Abortion

[NationalTitles18]

wasn't fun for sure but like I said just unpleasant for me. I read a story a couple of years ago about a women who died during a miscarriage that her doctors sent her home to have because the Catholic hospital wouldn't do the medically necessary procedure. The closest non catholic hospital to her was several hours in the car, want to do that in pain? Medical need should trump faith every time or the entire system falls apart. Without it some billionaire Jehovahs witness could buy up all the hospital beds in an area and ban blood transfusions or something else equally appalling. Can you imagine being in a ER and having a critical need for blood and having a priest/preacher/nun (whatever the witness term is) say no? This happens to women in this country every single day and this isn't the Republic of Gilead yet as much as our righty friends may want it to be

Certainly meets the definition of a caveat. Medical need is primary.

 

[jthomas666]

wasn't fun for sure but like I said just unpleasant for me. I read a story a couple of years ago about a women who died during a miscarriage that her doctors sent her home to have because the Catholic hospital wouldn't do the medically necessary procedure. The closest non catholic hospital to her was several hours in the car, want to do that in pain? Medical need should trump faith every time or the entire system falls apart.

I think I read a similar story. A woman needed treatment for a miscarriage, but no one in the hospital had been trained to do the procedure. One of the most horrifying articles I've ever read. Although this one comes close.

 

[Jon]

straight from the "Fine for me not for thee" of GOP Policy

https://www.newsweek.com/former-trump-aide-administered-abortion-pill-1134501

 

[Jon]

I think I read a similar story. A woman needed treatment for a miscarriage, but no one in the hospital had been trained to do the procedure. One of the most horrifying articles I've ever read. Although this one comes close.

Happens often, too much actually as once is too much.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

From CNN:
Abortion Fast FactsCNN Library
Updated 1:10 PM ET, Fri June 1, 2018



At the linked webpage above, we are at about half the number of abortions than we were in 1980.

Due to improvement of birth control technology, I presume?

The number of abortions in the United States increased gradually from 1973, then peaked in 1990 and has been on the decline since then.

At any rate.....with the current Bret Cavanaugh hearings going on and all the buzz about Roe v Wade getting overturned, it got me to thinking about abortion itself.

Assuming that in a perfect world, we wouldn't need to have any abortions performed....I'm interested on your thoughts on how we can reduce the number of abortions performed each year.

I realize in some cases, a woman is raped...and that is something that cannot be addressed as preventable.

We have birth control methods and also planned parenthood type organizations which disseminate educational materials and provide counseling.

I assume sex education is still taught in schools.

What else can be done to further reduce the need for abortions?

Right now (according to 2014 data in the linked webpage) there were 12.1 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15-44.

Is that about as good as we can get?

I don't tend to discuss this subject, but I'll simply throw my thoughts out here again and no, I won't fight or interact with anyone on it - mostly because I've never seen a single person change his or her mind on the subject based on a single discussion.

There are ONLY TWO consistent positions: a) abortion right up until prior to birth; b) no abortions for any reason. Virtually every single rational person on the planet falls somewhere along the continuum of greater/lesser inconsistency, and I include myself in that so that nobody thinks I'm ripping anyone else as a hypocrite. I'd prefer to call it pragmatic/realistic consistency, and we could debate the level of that all day long.

I hate abortion. I wish there would never be another one ever again. It is the subject MOST given to rhetorical arguments that are mostly devoid of any value beyond point scoring for debate. But then I'm forced to deal with a number of realities including the following

- we are NOT a theocratic nation (nor do I advocate we become one)
- legal or illegal, abortion is still going to happen
- a good portion of the time the "woman's right to choose" is REALLY "a man telling her she should get one" and he'll pay for it
- most abortions are unmarried women under 25 (but usually above teen years) who are (wait for it) white
- abortion is still going to be legal regardless of who winds up on SCOTUS (even an overturn of Roe v Wade - which I'd say is less likely than the idea Reagan is going to get a third term - isn't going to 'abolish abortion' like so many think)
- the best thing I can do as an evangelical who has had multiple women confess abortions to me is offer Christian love and support, she usually has enough condemnation (note: I'm not a priest or anything, but I AM pretty easy to talk to, Tidefans posts notwithstanding har har)
- both abortion AND anti-abortion are big business for some people

If we pass a law that limits abortion to the standard litany of rape/incest/save mother's life, guess what? We're going to have a massive increase in the number of women who go to a clinic and say "I was raped." To me, it's not all that different from the old "if we add this waiting period to firearms," I don't think that's going to stop a single mass shooting nor do I think limiting abortion to R/I/SML will stop even one.

I think in the bigger picture you have to educate (I know, another rhetorical term) and you MUST point out that abstinence is the ONLY guaranteed way to not conceive. Yet you must also point out the necessity of birth control (and make such available), and I think abortion (like war) needs to be treated as an absolute last resort of any kind. And yes, I DO in essence hold to a "life at conception" viewpoint, but the question before SCOTUS in Roe v Wade concerned whether or not the unborn child fell under constitutional protection, NOT whether life begins at conception. I could never advocate it in a counseling setting, either, but regarding legality, it is something I reluctantly admit probably has to be. It's one of those, "Look, I don't like it, but since it's going to happen anyway, it may as well be safe."

As I said, most of the arguments across the spectrum are rhetorical. It's easy to say the woman should give birth to the child but the fact is that most folks who advocate such a position are strongly against welfare and social programs that a lot of these born children will have to be covered by. It's also easy to say - as Al Gore was fond of repeating like a robot - "I buh-LEAVE in the ROT of a woman to choose," but ignore what she's choosing (and equally ignore that Gore actually proposed legislation in the House in 1984 arguing life begins at conception).

I hate the issue all the way around, and I'm not a one-issue voter, either.

I guess that shows my hand pretty well.

 

[seebell]

[h=1]ATTORNEY: MADISON COUNTY FIRST COURT IN U.S. TO RECOGNIZE ABORTED FETUS AS PERSON WITH RIGHTS[/h]https://www.waaytv.com/content/news...us-as-person-with-legal-rights-506690421.html

The Madison County probate court recognized an aborted fetus as a person with legal rights. According to a local attorney, that's never happened anywhere in the United States.
The decision allows Baby Roe's would-be-father and Baby Roe to sue the abortion clinic and others involved in terminating the pregnancy. (Read more here)

Daddy is even suing the drug company. Can a probate judge even rule on something like that?

 

[TIDE-HSV]

[h=1]ATTORNEY: MADISON COUNTY FIRST COURT IN U.S. TO RECOGNIZE ABORTED FETUS AS PERSON WITH RIGHTS[/h]https://www.waaytv.com/content/news...us-as-person-with-legal-rights-506690421.html

The Madison County probate court recognized an aborted fetus as a person with legal rights. According to a local attorney, that's never happened anywhere in the United States.
The decision allows Baby Roe's would-be-father and Baby Roe to sue the abortion clinic and others involved in terminating the pregnancy. (Read more here)

Daddy is even suing the drug company. Can a probate judge even rule on something like that?

I thought I just posted to this. Is it in two threads? What the probate court did mattered not at all and the judge knew it. The suit was filed in circuit court and that's where the important issues, including "personhood" will be litigated...

 

[Chukker Veteran]

I thought I just posted to this. Is it in two threads? What the probate court did mattered not at all and the judge knew it. The suit was filed in circuit court and that's where the important issues, including "personhood" will be litigated...

Good Lord, I did not realize things had deteriorated to that point. How awful, plus how embarrassing for those of us who live in this area.

I hope what you are telling us is that this foolish decision may well not stand up in a circuit court.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

Good Lord, I did not realize things had deteriorated to that point. How awful, plus how embarrassing for those of us who live in this area.

I hope what you are telling us is that this foolish decision may well not stand up in a circuit court.

Well, what I've been trying to say, in two threads, is that the decision of the probate court was immaterial. The "personhood" of the fetus will be determined by the circuit court and, I'm sure, that decision will be appealed, so too much attention is being directed at the first baby step...

 

[HSV_1969]

The subject of abortion has been brought up on many other threads recently, and has been flagged as derailing other discussions, so I was considering starting a thread dedicated to the discussion surrounding abortion, but found this stale discussion existed. Since this subject has now developed into a prominent discussion point of the 2024 campaign, I’d like to revive the thread.

The Cambridge dictionary definition of abortion: “the intentional ending of a pregnancy:”

Some thoughts on US current Legislation:
In my view, the laws of the US seem somewhat in conflict on the core issues surrounding abortion.

Internet search results for Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212):
A United States law that recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."

An internet search indicated that 38 states have “fetal victim” laws:
“The laws of 38 states recognize the human fetus as the legal victim of homicide and often, other violent crimes during the entire period of prenatal development (27 states) or during part of the prenatal period (nine states).”

A look at the Planned Parenthood abortion access tool shows the abortion availability status for 51 areas (the 50 states + DC), and in:
22 abortion is “accessible”
4 abortion is “mostly accessible”
3 abortion has “some restrictions”
1 abortion is “restricted”
7 abortion is “severely restricted”
14 abortion is “eliminated”

There are obviously some states where abortion is rated "accessible" without restriction but that also recognize a human fetus as a legal victim of some crimes.

So, one of the core questions for elective abortion:
• At what point in a pregnancy is the “child in utero” recognized as a human?

Documentation of the earliest surviving premature infant that I found is 21 weeks and 1 day (UAB hospital).
The likelihood of survival at 24 weeks is ~68%.
The fetal heart beat is detectable 5 ½ to 6 weeks after conception.

My personal views on abortion are based on the value of human life. I think elective abortion is wrong.

In my life experience, I have two children and have seen their “in utero” development through ultrasound images, etc. in routine visits to an obstetrician throughout the pregnancies.

I have also spent some time in a hospital neo-natal intensive care unit and seen some prematurely born babies. As having witnessed first-hand a baby born at 24 weeks and weighing 1.5 lb, the argument that child just became a viable human at birth has no impact on me. Looking at a child with 24 weeks of development, I really can’t understand how anyone could look at that child and honestly say it wasn’t a human baby for many weeks prior. The lungs may not be developed enough to survive if born prior to 21 weeks, but there is no way in my mind that lack of development relegates it to just a meaningless chunk of flesh within the mother’s body.

I know the subjects of rape and incest are brought up to further sensationalize the situation, but in any event, how can terminating a developing human life be the correct answer regardless of the situation under which a pregnancy began?

I’ve heard many Democrats propose that they “fight for those who don’t have a voice,” but how can that party also celebrate “reproductive rights” when the real meaning is “freedom to kill an unborn baby?” The unborn baby is the perfect example of someone who doesn't have a voice.

 

[Go Bama]

The subject of abortion has been brought up on many other threads recently, and has been flagged as derailing other discussions, so I was considering starting a thread dedicated to the discussion surrounding abortion, but found this stale discussion existed. Since this subject has now developed into a prominent discussion point of the 2024 campaign, I’d like to revive the thread.

The Cambridge dictionary definition of abortion: “the intentional ending of a pregnancy:”

Some thoughts on US current Legislation:
In my view, the laws of the US seem somewhat in conflict on the core issues surrounding abortion.

Internet search results for Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212):
A United States law that recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."

An internet search indicated that 38 states have “fetal victim” laws:
“The laws of 38 states recognize the human fetus as the legal victim of homicide and often, other violent crimes during the entire period of prenatal development (27 states) or during part of the prenatal period (nine states).”

A look at the Planned Parenthood abortion access tool shows the abortion availability status for 51 areas (the 50 states + DC), and in:
22 abortion is “accessible”
4 abortion is “mostly accessible”
3 abortion has “some restrictions”
1 abortion is “restricted”
7 abortion is “severely restricted”
14 abortion is “eliminated”

There are obviously some states where abortion is rated "accessible" without restriction but that also recognize a human fetus as a legal victim of some crimes.

So, one of the core questions for elective abortion:
• At what point in a pregnancy is the “child in utero” recognized as a human?

Documentation of the earliest surviving premature infant that I found is 21 weeks and 1 day (UAB hospital).
The likelihood of survival at 24 weeks is ~68%.
The fetal heart beat is detectable 5 ½ to 6 weeks after conception.

My personal views on abortion are based on the value of human life. I think elective abortion is wrong.

In my life experience, I have two children and have seen their “in utero” development through ultrasound images, etc. in routine visits to an obstetrician throughout the pregnancies.

I have also spent some time in a hospital neo-natal intensive care unit and seen some prematurely born babies. As having witnessed first-hand a baby born at 24 weeks and weighing 1.5 lb, the argument that child just became a viable human at birth has no impact on me. Looking at a child with 24 weeks of development, I really can’t understand how anyone could look at that child and honestly say it wasn’t a human baby for many weeks prior. The lungs may not be developed enough to survive if born prior to 21 weeks, but there is no way in my mind that lack of development relegates it to just a meaningless chunk of flesh within the mother’s body.

I know the subjects of rape and incest are brought up to further sensationalize the situation, but in any event, how can terminating a developing human life be the correct answer regardless of the situation under which a pregnancy began?

I’ve heard many Democrats propose that they “fight for those who don’t have a voice,” but how can that party also celebrate “reproductive rights” when the real meaning is “freedom to kill an unborn baby?” The unborn baby is the perfect example of someone who doesn't have a voice.

I agree there reaches a point when a fetus develops into a human that should not be aborted. This point will have to be decided upon if there is ever to be a compromise.

My hygienist has a granddaughter with apina bifida. The “baby” was removed from the mother’s womb, a section of skin was removed from her leg and used to cover her spine. The fetus was then put back inside the mother. The child was born prematurely six weeks later and is now five years old.

The mother wanted the child.

The child is beautiful and loving, but she has a lot of special needs.

Not every mother wants to or is ready to go through the physical and emotional trauma of pregnancy.

Not every mother is ready for a child financially, physically, or emotionally.

There is no more personal decision to be made in life than when to become a parent.

A worm has a heartbeat.

I know women who have had an abortion early in life and went on to have a family later on when they were ready.

Abortion is a clinical term and not a bad word.

Let’s allow the people whose lives are directly involved to make these decisions.

 

[Jon]

I have 2 kids, wife was pregnant 3 times. We desperately wanted all 3 but at a routine visit with pregnancy #2 we found that the baby stopped growing and there was no heartbeat.

In 2003 that was a painful nightmare of an experience. Wanting desperately to add to our family and being told that the only thing to do was what is known medically as a DnC also known as an abortion. This absolutely ripped our hearts out. One of the worst experiences of my life frankly. We were just shy of 20 weeks along.

If that happened in 2024 in much of the south and Midwest the DnC is no longer even an option and in some states the Doctor can't even tell you that the option exists. It is barbaric, hateful, cruel and a million adjectives I can't even think of at the moment to deny this healthcare or stigmatize any person who needs this option. Currently many of these women are sent home to suffer until they either give birth to a dead fetus, have a painful miscarriage or die of sepsis.

we need to be honest about this

 

[HSV_1969]

I agree there reaches a point when a fetus develops into a human that should not be aborted. This point will have to be decided upon if there is ever to be a compromise.
...
Not every mother wants to or is ready to go through the physical and emotional trauma of pregnancy.

Not every mother is ready for a child financially, physically, or emotionally.

There is no more personal decision to be made in life than when to become a parent.
...
Abortion is a clinical term and not a bad word.

Let’s allow the people whose lives are directly involved to make these decisions.

I appreciate your "spirit and tone" of the response. I do feel however, that using the example of a special case to point out that there are hardships, this still avoids the moral discussion of when is an elective abortion effectively murder?

I did an internet search for reasons for abortions, and I never came up with a definitive number, but the overwhelming majority of reasons seem to be convenience based and not a health concern.

So in the case of someone willfully killing a developing baby for convenience alone, I don't feel that there is really a significant moral distinction in someone deciding to have an abortion provider dismember and remove a developing baby in utero and someone willfully killing an infant after it is born. So in that light, "allowing the people whose lives are directly involved to make these decisions" shouldn't be the standard in my mind.

 

[HSV_1969]

I have 2 kids, wife was pregnant 3 times. We desperately wanted all 3 but at a routine visit with pregnancy #2 we found that the baby stopped growing and there was no heartbeat.

In 2003 that was a painful nightmare of an experience. Wanting desperately to add to our family and being told that the only thing to do was what is known medically as a DnC also known as an abortion. This absolutely ripped our hearts out. One of the worst experiences of my life frankly. We were just shy of 20 weeks along.

If that happened in 2024 in much of the south and Midwest the DnC is no longer even an option and in some states the Doctor can't even tell you that the option exists. It is barbaric, hateful, cruel and a million adjectives I can't even think of at the moment to deny this healthcare or stigmatize any person who needs this option. Currently many of these women are sent home to suffer until they either give birth to a dead fetus, have a painful miscarriage or die of sepsis.

we need to be honest about this

Jon, you have my sympathy for the situation that you described with the lost pregnancy, and I have no moral issue with the abortion in the situation you presented.

This situation does not fall into the "elective abortion" that I feel is indefensible.

 

[jthomas666]

I appreciate your "spirit and tone" of the response. I do feel however, that using the example of a special case to point out that there are hardships, this still avoids the moral discussion of when is an elective abortion effectively murder?

I did an internet search for reasons for abortions, and I never came up with a definitive number, but the overwhelming majority of reasons seem to be convenience based and not a health concern.

So in the case of someone willfully killing a developing baby for convenience alone, I don't feel that there is really a significant moral distinction in someone deciding to have an abortion provider dismember and remove a developing baby in utero and someone willfully killing an infant after it is born. So in that light, "allowing the people whose lives are directly involved to make these decisions" shouldn't be the standard in my mind.

Everyone's case is special. That's the point. One person's "convenience" is another person's necessity. The fundamental issue is that each person's situation is different, and there's is likely never going to be a nice neat solution all wrapped up in a bow.

 

[Chukker Veteran]

Insisting that a six week old clump of cells is actually a person can get complicated.

Imagine a couple that has a child through IVF but they have all these unused embryos still frozen. God forbid, but the couple dies in a car wreck. Does their child inherit their estate in full or will they need to split it with the frozen embryos?

 

[Go Bama]

I appreciate your "spirit and tone" of the response. I do feel however, that using the example of a special case to point out that there are hardships, this still avoids the moral discussion of when is an elective abortion effectively murder?

I did an internet search for reasons for abortions, and I never came up with a definitive number, but the overwhelming majority of reasons seem to be convenience based and not a health concern.

So in the case of someone willfully killing a developing baby for convenience alone, I don't feel that there is really a significant moral distinction in someone deciding to have an abortion provider dismember and remove a developing baby in utero and someone willfully killing an infant after it is born. So in that light, "allowing the people whose lives are directly involved to make these decisions" shouldn't be the standard in my mind.

It seems to me that you are justifying your right to have a say in abortions by classifying it as murder. As long as this sentiment exists, the issue will never be resolved. Literally no one supports the murder of babies.

You have no right to tell someone they must continue with a pregnancy. It can be painful, life threatening, disfiguring, financially crippling, and then the mother may have to raise the child on her own. It’s a 20 year obligation.

Why not let the mother, father, and the doctors make the decision? They don’t owe me or the government an explanation for the decision they have made because it is personal.

If you spend some time studying embryology, you may find this is a much more complex issue than what you originally thought.

 

[Go Bama]

I appreciate your "spirit and tone" of the response. I do feel however, that using the example of a special case to point out that there are hardships, this still avoids the moral discussion of when is an elective abortion effectively murder?

The example was to show that there are times when the same fetus may get aborted or may not. Some women would not be able to provide the special care the child needs and deserves after birth.

 

[Jon]

It seems to me that you are justifying your right to have a say in abortions by classifying it as murder. As long as this sentiment exists, the issue will never be resolved. Literally no one supports the murder of babies.

You have no right to tell someone they must continue with a pregnancy. It can be painful, life threatening, disfiguring, financially crippling, and then the mother may have to raise the child on her own. It’s a 20 year obligation.

Why not let the mother, father, and the doctors make the decision? They don’t owe me or the government an explanation for the decision they have made because it is personal.

If you spend some time studying embryology, you may find this is a much more complex issue than what you originally thought.

because the point is to control women

period

 

[RollTide_HTTR]

I think I have shared the basics of this story before but I don't believe I've shared the whole thing.

After my son was born my wife struggled with a serious bout of depression that lasted over a year, it was related to abuse she suffered as a child but in part triggered by postpartum depression. However, it has also been a life long struggle, this was just the worst instance of it by far.

During that time I would go to work every day fearful that I might come home to a dead wife, and I mean EVERY DAY. It was by far the hardest period in my life. At one point in the midst of it she became pregnant again and we knew that while we wanted to have more kids we could not do so at that point. It would not be good for our son or our potential child and importantly we knew her life was important too. I am not sure if she would have made it if she was forced to give birth to another child at that point.

Now, she has fought tooth and nail to get out of that depression and succeeded. I have my wife back, we have our beautiful happy son and we are expecting our second son in January. I am beyond convinced my wife would not have made it to where we are without the option of abortion. But more importantly I know where we are now, and that is the happiest place I can possibly imagine.