Abortion... yeah or nah?

Sheik said:
But yeah, go ahead and let them do it. I don't want to pay for it, though. That's some bullshit.
Click to expand...

There absolutely should not be federal or state funds going to it. Plain and simple.

But yeah, I'm not going to tell someone that they can't take something out of their body that is in it.
 
I feel like the abortion issue has been so screwed up with extreme rhetoric from either side that it's become difficult to have an non hyperbolic conversation about it.

To me the most important distinction is that a sperm isn't, a zygote, which isn't an embryo, which isn't a fetus, which isn't a new born. Each have relative levels of humanity compared to the other. (The new born distinction being important because at that point the child's life is not dependent upon the mother's.) If someone miscarries in their first trimester it's not as tragic as if they lost their child after birth. No one (sane) really believes that an abortion clinic is the same as a baby execution facility.

Being potentially human is not the same as being a human, especially not when it's the size of a damned poppy seed. Outrage against anything in the first trimester is nearly as ridiculous as being outraged that someone washed their sock after jizzing into it.

On the same note saying that something is not a baby just because it hasn't passed through the arch, so to speak, is also ridiculous. But I've yet to hear someone defend late term abortion by saying that those don't count as babies. Mostly what I hear about late terms is that it's almost always due to medical necessity, and since doctors are better at determining what is medically necessary than politicians, these kinds of things should be left to professionals.
 
I don't have any objection to abortion as a thing. For me it comes down to if abortion is a acceptable form of birth control. I knew a chick who'd had 15 abortions. For her, this was birth control. Apparently she didn't believe in "conception control."

That's the rub - all forms of birth control should be re-branded "conception control" and leave "birth control" as a term applied only to surgical or chemical methods of stopping the process once it has begun.

As to the question of when life begins? For the "abortion on demand" people, it's defined as when the newborn breathes our air. For the "life begins at conception" crowd, it's the moment the human egg is fertilized. Is there a place somewhere in between these, where people can agree?

I lean towards abortion never being banned or criminalized again. But I also don't think it should ever be considered a acceptable form of birth control - first of all it's not the safest procedure in the world for the mother either. It should be much more rare than it currently is. How we get there is another question entirely.
 
Obviously as most people don't accept that life begins at conception, that is not a stage where abortion will ever be illegal.

The key will be deciding where that line is, though, because once it is human life, pretty much any pro abortion argument is ridiculous. In a balancing of rights, right to life always trumps right to privacy.
 
townsend said:
I feel like the abortion issue has been so screwed up with extreme rhetoric from either side that it's become difficult to have an non hyperbolic conversation about it.

To me the most important distinction is that a sperm isn't, a zygote, which isn't an embryo, which isn't a fetus, which isn't a new born. Each have relative levels of humanity compared to the other. (The new born distinction being important because at that point the child's life is not dependent upon the mother's.) If someone miscarries in their first trimester it's not as tragic as if they lost their child after birth. No one (sane) really believes that an abortion clinic is the same as a baby execution facility.

Being potentially human is not the same as being a human, especially not when it's the size of a damned poppy seed. Outrage against anything in the first trimester is nearly as ridiculous as being outraged that someone washed their sock after jizzing into it.

On the same note saying that something is not a baby just because it hasn't passed through the arch, so to speak, is also ridiculous. But I've yet to hear someone defend late term abortion by saying that those don't count as babies. Mostly what I hear about late terms is that it's almost always due to medical necessity, and since doctors are better at determining what is medically necessary than politicians, these kinds of things should be left to professionals.
Click to expand...

You left out 2nd trimester babies. How do you feel about babies that are smelling their embryonic fluid? Do they get a choice, or is it the mother's decision?
 
Oh, and let me be clear, in my mind if you abort after the baby's cognitive ability is formed, it's murder.

And, I won't shoot up a clinic. But, I damn sure would like to in certain circumstances.
 
Iamtdg said:
You left out 2nd trimester babies. How do you feel about babies that are smelling their embryonic fluid? Do they get a choice, or is it the mother's decision?
Click to expand...
2nd trimester abortions only account for about 6%. Personally I think at that point there needs to be a medical necessity, but wouldn't trust politicians to draft legislation on it. Medical doctors and prospective parents are more likely to come to the best decision, as compared to a bunch of old politicians who probably couldn't tell you the first thing about female reproductive anatomy.
 
I don't think it's true that abortion doctors are doing anything but promoting abortions in many cases.
 
I have a hard time with this topic, my self, I wouldn't want any part of an abortion. But at the same time I can see instances where it would be "the better option."

I do believe that if you have an abortion, for reasons other than rape or health concerns, that you should have your tubes tied or something to prevent you from getting pregnant again.

For example, my sister in law is a whore, she got pregnant at 17 and got an abortion, 2 years later she was pregnant again, she chose to have this baby, and again 2 years later, and guess what, she's pregnant again now. She is 24 years old, still lives with her parents, has no job, and gets WIC, Food Stamps, Health Care and all the other good shit that most of us have to pay for. She is a drain on everyone around her, yet she keep pumping out babies.

I realize how big of an asshole I sound when I say that though. And I understand that just because you have an abortion at 17 doesn't mean you're going to turn into a piece of shit. But I also don't think abortion is a good form of "birth control", and if you have used abortion as birth control maybe it should become permanent.
 
Why does it sound like an asshole to say that? Her decisions result in the end of life of other entities.

At at least with your suggestion she can be as irresponsible as she wants and no one dies.
 
mschmidt64 said:
Why does it sound like an asshole to say that? Her decisions result in the end of life of other entities.

At at least with your suggestion she can be as irresponsible as she wants and no one dies.
Click to expand...

Honestly, because its a personal issue with a family member. Or at least that's why I feel like an asshole for saying it. And a little selfish I guess, every time she has a baby it costs me "X" amount of dollars. But not only does it cost me money, it costs all of the tax payers money because she never paid a hospital bill, or full price for a can of formula. I could rant on this shit all day.

It's very frustrating. To have to compromise your morals and beliefs on a topic like abortion is very frustrating.
 
mschmidt64 said:
I don't think it's true that abortion doctors are doing anything but promoting abortions in many cases.
Click to expand...

I always figured you'd fall on the libertarian side of things. I can't think of another situation where it's considered a good idea for medical decisions to be pulled out of licensed doctors hands and instead dictated by lawmakers and bureaucrats. Are we to believe that doctors are less informed and less trustworthy?
 
Libertarians believe that your rights should be practically unlimited to the point that they infringe on other people's rights.

You don't commonly see libertarian opposition to abortion because most of the strongest believers in life from conception are just Christian conservative Republicans.

But as a person who believes life begins at conception or at least within a trimester, I am completely opposed to anyone who states you have the right to do anything that infringes on someone's right to live. This is the epitome of a libertarian position.

Like I said, it depends on when you think living starts. Obviously it's not right when the baby comes out; that's a completely arbitrary barrier. Is it feasibility? I don't buy that either because a baby isn't feasibly when it's born... If it's not subject to constant care and protection even after birth, it will die. Plus, even before feasibility a baby has scientifically proveable cognitive functioning, a nervous system, reaction to stimuli and definitely can feel pain.

To me, those factors basically equate to life to me. A woman's right to not be burdened by basically a parasite does not outweigh the right of a living human to continue living; that's the essence of libertarianism.

Once you you agree that the baby is a living human, it's no longer a question of what the licensed Doctor says... It has rights!

I just define life before most apparently. But that is where I think people -- and legislators -- have not fully considered the issue.

And regarding "whether the doctors know better" -- again, what doctors? Are we asking abortion doctors, or doctors who primarily deliver babies? There are many, many gynos who do not perform abortions due to moral objections. Surely they know better than legislators, right? How come it's only the abortion doctors who would know better! It's not possible that their position is influenced by financial gain?
 
Last edited:
townsend said:
I always figured you'd fall on the libertarian side of things. I can't think of another situation where it's considered a good idea for medical decisions to be pulled out of licensed doctors hands and instead dictated by lawmakers and bureaucrats. Are we to believe that doctors are less informed and less trustworthy?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't think it would be a bad idea to require confirmation from a doctor without a financial axe to grind. You can't have a sex change or a number of other things without going through a process. If it's an emergency it should be done in a hospital rather than a clinic anyway, if it's not, you have time to get a second opinion.

Speaking strictly of late term abortions.
 
Well what kind of confirmation are we looking for? What is a second opinion going to do regarding a single case? I'm not saying any single abortion is financial incentive, I'm saying the existence of the industry is financial incentive. So of course abortion doctors are generally going to say "it's not an issue of taking a life at X weeks."

But ask plenty of the obgyns who don't perform abortions and you'll get a different consensus.

I think as a matter of science we can define life as beginning at a certain stage and then legislators can say, "After this point it's a human with protectable rights and it's not your decision any more."
 
mschmidt64 said:
Well what kind of confirmation are we looking for? What is a second opinion going to do regarding a single case? I'm not saying any single abortion is financial incentive, I'm saying the existence of the industry is financial incentive. So of course abortion doctors are generally going to say "it's not an issue of taking a life at X weeks."

But ask plenty of the obgyns who don't perform abortions and you'll get a different consensus.

I think as a matter of science we can define life as beginning at a certain stage and then legislators can say, "After this point it's a human with protectable rights and it's not your decision any more."
Click to expand...

Confirmation that the mother is facing a significant health risk.
 
In defining "life," we probably err on the side of not setting a dangerous precedent. And if you think I am going slippery slope, read Peter Singer's utilitarian argument on infanticide.

There's also the inconvenient truth of the abortion movement's roots in eugenics. Inconvenient for "compassionate liberals," anyway.
 
mschmidt64 said:
Well what kind of confirmation are we looking for? What is a second opinion going to do regarding a single case? I'm not saying any single abortion is financial incentive, I'm saying the existence of the industry is financial incentive. So of course abortion doctors are generally going to say "it's not an issue of taking a life at X weeks."

But ask plenty of the obgyns who don't perform abortions and you'll get a different consensus.

I think as a matter of science we can define life as beginning at a certain stage and then legislators can say, "After this point it's a human with protectable rights and it's not your decision any more."
Click to expand...
I think that's doable, technically. But there are a lot of government regulations that should be that simple. What has happened is mothers being forced to carry stillborn children to term because of bad regulations written by the kind of people who couldn't get honest work.

I wonder how much abortion doctors prescribe abortions due to monetary incentives. I wouldn't think that many doctors go isn't that field for the money. An abortion usually costs about 500 bucks. Not quite the same as the average insured hospital bill that climbs into 5 or 6 figures.
 
mschmidt64 said:
Libertarians believe that your rights should be practically unlimited to the point that they infringe on other people's rights.

You don't commonly see libertarian opposition to abortion because most of the strongest believers in life from conception are just Christian conservative Republicans.

But as a person who believes life begins at conception or at least within a trimester, I am completely opposed to anyone who states you have the right to do anything that infringes on someone's right to live. This is the epitome of a libertarian position.

Like I said, it depends on when you think living starts. Obviously it's not right when the baby comes out; that's a completely arbitrary barrier. Is it feasibility? I don't buy that either because a baby isn't feasibly when it's born... If it's not subject to constant care and protection even after birth, it will die. Plus, even before feasibility a baby has scientifically proveable cognitive functioning, a nervous system, reaction to stimuli and definitely can feel pain.

To me, those factors basically equate to life to me. A woman's right to not be burdened by basically a parasite does not outweigh the right of a living human to continue living; that's the essence of libertarianism.

Once you you agree that the baby is a living human, it's no longer a question of what the licensed Doctor says... It has rights!

I just define life before most apparently. But that is where I think people -- and legislators -- have not fully considered the issue.

And regarding "whether the doctors know better" -- again, what doctors? Are we asking abortion doctors, or doctors who primarily deliver babies? There are many, many gynos who do not perform abortions due to moral objections. Surely they know better than legislators, right? How come it's only the abortion doctors who would know better! It's not possible that their position is influenced by financial gain?
Click to expand...


There is no such thing as an abortion doctor there are many many gynos who perform abortions.

I doubt there are any doctors that only do abortions and if so it is a very small amount.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom