Abortion

[radiojake]

You guys seriously need to actually provide reasons. Saying it's a right doesn't make it so.

Could've fooled me. That's the same style of argument constantly made by people on this site in favor of homosexuals getting married. Saying it's their right doesn't make it so.

The reason homosexuals should be able to marry is because it should not matter to anyone else if they do - Why the f*ck would you care about how two people choose to define their relationship? Gender is irrelevant.

Back with the abortion debate, it is hilarious that the people who seem to think that if a woman particpates in intercourse and gets pregnant, then it is somehow a 'punishment' and she live the consequences, because the life of the innocent, unborn featus is sancrosanct. However, if that child is born into a family environment that is unable to adequately care for it, then you'll complain to high hell if they receive welfare payments that are YOUR tax dollars.

You guys are a fucking joke -

[john9blue]

Back with the abortion debate, it is hilarious that the people who seem to think that if a woman particpates in intercourse and gets pregnant, then it is somehow a 'punishment' and she live the consequences, because the life of the innocent, unborn featus is sancrosanct. However, if that child is born into a family environment that is unable to adequately care for it, then you'll complain to high hell if they receive welfare payments that are YOUR tax dollars.

You guys are a fucking joke -

Who said having a baby was a punishment?

[PLAYER57832]

You guys seriously need to actually provide reasons. Saying it's a right doesn't make it so.

Could've fooled me. That's the same style of argument constantly made by people on this site in favor of homosexuals getting married. Saying it's their right doesn't make it so.

Happy to take you up on that one, too.

Gee, last time it only went to what -- 100 pages or so (might be a bit behind in that).

[PLAYER57832]

Who said having a baby was a punishment?

I did say that being born into a house without love is punishing the child.. and, ultimately maybe society.

[PLAYER57832]

I think it's fucking bizarre that parental consent should be given for tylenol. (and I'm actually not convinced that consent is required for anyone over 12. )

But we're still talking about something entirely different. Talking about consistency is bollocks. You need to give a convincing reason as to why the parents need to know.

Welcome to the world of lawsuits in the US.

In many states the age of medical consent is 14. In some, I believe its 16. It might be 12 in a few places.

Schools are sort of in a double bind, because they tend to operate under stricter rules. Usually even an 18 year old cannot sign their own absentee excuses, for example. (but they can for someone else in their resposibility)

[Swimmerdude99]

2) Stop allowing minors to get abortions without a minimum of informing their parents and preferably having their consent. Parents have to give high schools permission to give their children Tylenol, yet some schools will bus their students off campus without consent to have abortions. That's just utterly wrong.

Having their consent? So if an underaged gets pregnant, her parents can force her to have the child against her will? Man, you're a genius.

Yeah he is!! She's the one who had the sex it is her fault.

[PLAYER57832]

2) Stop allowing minors to get abortions without a minimum of informing their parents and preferably having their consent. Parents have to give high schools permission to give their children Tylenol, yet some schools will bus their students off campus without consent to have abortions. That's just utterly wrong.

Having their consent? So if an underaged gets pregnant, her parents can force her to have the child against her will? Man, you're a genius.

Yeah he is!! She's the one who had the sex it is her fault.

And where were the parents in this?
Their time to decide is past.
Besides, as I noted above, one reason for the law is to ensure that parents cannot force girls to abort (many still will, but there is a legal option). After all, a girl getting pregnant was an "embarrassment" to the parents.

A second reason is that many girls faced being kicked out of their houses or worse when a pregnancy was revealed. The protection is not just to anonymity, it is that she has the right to decide whether to have the child or not. If she decides to have it, she is eligible for state assistance, just like any pregnant woman. (they usually try to reconcile the girl with family, because its cheaper and tends to be better for all when it works)

A third reason has to do with the harm that comes when a girl decides to end a pregnancy on her own. Teen girls are not necessarily the most logical thinkers in the world. If they are pushed, many do choose suicide or attempting to end the pregnancies on their own. Not only does this threaten her life, but it threatens her ability to have future children.

[PLAYER57832]

Many of you want to utterly dismiss the "future children" concept. However, many women who have abortions do go on to have other children. In many of the medical cases, an abortion helped ensure that those future children were able to be born and had a better chance of being born healthy than if the woman were not allowed an abortion.

In a sense, I fit that. When I miscarried, I was far enough along that the doctor felt a surgical removeal was best. I now have 2 healthy boys. (and 2 stepsons) In many areas, where abortions are restricted, that option would not have been available. Or it might have been available, but only after driving 2 hours to a clinic. (when there are heavy restrictions, there tend not to be many doctors qualified to do the procedures). I was working at the time. Between follow up appointments and such, I am not sure I could have taken that much time off work.

So, again... its not as simple as you like to pretend.

[rdsrds2120]

I'm splitting these off-topic posts about homosexuals and marriage into another topic, let's keep the Abortion topic about abortion!

-rd

[PLAYER57832]

I'm splitting these off-topic posts about homosexuals and marriage into another topic, let's keep the Abortion topic about abortion!

-rd

A split is premature. If it continues, it will be in another thread. Right now, its in context.

[demonfork]

Many of you want to utterly dismiss the "future children" concept. However, many women who have abortions do go on to have other children. In many of the medical cases, an abortion helped ensure that those future children were able to be born and had a better chance of being born healthy than if the woman were not allowed an abortion.

In a sense, I fit that. When I miscarried, I was far enough along that the doctor felt a surgical removeal was best. I now have 2 healthy boys. (and 2 stepsons) In many areas, where abortions are restricted, that option would not have been available. Or it might have been available, but only after driving 2 hours to a clinic. (when there are heavy restrictions, there tend not to be many doctors qualified to do the procedures). I was working at the time. Between follow up appointments and such, I am not sure I could have taken that much time off work.

So, again... its not as simple as you like to pretend.

Big fat lie. There is not now nor has there ever been, in any state, any law against surgical removeal(sic) in the event of a miscarriage.

[Woodruff]

stopping murder trumps paying down debt.

It's not fucking murder.

[Woodruff]

1) Close all "clinics" whose primary means of income is abortions. Let's remove these abortion mills such as where doctors come for one day a week and do many abortions and have all procedures done in an actual hospital (you know, where actual surgeries take place).

Why?

2) Stop allowing minors to get abortions without a minimum of informing their parents and preferably having their consent. Parents have to give high schools permission to give their children Tylenol, yet some schools will bus their students off campus without consent to have abortions. That's just utterly wrong.

No it is not. If we accept that abortion is solely up to the one single person then it follows that they are also the only one who determines who knows and who doesn't.

Don't you see the gross inconsistency at play here? The child is not intellectually capable of making the decision to take a Tylenol, but that same child is intellectually capable of having an abortion? This makes sense to you?

2) Stop allowing minors to get abortions without a minimum of informing their parents and preferably having their consent. Parents have to give high schools permission to give their children Tylenol, yet some schools will bus their students off campus without consent to have abortions. That's just utterly wrong.

I absolutely agree regarding informing the parents - I also find it ludicrous that the parents are not required to be informed. By the same token, I disagree that it should be the parents' decision. Many parents would opt for the abortion rather than carrying to term.

Why should parents be informed?

It's the point of consistency. I think we can both agree that taking a Tylenol is far less risky health-wise than an abortion, right? But parental consent is required for the Tylenol and not the abortion. It makes no sense.

I think it's fucking bizarre that parental consent should be given for tylenol.

Oh, I agree completely! No argument.

(and I'm actually not convinced that consent is required for anyone over 12.)

Sadly, it is the case.

But we're still talking about something entirely different. Talking about consistency is bollocks. You need to give a convincing reason as to why the parents need to know.

No, consistency is important. If an institution is going to be required to handle situations from a safety-related perspective...well, an abortion is absolutely more safety-problematic on a typical basis than taking a Tylenol. If parents must know about the lesser danger, then that in itself is a convincing reason why they need to know about the greater danger. As well, the fact that the parents will have to take care of any post-operation medical requirements if something should go seriously wrong is a pretty convincing reason why they should have a need-to-know about it.

[natty dread]

I have always been baffled by the fact that the most vocal anti-abortionists are usually highly religious people.

I mean, doesn't their religion say that the dead innocent babies go on to heaven to enjoy god's grace for all eternity? So why exactly is it a bad thing for these babies to die? They're just getting a free pass to teh heavens.

[Woodruff]

I have always been baffled by the fact that the most vocal anti-abortionists are usually highly religious people.

I mean, doesn't their religion say that the dead innocent babies go on to heaven to enjoy god's grace for all eternity? So why exactly is it a bad thing for these babies to die? They're just getting a free pass to teh heavens.

I thought it was Purgatory for the Roman Catholics...although not being a Roman Catholic, I could be way off on that one.

[PLAYER57832]

In many areas, where abortions are restricted, that option would not have been available. Or it might have been available, but only after driving 2 hours to a clinic. (when there are heavy restrictions, there tend not to be many doctors qualified to do the procedures).

Big fat lie. There is not now nor has there ever been, in any state, any law against surgical removeal(sic) in the event of a miscarriage.

[/quote]
I colorized the signficant part . Note, I did not say it was illegal, I said "not available".

See, when people keep picketing abortion clinics, threatening doctors who do the procedure, it means that few doctors are willing to even go through the effort to learn the skills or to set up a practice to do it. This means NO woman can have the procedure without a great effort.

This is especially true for woman needing a later term procedure.

Oh, in Dakota, the only reason an abortion is allowed is if the woman's life is endangered.. not health, but life.

[Neoteny]

stopping murder trumps paying down debt.

Back to squre one:
And who gets to decide it IS murder?

THAT is the real question. Biology? YOUR religion? It's definitely not a matter of "common sense" unless you wish to discount everyone else's view except your. And, we have a paradigm in the US that accepts individual freedoms regarding matters of disputed morality.

Actually, it's completely common sense. Once the zygote is implanted on the uterine wall, a new human has been conceived. The zygote has its own unique DNA sequence and can grow once it's implanted. It's fine to stop the combining of the gametes as well as to prevent the implantation of the zygote, but voluntary choice to end that life should stop at that point.

Lol when does the blastocyst (it's no longer a zygote by implantation) become a new human, again? During apposition? Adhesion? Invasion? These are all stages of implantation.

Why that point and not individual eggs and sperm... or why at that point and not later, when a fetus begins to show true sensation, etc.

Because gametes do not have the DNA makeup of a human. They only have half the DNA, so they are not human.

The zygote has its own unique DNA sequence and can grow once it's implanted. It's fine to stop the combining of the gametes as well as to prevent the implantation of the zygote, but voluntary choice to end that life should stop at that point.

This is your idea, but what gives you the right to decide for anyone else?

Simple biology. If I took a DNA sample of the zygote and compared it to the DNA sequences of the mother and the father, all 3 would be different. Therefore, it is clearly a unique person and the law states that people do not have the right to take the life of another person.

Wow, you have a really low opinion on what constitutes humanity. And people say we atheists have a depressing worldview. Btw there's "simple" again. I do not think that word means what you think it means. Your abuse of my field of study is sickening. Please stop.

[PLAYER57832]

I have always been baffled by the fact that the most vocal anti-abortionists are usually highly religious people.

I mean, doesn't their religion say that the dead innocent babies go on to heaven to enjoy god's grace for all eternity? So why exactly is it a bad thing for these babies to die? They're just getting a free pass to teh heavens.

I thought it was Purgatory for the Roman Catholics...although not being a Roman Catholic, I could be way off on that one.

A baby has not yet sinned, so therefore most Christians (including Roman Catholics) would say it is held within God's grace.

Some other religions and some Christians debate when the "soul" enters the body.

[Woodruff]

I have always been baffled by the fact that the most vocal anti-abortionists are usually highly religious people.

I mean, doesn't their religion say that the dead innocent babies go on to heaven to enjoy god's grace for all eternity? So why exactly is it a bad thing for these babies to die? They're just getting a free pass to teh heavens.

I thought it was Purgatory for the Roman Catholics...although not being a Roman Catholic, I could be way off on that one.

A baby has not yet sinned, so therefore most Christians (including Roman Catholics) would say it is held within God's grace.

Oh...I thought that was what the whole baptise-the-baby thing was about...whether they went to heaven or Purgatory.

[rdsrds2120]

I have always been baffled by the fact that the most vocal anti-abortionists are usually highly religious people.

I mean, doesn't their religion say that the dead innocent babies go on to heaven to enjoy god's grace for all eternity? So why exactly is it a bad thing for these babies to die? They're just getting a free pass to teh heavens.

Less children to work on the farm.

That may seem like sarcasm, but it's thought to be one of the prime motivations against birth control from people in the old days. Abortion gets rid babies before they can grow up and be "productive and fruitful" as the bible states.

-rd

[Snorri1234]

No, consistency is important. If an institution is going to be required to handle situations from a safety-related perspective...well, an abortion is absolutely more safety-problematic on a typical basis than taking a Tylenol.

Actually, I'm not sure that it is. Abortion is generally very low risk and Tylenol might not be as safe as people think. But that's not important.

If parents must know about the lesser danger, then that in itself is a convincing reason why they need to know about the greater danger. As well, the fact that the parents will have to take care of any post-operation medical requirements if something should go seriously wrong is a pretty convincing reason why they should have a need-to-know about it.

Except that "parents are told of X, therefore parents should also be told of Y" isn't generally true. What is the most important consideration is "what is best for the kid?" Disruptive behaviour in class is far less of a concern than a kid who tells a counselor that they're very depressed, but the school has a duty to tell the parents about the behaviour and certainly not about them being depressed.

The consistency is not "telling parents about medical stuff related to the child" but "what is best for the child". An abortion is a very private thing and I can only imagine the shitload of problems when schools start informing parents about that shit. If the parents are supportive and loving then the girl has probably already told them, and if they're not then telling them is the worst idea ever if you care about the student.


Edit: This actually sounds like the best example of "punish women for having sex" yet. You even said that the parents shouldn't have any say in whether the abortion happens so all the effect your idea would have is making girls miserable.

[Snorri1234]

You guys seriously need to actually provide reasons. Saying it's a right doesn't make it so.

Could've fooled me. That's the same style of argument constantly made by people on this site in favor of homosexuals getting married. Saying it's their right doesn't make it so.

Except that nobody says that because it is quite clear that homosexuals don't have the right. That is; they don't have that right yet.


People are arguing that they should have that right. You know, by providing reasons and arguments and such.



Blatant assertion of that a right exists without backing it up is dumb.

[Woodruff]

If the parents are supportive and loving then the girl has probably already told them, and if they're not then telling them is the worst idea ever if you care about the student.

This is definitely not true and presumes far too much. Just because the girl THINKS the parents won't be supportive is not necessarily the reality of the situation. Neither my wife nor I thought our parents would be supportive when we got pregnant in high school, but both turned out to be VERY supportive (once they got over the initial shock/anger/etc).

[BigBallinStalin]

Government funds can be used for to help subsidize PRIVATE INSURANCE plans for lower income people that might cover abortion.

You forgot 2 tiny little pieces of information.

#1 we are talking about a VERY, VERY small amount of money that even might possibly go toward ANY abortions.

#2. the numbers of abortions charged to these policies "because someone screwed up" is absysmally small.

#3. If someone is getting a government subsidy for insurance, they are already a low income individual. That means their child will go onto taxpayer roles. You are prime among those wanting to cut costs... yet here, you want more kids on the dole?

I suppose you are also against paying for birth control?

1 and 2) Ah yes, it's so small of an expense, that it doesn't matter if you're paying for people to escape the consequences of their own decisions. That in turn leads to a further lack of self-responsibility--all of which you support. That's fine, but don't make other people pay for something that they shouldn't have to pay for.

3) Well, I'm pretty sure that you know where my thoughts lie on extended welfare benefits or giving tax credits to low-income families that have more than 2 kids.

[BigBallinStalin]

Who's in favor of coercing others to obey one's own moral standard?