News Article: Obama Lifts Ban on Abortions

[92tide]

1.)-When we start forcing doctors to do things that they think are unethical and not in the best interest of the patient.
2.)-When the government (our tax dollars) is paying for abortions or paying groups like planned parenthood to advocate for such things and teaching our kids in our public schools about abortion/birth control.
3.)-When the government makes it where kids can have abortions without parental consent.

Now I have a problem with it.

i can respect that view point but i do not agree with it.

1. I see abortion as a viable medical procedure. If a Doctor doesn't want to perform certain accepted, viable medical procedure, then either do not become a Doctor, or specialize in a field that doesn't require you to perform those procedures.

2. I personally think planned parenthood serves a very valuable function in our society. But as LdLane pointed out earlier, our government often spends money in ways we may disagree with.

3. I don't have an opinion either way on this one

This is just another example of far left extremist being hypocritical.

name calling and labeling quickly take rational, respectful discourse down the rabbithole. i know plenty pro-choicers who could in no way be considered "far left extremists" whatever the hell that is.

 

[CrimsonCT]

An egg by itself is not life. They must be combined. When they are combined, a human begins to develop.

This is just a variation of the life begins at conception idea.

To give this a biological perspective before we run in circles too much:

From a *purely* biochemical perspective, yes, "life" begins at conception, but the ethical question is what (if any) relation this has with more fully formed stages of development. From an organismal perspective, "life" only begins when cells differentiate into different organ systems and begin to work for the maintenance of the entire organism. From a neurological perspective, "life" can't begin until the structure of thought is present, so we have to wait for neuralation, telencephalon development, etc. From a psychosocial perspective, we can't speak about "life" beginning until we have some means of assessing personhood and development of personality. So where do you draw the line on this continuum of development (which doesn't end at birth, of course, and proceeds throughout life)? No answer is really better than any other.

 

[RammerJammer14]

in response to rammerjammer:

funny how you immediately mention blacks despite me not using race anywhere in my post. take a read of freakonomics sometime or just google it in regards to abortion versus crime. it explains the argument much better than i can.

as far as aborting all black babies: no, i do not support eugenics. what i am saying is that if you take every race and single out the families that have generational problems with crime, drugs, violence, etc, then you can be reasonably sure that the next generation from that family will most likely show the same tendencies. Many people use the phrase $1 of family planning is worth $x of future spending. Even Pelosi said something to this effect in the last day or so. What they are saying when they use that phrase is basically a very nice way of saying that if we spend $1 on a condom today we wont have to spend $10,000 on your criminal drug addict once he grows up. As the mods say here- it isn't what you say but how you say it. That phras is an extremely PC way of saying we don't want your future criminal draining society bc you cant raise your baby properly.

I mentioned race because such a solution is obviously rediculous and immoral. Not because I think about race all the time. Maybe I should have mentioned some other obvious group such as catholics, jews, baptists, asians, russians, italians, or mexicans if it makes you feel better. And I understand what you are saying about the money/economic drain caused by crime. I just don't agree that abortion is the right solution to it.

 

[RammerJammer14]

This is just a variation of the life begins at conception idea.

To give this a biological perspective before we run in circles too much:

From a *purely* biochemical perspective, yes, "life" begins at conception, but the ethical question is what (if any) relation this has with more fully formed stages of development. From an organismal perspective, "life" only begins when cells differentiate into different organ systems and begin to work for the maintenance of the entire organism. From a neurological perspective, "life" can't begin until the structure of thought is present, so we have to wait for neuralation, telencephalon development, etc. From a psychosocial perspective, we can't speak about "life" beginning until we have some means of assessing personhood and development of personality. So where do you draw the line on this continuum of development (which doesn't end at birth, of course, and proceeds throughout life)? No answer is really better than any other.

I think you are sidestepping the issue here. Obviously, we can't just plop a zygote on the table once the sperm meets the egg and say "ok billy, go play with your toys now!" But once the egg and sperm meet, cells will multiply, divide, and differenciate over a period of 9 months and result in a human child if the process is unhindered. Abortion unnaturally aborts this process of life.

 

[Relayer]

...can we sleep at night knowing we are forcing pregnant women to subject themselves to dangerous practices from unscrupulous people to have the procedure done.

Who is forcing a woman to have an abortion? Arrest that person.

 

[gmart74]

yes using american indians and irish would have made me feel much better

one of the things you mentioned was "It denies the child choice." Well having crack and meth addicted parents denies the choice as well. So does having uneducated parents. All these things reduce the child's ability to maximize its potential. All life is born equal but we quickly diverge after birth. I am not sying it is the child's fault and I am not saying that we can look into the future and absolutely determine what the child will become. What I am saying is let's take all the moral and philosophical semantics out of the argument.

1. Do we want more or less murderers, thieves and rapists in our society?
I will assume the answer is less.

2. How do we effectively accomplish that?
Every post term social program has been a complete failure. So the only thing left is prevention of the criminal ever being born.

I guess that is the most simplistic rationale that I can submit. Morals and philosophical nuances can sway how we actually put prevention into use, but unless we get serious about finding solutions to the problem instead of treating the symptoms then we will always have this issue of rampant crime and generational problems.

 

[gmart74]

Who is forcing a woman to have an abortion? Arrest that person.

forcing them to have illegal abortions as opposed to legal ones. perhaps i should have been clearer.

 

[Relayer]

forcing them to have illegal abortions as opposed to legal ones. perhaps i should have been clearer.

Perhaps I should have been clearer, also. They are not being forced to have an abortion (legal or otherwise).

 

[uafan4life]

If I may expound on that, as with what jthomas666 referenced, prevent was not the best word to use.

As was the phrase the process of creating life.

The process of the development of a human would be the best semantic way to look at it, I think.

Spermicide, birth control, even possibly the morning after pill prevent this process from beginning. To be honest, I'm not sure about the morning after pill, as I'm not certain what it does or doesn't do.

As GreatDanish pointed out, a sperm by itself cannot develop into a human. An egg by itself cannot develop into a human. Even a fertilized cannot develop into a human unless it successfully implants into the wall of the uterus.

Preventive birth control prevents this process from beginning.

Once the fertilized egg attaches itself to the wall of the uterus, the process of developing into a human has begun. Aborting the process after that point destroys that which has already begun to develop into a human.

 

[gmart74]

i would say that when you put a newly pregnant woman in a situation where she feels she has no support from the father, who feels she has just faced the possibility of ending any and all hope for a college education and a successful career, then many times she is "forced" into making this decision. I am not saying that is reality, all Im saying is that perception makes reality and for many women this is indeed a choice they feel forced into.

 

[RammerJammer14]

yes using american indians and irish would have made me feel much better

one of the things you mentioned was "It denies the child choice." Well having crack and meth addicted parents denies the choice as well. So does having uneducated parents. All these things reduce the child's ability to maximize its potential. All life is born equal but we quickly diverge after birth. I am not sying it is the child's fault and I am not saying that we can look into the future and absolutely determine what the child will become. What I am saying is let's take all the moral and philosophical semantics out of the argument.

1. Do we want more or less murderers, thieves and rapists in our society?
I will assume the answer is less.

2. How do we effectively accomplish that?
Every post term social program has been a complete failure. So the only thing left is prevention of the criminal ever being born.

I guess that is the most simplistic rationale that I can submit. Morals and philosophical nuances can sway how we actually put prevention into use, but unless we get serious about finding solutions to the problem instead of treating the symptoms then we will always have this issue of rampant crime and generational problems.

Oh, I completely agree with you on the causes of crime. Responsiblity lies with the parents and their lack of responsibility and education. A child born into such a situation has a much tougher road to hoe (no pun intended) than a child born to well-to-do parents. I disagree that the answer is to punish an already developing an so far innocent child with death. Knock yourself out with birth control though. I think the best solution is education. Unfortunately a large portion of our society is apathetic; you can lead a horse to water but can't make him drink. I don't think the ends justify the means with abortion and crime. We need to address other issues like poverty and welfare, etc, but that is not what this particular discussion is about.

 

[Relayer]

i would say that when you put a newly pregnant woman in a situation where she feels she has no support from the father, who feels she has just faced the possibility of ending any and all hope for a college education and a successful career, then many times she is "forced" into making this decision. I am not saying that is reality, all Im saying is that perception makes reality and for many women this is indeed a choice they feel forced into.

I can come closer to agreeing with the concept that they "feel" forced and I can't help but note how many times the word feel appears in your post.

But, there is a reason why we have such a word as perception in addition to the word reality. I'm not big a believer in the entire 'perception makes reality' thing.

 

[RammerJammer14]

Gmart, I know from this thread and others that crime out of poverty is a big issue for you. So, here's another take on my point of view of your solution:

The vast majority of impovershed parents give birth to children who will become criminals, crack heads, and drug dealers, and a general drain on society. To remedy this problem most efectively, we will terminate the baby. So, when the mother gives birth to the child, the doctor will be obliged to cut the umbiblical cord, take the child off to the side, and slit its throat with a nice sharp utinsil. Problem solved!!

 

[TRUTIDE]

name calling and labeling quickly take rational, respectful discourse down the rabbithole. i know plenty pro-choicers who could in no way be considered "far left extremists" whatever the hell that is.

Well I think that far left extremism (like planned parenthood) as well as that of the far right is what has made this issue political and keeps it in a state of confusion.

What is most disturbing is how science has become so politicized in this country. We cite science to predict the future at our and reconstruct the past (when convenient) but we cannot use it to determine when life begins? With all of our advancements in genetics and embryological research, we still cannot determine the beginning of life? I think that most people dealing in reality can determine the beginning of life. Again, the extremism is what blurs the issue. Extremism from both sides is a problem in this debate. I think it is their goal to keep the issue blurred and in the state of confusion to keep the issue from tilting to the other side.

I know many pro choicers that I do not think of as extremist as well and we can discuss the issue without getting into the extremism idealology. I realize that many women are looking at this from a very personal/emotional perspective and they know that I look at it from a religious/moral perspective and we can discuss it without getting into whether life begins at fertilization, conception, 12 days after conception, at birth, at some time after birth or at 40. Most human beings (especially mothers) know when life begins. The pharmacutical companies are the ones who is really interested in when life is said to begin. This makes the politicians they lobby more interested in it and they both fund the extremist groups. Now scientist cannot come up with a freakin "concensus" of when life begins.

 

[92tide]

Well I think that far left extremism (like planned parenthood) as well as that of the far right is what has made this issue political and keeps it in a state of confusion.

i agree with what i think you are saying. abortion is just not on my radar screen as a political matter (meaning i don't think it should be a matter of politics, but realizing that it is almost purely a matter of politics.)

my opinion is that abortion is mostly a "wedge" issue used to garner support and ultimately power. those successfully wielding the wedge issue have no motivation to see it go away, it only serves their ends as long as it exists.

now, in the interest of civility, i will not offer my opinion on which "extremism" i think is more guilty of this

Now scientist cannot come up with a freakin "concensus" of when life begins.

IMO it's not a scientific question. CT gave a pretty good explanation of why earlier in the thread.

 

[gmart74]

So, when the mother gives birth to the child, the doctor will be obliged to cut the umbiblical cord, take the child off to the side, and slit its throat with a nice sharp utinsil. Problem solved!!

good god are you practicing for al queda?:eek2:

seems a bit unsanitary as well.

i agree that abortion is never a "good" choice. There are way too many moral/emotional/political/racial issues for it to ever be our first choice in dealing with crime etc isues. I propose a better solution. If someone shows that they are incapable of properly caring for a child then we sterilize them. When I drink and drive and get caught, they take away my license to drive. When I molest little kids, I am given a restraining order so that I am not allowed around little kids. When I When I can't pay my credit card, it gets cancelled. Everything in society has direct consequences for our inability to behave properly. Everything except having children. For some reason having children is this holy grail that should never ever be taken away. I mean, "How on Earth could anyone every take away the right of anyone else to have a sweet lil baby to raise in this wonderful world?" I say it is a privilege and we should quit making it out to be such a wondrous thing every time yet another child is brought into this world by yet another deadbeat parent.

If the parent is accused of child molestation, severe drug addiction, inability to care for the child (either monetarily or mentally) then that person should not have the option to breed. Maybe I'm cold, maybe I have no love for my fellow man, but one thing I do have is the ability to see past emotional bs. What I have seen and what is confirmed every day is that some people simply should not perpetuate the species. This category of people should be based "not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." Amazing how good advice rings true regardless of what we are talking about.

 

[GreatDanish]

gmart, I appreciate your trying to actually provide a solution instead of just talking about what's wrong. Consider me a pessimist, but I'm having a hard time seeing a person being sterilized for a specified list of grievances (assuming of course that this list would be set in stone and couldn't be changed by those that would take away your parenting "privileges" if you were found spanking your child for misbehavior).
How about this. A progression...
1. Raise the level of contraceptive education - both in birth control and abstinence. Not do one or the other, but both, and do them both heavily, primarily in areas with higher abortion and teen birth rates. This is something I think everyone agrees on: Reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.
This should be goal number one.
2. Provide extra funding for adoption services, particularly for American children (not racial, but as opposed to adopting a child from Russia). Adoption is very expensive and time consuming. This is an additional choice for the pro-choicers, and it is supported by pro-lifers. If adoption is made an option for more pregnant women, and if more people can afford, and desire to adopt, then this will help the # of unwanted babies decrease. Education and incentives should be expanded on both ends: mothers-to-be and potential adopters.
3. Eliminate third term abortions, except in medical emergencies. While not everyone agrees on this, I think it is the next most agreeable thing in the abortion debate. Even Obama has stated he thinks these are not good. Babies have a relatively good chance of living if born in the third trimester.
Women who choose to have an abortion should have ample time to make a decision, along with their doctor, by the end of their second trimester.
4. Doctors do not have to perform abortions, but they must provide a doctor who will perform it. Pro-lifers think doctors should have a choice. Pro-choicers think women shouldn't be "caught" if their doctor doesn't perform them. So, make it mandatory that an "abortion" doctor is available, but doctors can choose not to perform one themselves if they so choose.

Those would be my suggestions, but I'm sure there are holes.

 

[92tide]

gmart, I appreciate your trying to actually provide a solution instead of just talking about what's wrong. Consider me a pessimist, but I'm having a hard time seeing a person being sterilized for a specified list of grievances (assuming of course that this list would be set in stone and couldn't be changed by those that would take away your parenting "privileges" if you were found spanking your child for misbehavior).
How about this. A progression...
1. Raise the level of contraceptive education - both in birth control and abstinence. Not do one or the other, but both, and do them both heavily, primarily in areas with higher abortion and teen birth rates. This is something I think everyone agrees on: Reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.
This should be goal number one.
2. Provide extra funding for adoption services, particularly for American children (not racial, but as opposed to adopting a child from Russia). Adoption is very expensive and time consuming. This is an additional choice for the pro-choicers, and it is supported by pro-lifers. If adoption is made an option for more pregnant women, and if more people can afford, and desire to adopt, then this will help the # of unwanted babies decrease. Education and incentives should be expanded on both ends: mothers-to-be and potential adopters.
3. Eliminate third term abortions, except in medical emergencies. While not everyone agrees on this, I think it is the next most agreeable thing in the abortion debate. Even Obama has stated he thinks these are not good. Babies have a relatively good chance of living if born in the third trimester.
Women who choose to have an abortion should have ample time to make a decision, along with their doctor, by the end of their second trimester.
4. Doctors do not have to perform abortions, but they must provide a doctor who will perform it. Pro-lifers think doctors should have a choice. Pro-choicers think women shouldn't be "caught" if their doctor doesn't perform them. So, make it mandatory that an "abortion" doctor is available, but doctors can choose not to perform one themselves if they so choose.

Those would be my suggestions, but I'm sure there are holes.

those things seem very reasonable, at least to me.

 

[gmart74]

danish, i agree with everything you said.


The problem with sterilization is there will always be some gray area over what constitutes a bad parent. there is also this immediate connotation of "only going after blacks" bc of the history of this country and the statistics on current crime. therefore we will never get anything like that passed and everyone knows it. so how do we do it so that we make it fair, and completely nonracial?

if i were benevolent dictator i would just make it mandatory that all women would be on birth control until age 21. Only at that time if you could prove you were in decent standing in society could you then get off birth control. The science isnt there right now but I think in another decade the science will get to the point where it will be possible. Male birth control will also get to the point where men can selectively render themselves temporarily sterile. this will dramatically reduce abortions bc younger people who are not ready for children would automatically be prevented from getting pregnant. it would also alleviate career minded women from accidental pregnancies.

overall i think the best choice should be the easiest to make. right now the easiest choice is to simply raw dog and see what happens. when the easiest choice becomes birth control then i think the abortion choice will naturally fade to significantly lower levels.

 

[RammerJammer14]

it would also alleviate career minded women from accidental pregnancies.

What kind of careers are we talking about here?

:biggrin: