Warnings on the dangers of NOT aborting?

[Jerry]

Yes and we've all pointed out that he has no right to tell anyone else what to do either.

Careful with those blanket statements there.....they can get you into trouble.

Here, have a Spork:

 

[Felicity]

This definition does not say HOW the fetus died. Some definitions say a stillbirth involves a fetus more than 28 weeks of age.

stillbirth - Wiktionary

"stillbirth (plural stillbirths)

The birth of a dead fetus. The delivery of an infant which is dead at birth."

So you've switched the position you spouted against on this thread you started? http://www.debatepolitics.com/abortion/19690-plot.html

Now abortion and stillbirth are pretty much synonomous? You need to be consistant, Grannie.

Depression is never "cured", it is just treated. If severe depression, i.e. suicidal depression, is alleviated by abortion, and doctor and patient agree that abortion is the best course of action, that is their decision.

Then the woman's life is not threatened by the continued pregnany. A threat to harm oneself is not so much a physical health issue as it is a mental health issue. The woman should be committed to a hospital for treatment, rather than killing the life inside her. Any reputable doctor would take a serious threat and get the woman help.

The whole thing begs the question of the woman's competency to consent to the medical procedure at all. If she is so mentally unstable as to threaten her own life, how can her choice to abort be rational and made without duress?

 

[OKgrannie]

So you've switched the position you spouted against on this thread you started? http://www.debatepolitics.com/abortion/19690-plot.html

Now abortion and stillbirth are pretty much synonomous? You need to be consistant, Grannie.

I don't see any conflict here. Stillbirth is the delivery of a dead fetus after 28 weeks, perhaps in rare cases it could have been an induced stillbirth. That has nothing to do with issuing certificates of stillbirth.

Then the woman's life is not threatened by the continued pregnany. A threat to harm oneself is not so much a physical health issue as it is a mental health issue. The woman should be committed to a hospital for treatment, rather than killing the life inside her. Any reputable doctor would take a serious threat and get the woman help.

The whole thing begs the question of the woman's competency to consent to the medical procedure at all. If she is so mentally unstable as to threaten her own life, how can her choice to abort be rational and made without duress?

A woman's life is threatened by SUICIDAL depression. Drugs to treat the depression are hazardous to the zef. What are you going to do, keep her in a strait jacket for 9 months?

 

[doughgirl]

Rivrrat said, “Why would someone "avoid words" that would tell a patient what really happens? When I had my abortions, they were pretty damn clear about what the procedure entailed. In short, "Gonna stick a tube up your cooter and suck out the fetus"“

Your statement make me want to throw up.

“I don't think it's "freakish" to think that it's wrong. I think it's wrong to impose your judgement and will upon ME.”

So if slavery was legal like it once was….. you would have fought for the South and tried to protect the right of citizens to own slaves? :rofl

“Then that's a problem with our education system.”

You got that right. Planned Parenthood wouldn’t want that subject taught and they certainly would not let Right To Life teach fetal development. Public schools are a big feeder progam into the success of PP.

“Everyone knows that abortion kills. If the "ZEF" wasn't alive, it wouldn't be growing. If it weren't growing into a human child, then being pregnant wouldn't be a concern.”

I guess its how you view the life inside the mother if in fact you think it’s a person.

I don’t buy into the idea that human worth and human rights grow with physiological development. If this was true then human worth and rights would continue to grow after birth as well, since we know that physiological development continues after birth. And if human worth and rights grow and develop, then adults have a greater right to live then adolescents, who have a greater right to live than infants.
Bottom line I think that many pro-abortion/choicers thinks its just more morally acceptable to kill something small.

You think what you want…. BUT to be pro-choice about someones right to kill is to be anti-choice about someones right to live.

“Hmm... no, I do know that people can be personally opposed to an act and yet completely agree that said act should be legal for others to choose to do. The statement, "I believe a woman has the right to kill the life inside of her" in no way contradicts that. There are many things I disagree with personally and would never, ever do. But I think others have the right to decide for themselves whether or not to do them. I am not so arrogant as to assume that my belief is the only right and/or correct one. So people can be and certainly are against abortion personally... in that THEY would never choose to have one, but they completely support other women's right to choose for themselves. That is pro-choice. They believe a woman has a right to kill the life inside of her, even if they personally find it to be "wrong" for them.”

I think it is different however if the act is killing something else. How many acts have to do with killing?

Curious are you for partial birth abortion …abortion up until the natural delivery of the unborn child?

Because if you say the woman has the right to kill, I am assuming that it would make no difference to you whether the abortion happened in the 8th week or the 30th week, she simply has the right to kill at anytime.



Some people like you said yourself think that being personally opposed to abortion while believing others should be free to choose it is some kind of compromise between the pro-abortion and pro-life positions. Its not. And as I have said before, pro-choicers vote the same as pro-abortion people. Both oppose legal protection for the innocent unborn. Both are willing for children to die by abortion and must take responsibility for the killing of those babies even if they do not participate directly.
To the baby who dies it makes no difference whether those who refuse to protect her were pro-abortion or merely pro-choice.

“My sis is a prime example of such a stance. So is a good friend of mine. Neither would ever choose to have an abortion and they personally believe it is the wrong thing to do. Yet they understand and acknowledge that their opinion is not the only valid one and believe that every woman should be free to choose for themselves.”

Well IMO I think their position is morally baffling. And if this issue were ever put on the ballot in individual states or the entire country……and people had to chance to voice their opinions by voting on this issue…….pull lever 1 (Pro-choice) and vote to allow woman the choice to kill or pull lever 2 (Pro-Life) and make abortion illegal..

Which one protects ALL LIFE? Which position is the pro-life position. And for those who would pull lever 1, they help to put a bulls-eye across the forhead of every unborn child whether they agree or not.

 

[Felicity]

I don't see any conflict here. Stillbirth is the delivery of a dead fetus after 28 weeks, perhaps in rare cases it could have been an induced stillbirth. That has nothing to do with issuing certificates of stillbirth.

You horror on the othe thread was that death certs would somehow make abortion realized for what it is--killing a human being.:roll:

A woman's life is threatened by SUICIDAL depression. Drugs to treat the depression are hazardous to the zef. What are you going to do, keep her in a strait jacket for 9 months?

So....you KILL the unborn to PROTECT the unborn from the effects of drugs that MIGHT be hazardous.:spin: :rofl :thinking :tocktock2

 

[rivrrat]

So if slavery was legal like it once was….. you would have fought for the South and tried to protect the right of citizens to own slaves? :rofl

I would have fought for the south, yes. But for different reasons. You know, the real reasons for the war.

You got that right. Planned Parenthood wouldn’t want that subject taught and they certainly would not let Right To Life teach fetal development. Public schools are a big feeder progam into the success of PP.

Oh yes, PP just LOOOOVES doing abortions! They promote them at every corner! They want everyone to be completely ignorant of their reproductive systems JUST so they can coerce women into having abortions. Hell, maybe they can even convince women that they're not even pregnant!

:roll:

Gimme a break.

Doctors who perform mastectomies don't promote them. They don't try to keep women ill informed about cancer screenings JUST so they can cut off more breasts. The implication that doctors would deliberately try to keep the public ignorant JUST so they could perform more procedures is enough to knock this thread down into the "Conspiracy Theories" section. Want a tin foil hat too?

I guess its how you view the life inside the mother if in fact you think it’s a person.

Exactly. It's all in how one views it. You have no right to impose your personal view in order to limit actions I take on MY body.

You think what you want…. BUT to be pro-choice about someones right to kill is to be anti-choice about someones right to live.

No, being anti-choice is about taking away the right of individuals to make reproductive decisions for themselves. It has NOTHING to do with saving lives, and everything to do with imposing someone elses will upon me. Otherwise, more anti-choicers would lamenting about the BC pills - which kill far more than abortions do. And, they wouldn't allow for exceptions with regard to rape or incest. The fact that so many allow these concessions is quite telling to the fact that their goal is NOT to save lives, but to impose their will.

I think it is different however if the act is killing something else. How many acts have to do with killing?

We kill things everyday.

Curious are you for partial birth abortion …abortion up until the natural delivery of the unborn child?

I am not "for" ANY abortion anymore than I am "for" any medical procedure.

Do I think partial birth abortions should be legal? Quite frankly, I don't care how the abortion is done - but I think late term abortions should only be done in efforts to save the mothers life.

Because if you say the woman has the right to kill, I am assuming that it would make no difference to you whether the abortion happened in the 8th week or the 30th week, she simply has the right to kill at anytime.

When the fetus is able to survive independent of the mother, then I believe abortions after that time should be limited to saving the life of the mother.

Some people like you said yourself think that being personally opposed to abortion while believing others should be free to choose it is some kind of compromise between the pro-abortion and pro-life positions. Its not. And as I have said before, pro-choicers vote the same as pro-abortion people. Both oppose legal protection for the innocent unborn. Both are willing for children to die by abortion and must take responsibility for the killing of those babies even if they do not participate directly.

No else is responsible for the abortion but the mother and the doctor who performs it.

To the baby who dies it makes no difference whether those who refuse to protect her were pro-abortion or merely pro-choice.

You are 100% correct. It makes no difference to the fetus AT ALL. NONE. They are incapable of thought, much less discerning the cause of their death. Hell, they're not even aware they're alive. So you are 100% correct.

Well IMO I think their position is morally baffling. And if this issue were ever put on the ballot in individual states or the entire country……and people had to chance to voice their opinions by voting on this issue…….pull lever 1 (Pro-choice) and vote to allow woman the choice to kill or pull lever 2 (Pro-Life) and make abortion illegal..

Which one protects ALL LIFE? Which position is the pro-life position. And for those who would pull lever 1, they help to put a bulls-eye across the forhead of every unborn child whether they agree or not.

Neither position protects ALL LIFE. ALL LIFE includes everything living. Nothing we say or do is going to protect ALL LIFE because that would not only be counterproductive, but impossible.

 

[dottedmint]

Rivrrat: Exactly. It's all in how one views it. You have no right to impose your personal view in order to limit actions I take on MY body.

For the record.....

I could care less what actions you take on YOUR body.

I DO care what actions you take on the body INSIDE your body.

But that's just me.....

 

[rivrrat]

For the record.....

I could care less what actions you take on YOUR body.

I DO care what actions you take on the body INSIDE your body.





But that's just me.....

You wanna start regulating my digestive system too? I might be eating unhealthy.

Besides, would the "right" thing to do in the case of PBA to save the life of the mother be to just let the mother (and by default the fetus) die? Would the right thing to do be to let the dead fetus sit inside the mother and rot until she dies? Is that more "humane" and more "right"? Because with PBA, most often the fetus is dead, dying, or otherwise killing the mother. So what would be the "right" thing to do in that situation?

 

[dottedmint]

You wanna start regulating my digestive system too? I might be eating unhealthy.

Besides, would the "right" thing to do in the case of PBA to save the life of the mother be to just let the mother (and by default the fetus) die? Would the right thing to do be to let the dead fetus sit inside the mother and rot until she dies? Is that more "humane" and more "right"? Because with PBA, most often the fetus is dead, dying, or otherwise killing the mother. So what would be the "right" thing to do in that situation?

I said before (did you not read it) that I could care less what you do with YOUR BODY.

I do care what you do with the body that is inside of your body.

IF the only choice was either abort the fetus or both the mother and child die I would NOT object to aborting the fetus.

This would ONLY be IF this was the ONLY CHOICE.

There are examples of where a fetus is delivered early to save the life of the mother.

IF the fetus was ALREADY dead then there is no issue in removing a dead body.

IF the fetus is "dying" then there is no reason to abort until when/if the fetus dies.

 

[OKgrannie]

So....you KILL the unborn to PROTECT the unborn from the effects of drugs that MIGHT be hazardous.:spin: :rofl :thinking :tocktock2

If the choices are: 1. abortion, 2. take drugs causing birth defects in the fetus, 3. woman is locked up for months suffering from suicidal depression....the choice still belongs to the woman and her medical advisors.

 

[OKgrannie]

I said before (did you not read it) that I could care less what you do with YOUR BODY..

Then you won't mind if what she chooses to do with her body is refuse to gestate another.

I do care what you do with the body that is inside of your body.
IF the only choice was either abort the fetus or both the mother and child die I would NOT object to aborting the fetus.
This would ONLY be IF this was the ONLY CHOICE.
There are examples of where a fetus is delivered early to save the life of the mother..

Your compassion underwhelms me.

IF the fetus was ALREADY dead then there is no issue in removing a dead body..

This is one of the few reasons for PBA, apparently SOMEBODY has an issue with it.

IF the fetus is "dying" then there is no reason to abort until when/if the fetus dies.

If the fetus has life incompatible deformities, there is no reason a woman should have to continue suffering for the remainder of her pregnancy. One of the few reasons for PBA.

 

[Felicity]

If the choices are: 1. abortion, 2. take drugs causing birth defects in the fetus, 3. woman is locked up for months suffering from suicidal depression....the choice still belongs to the woman and her medical advisors.

There is no moral justification for killing another human being because you feel like killing yourself.

And again....how can such a mentally ill woman give consent? Hmmmmm?????

 

[OKgrannie]

There is no moral justification for killing another human being because you feel like killing yourself.

And again....how can such a mentally ill woman give consent? Hmmmmm?????

Some doctors disagree. Apparently some doctors value a woman's well-being over that of a fetus. Apparently a lot of people don't think a fetus is "another human being", as in equal to a born woman. A lot of people believe that a woman does not have to justify an abortion, morally, physically, or otherwise. What do you really know about severe depression anyway? If a woman is too ill to make decisions for herself, her next of kin makes a decision with a doctor's counsel.

 

[debate_junkie]

Hmm, I refer you to OKGranny's "it's just a part of her body" and "it's just a clump of cells" arguments. FutureIncoming, 1069, CoffieSaint, Thinker, Independent Thinker, Mikkel, Sissy-Boy, Dazed, Steen, and many other PC DP members make these arguments on a regular basis.



I reiterate:
If women are not being properly informed about their pregnancy then that is a problem which needs to be addressed. I had assumed that Planned Parenthood, Youth and Family Services and others had covered this information. If you know of any spicific failure of such programs to inform women on what I personally consider an essential part of basic sex-ed, please make it known.



The law in question refers to a natural relationship, a basic human right, which is protected by the woman's 1st, 4th,9th and 14th. Amendments. I refer you to the SD laws in question linked earlier in this thread.

Online debate is not specifically mentioned in the constitution either, yet it remains protected by the first amendment, so your line of argument is not logically sound.

I'd just like to add to your elequent post, if I may Jerry. Women are in fact warned that pregnancy can cause depression. It's called Post Partum depression, and doctors DO give women the warning signs to look out for, and also who they can turn to if they need to get treatment. Having had 3 children, I never experienced it, which I am grateful for... the pregnancies took a toll on my body as it was. BUT... the warnings are given. It would be unethical for a doctor not do so, and this comes from my aunt.. who IS a doctor.

 

[1069]

I'd just like to add to your elequent post, if I may Jerry. Women are in fact warned that pregnancy can cause depression. It's called Post Partum depression, and doctors DO give women the warning signs to look out for, and also who they can turn to if they need to get treatment. Having had 3 children, I never experienced it, which I am grateful for... the pregnancies took a toll on my body as it was. BUT... the warnings are given. It would be unethical for a doctor not do so, and this comes from my aunt.. who IS a doctor.

Hum. Interesting.
Nobody ever warned me. And I've had two kids.
Presumably, there were more pressing concerns, in my case, and it just slipped their minds. It was all my keepers could do to prevent me from eating handfuls of dirt, licking the tires on our car, chewing ice cubes until I broke my teeth out, or huffing gasoline and permanent markers until I hyperventilated (long story; I had Pica, and also the most bizarre, intractable, irresistible cravings- mostly for smells. Mostly smells of things that weren't particularly good for me, like rubber and petroleum and chemicals; I recall giddily chattering to my dad- when we stopped at a gas station- that I'd decided what I wanted to be: an auto mechanic. I'd be happy for the rest of my life, I promised, if I could just work in a gas station and be surrounded by all these heavenly smells forever. :screwy These things were like catnip to me, they positively made me swoon).
But of course, I already knew about post-partum depression, the same way I know everything: reading.
I didn't have it either, though.
Good thing, I guess, since my doctor was apparently too 'unethical" to bother warning me about it, or anything else.

 

[dottedmint]

Then you won't mind if what she chooses to do with her body is refuse to gestate another.

Sure.....

IF she can do that without harming the body that is inside of her body.

This is one of the few reasons for PBA, apparently SOMEBODY has an issue with it.

And who would have a problem with removing a dead fetus from the mother?

They have a problem with KILLING the fetus first but IF the fetus dies of natural causes NOBODY would have a problem with removing it.

If the fetus has life incompatible deformities, there is no reason a woman should have to continue suffering for the remainder of her pregnancy. One of the few reasons for PBA.

The problem is that each year what is considered "life incompatible deformities" changes as medical technology improves....

Also....if a deformity is fixable.......

 

[Jerry]

IF the fetus was ALREADY dead then there is no issue in removing a dead body.

This is one of the few reasons for PBA, apparently SOMEBODY has an issue with it.

IF the fetus is "dying" then there is no reason to abort until when/if the fetus dies.

If the fetus has life incompatible deformities, there is no reason a woman should have to continue suffering for the remainder of her pregnancy. One of the few reasons for PBA.

Gonzalas v. Carhart, section 3b:

In addition, if intact D&E is truly necessary in some circumstances, a prior injection to kill the fetus allows a doctor to perform the procedure, given that the Act’s prohibition only applies to the delivery of “a living fetus,” 18 U. S. C. §1531(b)(1)(A). Planned Parenthood of Central Mo. v. Danforth, 428 U. S. 52 , distinguished.

 

[OKgrannie]

Sure.....

IF she can do that without harming the body that is inside of her body.

Then you DO care what a woman does with her body, you insist that she provide her body to continue to gestate a fetus regardless of her wishes.

And who would have a problem with removing a dead fetus from the mother?
They have a problem with KILLING the fetus first but IF the fetus dies of natural causes NOBODY would have a problem with removing it.

The ban on PBA does not list any exception for a fetus that is already dead.

The problem is that each year what is considered "life incompatible deformities" changes as medical technology improves....

Also....if a deformity is fixable.......

If a deformity is fixable, it is not life incompatible. Medical technology may develop means to deal with some deformities, in that case, the deformities are no longer life incompatible. If the fetus has life incompatible deformaties, there is no reason a woman should have to continue the pregnancy.

 

[1069]

In addition, if intact D&E is truly necessary in some circumstances, a prior injection to kill the fetus allows a doctor to perform the procedure, given that the Act’s prohibition only applies to the delivery of “a living fetus,”

Well, there you have it.
A solution that makes everyone happy.
So what's the conflict?

 

[Jerry]

The ban on PBA does not list any exception for a fetus that is already dead.

Gonzalas v. Carhart, section 3b:

In addition, if intact D&E is truly necessary in some circumstances, a prior injection to kill the fetus allows a doctor to perform the procedure, given that the Act’s prohibition only applies to the delivery of “a living fetus,” 18 U. S. C. §1531(b)(1)(A). Planned Parenthood of Central Mo. v. Danforth, 428 U. S. 52 , distinguished.

 

[Jerry]

Well, there you have it.
A solution that makes everyone happy.
So what's the conflict?

That's what I'm sayin. :2wave:

 

[dottedmint]

Then you DO care what a woman does with her body, you insist that she provide her body to continue to gestate a fetus regardless of her wishes.

But the act that you are saying she should be able to do has a negative impact on the other body.

That is the one that I care about.

I said I don't care what she does with HER body.....

I only care what she does with the other body....

 

[Jerry]

But the act that you are saying she should be able to do has a negative impact on the other body.

That is the one that I care about.

I said I don't care what she does with HER body.....

I only care what she does with the other body....

.....I'm watin for it.....

 

[1069]

I said I don't care what she does with HER body.....

I only care what she does with the other body....

Well, since you care and she doesn't, how about if she removes it from her body and gives it to you? Then you can do whatever you want with it.

 

[bandaidwoman]

Hey, let's compare mortality rates of non legal vs legal abortions!

In developing countries that outlaw abortion or where it is widely unavailable, the mortality rate from complications is far higher than in developed nations -- an average of 330 deaths per 100,000 abortions compared with between 0.2 and 1.2 per 100,000.

In Africa, an estimated 680 of every 100,000 women who undergo an abortion die of complications, researchers said. In Canada, which has one of the lowest abortion death rates, the study said there were 0.1 deaths per 100,000 abortions.

About 26 million women have legal abortions each year, and about 20 million have illegal abortions.

Actually, of all the elective surgeries that can be done, it has one of the lowest mortality rates.