different things really, but essentially that to a woman who didn't want suffer the burden of pregnancy could argue self-defense against the charge of abortion = homicide. Namely that yes, it is homicide but it might be justifiable, especially given that pregnancy can be a life-threatening position.


I'm not saying that I fully accepted this line of argument but it did give me pause. I know more than few women who have gone through difficult pregnancies, and more than one who nearly died (or did die) bringing a child into the world, or suffered long-term-to-permanent health issues from a difficult pregnancy. Not to mention the severe limitations and burden that even normal pregnancy puts on a woman in the last three months or so.


The point being it is a lot to ask of someone, and imposing it on someone who doesn't want it is pretty darn harsh.


Abortion is harsh as well, if you consider it homicide as I do... but homicide can sometimes be justified.


Abortion is not something I personally would choose in almost any scenario I can imagine... but I can see the other side of it too, and how taking that choice away would be a heavy imposition.

 

[Reformedfindlay]

You are changing your views based on anecdotal experiences, that's pretty silly did you never think of those scenarios before. You claimed they did all "right" things, that's extremely ignorant. All birth control has a failure rate the only right way to ensure that you don't get pregnant is not to have sex.

FACEFIST

Yeah, humanity is just going to become abstinent :roll:

 

[Crovax]

Not everything comes in clear black and white.


I do firmly believe the unborn are human and deserve to be treated as such. When the moment of truth arrived and I discovered I had an unexpected child on the way, I followed my beliefs and accepted that responsibility even though it was a REALLY bad time for it. I find the idea of abortion-as-birth-control appalling.


However, though I believe the unborn are human and deserving of consideration as such.... not all humans deserve to live, and not all humans who deserve to live actually get to. Now let me explain that...


It was Viktyr who pointed out to me that I was neglecting to note that killing humans was acceptable under some circumstances, such as self-defense. I didn't accept the idea at first, but we went through various analogies, such as the uninvited intruder in your home who won't leave and eats everything in sight and might kill you at some point... a lot of different things really, but essentially that to a woman who didn't want suffer the burden of pregnancy could argue self-defense against the charge of abortion = homicide. Namely that yes, it is homicide but it might be justifiable, especially given that pregnancy can be a life-threatening position.


I'm not saying that I fully accepted this line of argument but it did give me pause. I know more than few women who have gone through difficult pregnancies, and more than one who nearly died (or did die) bringing a child into the world, or suffered long-term-to-permanent health issues from a difficult pregnancy. Not to mention the severe limitations and burden that even normal pregnancy puts on a woman in the last three months or so.


The point being it is a lot to ask of someone, and imposing it on someone who doesn't want it is pretty darn harsh.


Abortion is harsh as well, if you consider it homicide as I do... but homicide can sometimes be justified.


Abortion is not something I personally would choose in almost any scenario I can imagine... but I can see the other side of it too, and how taking that choice away would be a heavy imposition.

You think that a heavy imposition is worse than murder? Obviously neither choice is a good one but devaluing a certain type of human life based on arbitrary lines is the same thinking that let people justify all sorts of atrocities.

 

[Crovax]

FACEFIST

Yeah, humanity is just going to become abstinent :roll:

Never said they were, I'm just pointing out the ignorance about birth control and how it permeates the abortion debate to its core.

 

[year2late]

What's changed is I'm no longer comfortable with the idea of imposing my viewpoint on abortion on anyone.


.

I am personally "anti-abortion" but in no way shape or form do I think it is right to impose my viewpoint on others.

I should have had an easy pregnancy. Right age, good health, great MD, great healthcare coverage, great childbearing hips, financially reasonably stable. Before all was said and done, I was pre-eclamptic, my kidneys took a hit, I have some vascular damage to one leg, I ended up having surgery under general anesthesia. I ended up off work for medical issues for almost 6 months and we went deeply in debt. Fortunatly even though I well exceeded my FMLA, my employer kept me on, although I lost a promotion that was mine to have because of how long I was out.

I have no right to shoulder the burden of what may come for a woman that may not want to remain pregnant.

Take my situation above, and add on being under resourced. The chance of slow response to complications becomes a problem.

 

[Reformedfindlay]

Never said they were, I'm just pointing out the ignorance about birth control and how it permeates the abortion debate to its core.

Hey, if we destroyed every last gun in America, there won't be any criminals going out with guns. That's the only zero failure rate available right?

No. It's not ignorance. Humans will have sex, that is a fact.

 

[Crovax]

Hey, if we destroyed every last gun in America, there won't be any criminals going out with guns. That's the only zero failure rate available right?

No. It's not ignorance. Humans will have sex, that is a fact.

And if you have sex there's a chance you will end up with a pregnancy that's a fact.

 

[Goshin]

You think that a heavy imposition is worse than murder? Obviously neither choice is a good one but devaluing a certain type of human life based on arbitrary lines is the same thinking that let people justify all sorts of atrocities.

Murder is the deliberate taking of a human life under circumstances where it cannot be justified.

If it can be justified, then it becomes "justifiable homicide".

It is still killing a human being, but that is acceptable under some circumstances.


Now in the case of abortion, obviously the unborn baby has done nothing through his/her own INTENT... there is no "mens rea" or guilty mind, no intention at all just biology at work. So the babe is innocent.

That doesn't change the fact that the unborn baby could still kill Mama somewhere along the in the process of getting born, or otherwise do her serious damage that will stay with her for life. It happens. Thanks to modern medicine not so often as it once did, but it does happen.

Therefore pregnancy is potentially a life-threatening condition.

Now in some cases, Maw Paw and Doc all know early on that carrying that baby to term is a big risk for Mama. She may have preexisting health conditions that make her unlikely to survive the strain of last-trimester pregnancy and/or childbirth.

But not infrequently, everything can seem fine early on but a pregnancy can suddenly TURN life-threatening at any point. Such was the case with one of my nieces, who nearly died bringing her firstborn into the world. She was in her last trimester and seemed to be fine, then all the sudden she was on the verge of death from toxemia.

Now I know a lot of ladies who want a baby are perfectly willing to take great personal risk to bring that baby into the world, and I salute them. I have the greatest respect for motherhood, reverence for it even. To me any pregnant mother-to-be is a reigning Queen and her least whim a royal command, and I'll lay my life on the line to defend hers even if I've never seen her before.

I'm just a little less eager than I once was to impose, by force of law, that risk and burden on those who do NOT want to bear it.

While I think it is very sad that not all babies conceived are wanted, and not all babies wanted can be born without endangering the mother, I'm not so sure anymore than justice (or otherwise best outcomes) is found in forcing that burden on those who don't want it.


The notion of a baby being aborted is appalling to me, and a thing of great sadness. But... is it really any sadder than a child born to drug addicts who didn't want her in the first place, who grows up neglected, mistreated, and under-loved with nothing but their sorry-ass example before her eyes as how to live? I'm not as sure as I once was.

 

[Lursa]

Basically, I don't believe it's inhumane to terminate a pregnancy in the earliest stages, I do believe it is wrong to do so in later stages and support full bans on mid-late term abortion as I believe that's unethical killing of a human life that has a mind, may feel pain, or is a viable human life. Prior to this though while it is an embryo or in the earliest stages of development I do not see a problem with it and believe a woman should be able to chose to abort if she feels it's the best decision for her and/or her partner.

Perhaps your conscience will feel lighter to know that few to no elective abortions take place late term and esp not after viability (after 22 weeks). Those performed late term are done for medical reasons: the mother's health or a severely defective fetus.

Also, no matter when an abortion takes place, it is humane, the unborn feels no pain. In the early stages it is a matter of flushing the pea-sized embryo/early fetus from the womb and there's no awareness or pain. If there is a late term abortion, anesthesia or lethal injection is used so that there is no pain for the unborn.

So there is no need to ban any abortions. Later term abortions arent done unless out of medical necessity.

 

[JayDubya]

So there is no need to ban any abortions. Later term abortions arent done unless out of medical necessity.

That's a lie, and you know it.

Or rather, it's a ridiculous stretch of the word "necessity" beyond all reason and sanity.

 

[JayDubya]

But... is it really any sadder than a child born to drug addicts who didn't want her in the first place, who grows up neglected, mistreated, and under-loved with nothing but their sorry-ass example before her eyes as how to live?

Emphatic yes, with no cynicism or doubt whatsoever.

a) Folks can and do have ****ty parents and go on to live lives they appreciate.
b) Worse case scenario, you have ****ty parents and do not want to go on living... you can fix that yourself without any outside help.

I didn't accept the idea at first, but we went through various analogies, such as the uninvited intruder in your home who won't leave and eats everything in sight and might kill you at some point... a lot of different things really, but essentially that to a woman who didn't want suffer the burden of pregnancy could argue self-defense against the charge of abortion = homicide. Namely that yes, it is homicide but it might be justifiable, especially given that pregnancy can be a life-threatening position.

The thing about that which Viktyr can't explain away is that a home invader you can just shoot on site the second you see him, whereas when you are a parent you have obligations to provide for the offspring you create.

Furthermore, you have every reason to suspect a home invader who has already disrespected your property rights will continue to aggress against you. A helpless and innocent human being who cannot attack you in any way is not the same thing.

 

[RetiredUSN]

Murder is the deliberate taking of a human life under circumstances where it cannot be justified.

If it can be justified, then it becomes "justifiable homicide".

It is still killing a human being, but that is acceptable under some circumstances.


Now in the case of abortion, obviously the unborn baby has done nothing through his/her own INTENT... there is no "mens rea" or guilty mind, no intention at all just biology at work. So the babe is innocent.

That doesn't change the fact that the unborn baby could still kill Mama somewhere along the in the process of getting born, or otherwise do her serious damage that will stay with her for life. It happens. Thanks to modern medicine not so often as it once did, but it does happen.

Therefore pregnancy is potentially a life-threatening condition.

Now in some cases, Maw Paw and Doc all know early on that carrying that baby to term is a big risk for Mama. She may have preexisting health conditions that make her unlikely to survive the strain of last-trimester pregnancy and/or childbirth.

But not infrequently, everything can seem fine early on but a pregnancy can suddenly TURN life-threatening at any point. Such was the case with one of my nieces, who nearly died bringing her firstborn into the world. She was in her last trimester and seemed to be fine, then all the sudden she was on the verge of death from toxemia.

Now I know a lot of ladies who want a baby are perfectly willing to take great personal risk to bring that baby into the world, and I salute them. I have the greatest respect for motherhood, reverence for it even. To me any pregnant mother-to-be is a reigning Queen and her least whim a royal command, and I'll lay my life on the line to defend hers even if I've never seen her before.

I'm just a little less eager than I once was to impose, by force of law, that risk and burden on those who do NOT want to bear it.

While I think it is very sad that not all babies conceived are wanted, and not all babies wanted can be born without endangering the mother, I'm not so sure anymore than justice (or otherwise best outcomes) is found in forcing that burden on those who don't want it.


The notion of a baby being aborted is appalling to me, and a thing of great sadness. But... is it really any sadder than a child born to drug addicts who didn't want her in the first place, who grows up neglected, mistreated, and under-loved with nothing but their sorry-ass example before her eyes as how to live? I'm not as sure as I once was.

Well said. I always had my thoughts, but I am not a wise enough man to word it the way you just did.

 

[RetiredUSN]

Perhaps your conscience will feel lighter to know that few to no elective abortions take place late term and esp not after viability (after 22 weeks). Those performed late term are done for medical reasons: the mother's health or a severely defective fetus.

Also, no matter when an abortion takes place, it is humane, the unborn feels no pain. In the early stages it is a matter of flushing the pea-sized embryo/early fetus from the womb and there's no awareness or pain. If there is a late term abortion, anesthesia or lethal injection is used so that there is no pain for the unborn.

So there is no need to ban any abortions. Later term abortions arent done unless out of medical necessity.

Are you sure this is all true? I am asking out of ignorance....... and not to argue.

 

[sangha]

You could say I'm "pro-choice" to an extent...

...Basically, I don't believe it's inhumane to terminate a pregnancy in the earliest stages, I do believe it is wrong to do so in later stages and support full bans on mid-late term abortion as I believe that's unethical killing of a human life that has a mind, may feel pain, or is a viable human life. Prior to this though while it is an embryo or in the earliest stages of development I do not see a problem with it and believe a woman should be able to chose to abort if she feels it's the best decision for her and/or her partner.

I would say you are solidly pro-choice in that you recognize that people do have a right to decide whether or not to continue a pregnancy. Though you believe the govt has the power to limit that right to the 1st trimester, your "concession" regarding 1st term abortions is an implicit rejection of the anti-choicers foundational premise that the unborn are "persons" and have full rights beginning at conception. While your position of limiting abortions to the 1st trimester (with exceptions to protect the mother's life) may be a bit more restrictive than many/most pro-choice, the premise of your position (based on the mental development of the unborn) is well within the consensus of pro-choice thought.

And I applaud you for being so open-minded about the issue. In that vein, I think you should consider issues such as "Should a fetus (or a born person) with a condition which limits or eliminates it's ability to think and feel be considered a person?"

 

[sangha]

If you honestly believed that then you wouldnt be forcing your views on people you would be protecting the rights of people who can't protect themselves.

If you honestly believed in the "protecting the rights of people who can't protect themselves" argument, I'd bet you'd change your position on programs like food stamps, TANF, Obamacare, etc

 

[sangha]

And if you have sex there's a chance you will end up with a pregnancy that's a fact.

And if you end up with a pregnancy, there's a chance you'll get an abortion

That, too, is a fact

 

[calamity]

That's a lie, and you know it.

Or rather, it's a ridiculous stretch of the word "necessity" beyond all reason and sanity.

Well, pony up and provide us some links supporting your claim.

 

[Crovax]

And if you end up with a pregnancy, there's a chance you'll get an abortion

That, too, is a fact

Only if you are a sociopath

 

[prometeus]

Only if you are a sociopath

It is sociopaths who would impose their ignorant views on others.