Yes or No: Post Abortion Therapy?

[krisino]

I was just wondering if members thought it was sensible to offer this therapy. Is it not legally the woman's choice? It's not as if she is a victim. Did she not bring it upon herself? I was just fishing for opinions, and I may just learn something new! Thanks for the input.

[Callipygous]

by "offer this therapy" do you mean on the govts. payroll?

 

i see no reason why such therapy shouldnt be available, i think its reasonable to think that the govt might offer some assistance in certain situations, like rape, or when the child had to be aborted for health reasons, but i think you could make a good argument against it.

[zyncod]

What about post-heart attack or post-lung cancer therapy? Should those be paid for by the government? After all, the patients brought it on themselves.

 

On a related note - you as a taxpayer have no intrinsic right not to have your money go to things that you find morally repugnant. My tax dollars (and far more of them than abortion-related tax dollars) are going to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. You vote how you believe and the majority decides how the money is spent.

[krisino]

Even with rape, there are other options, such as adoption. In my opinion (although not everyone shares it) abortion is murder. There is never an excuse for murder. I can see therapy if the pregnancy was brought about by rape, but statistics show that most abortions occur because the mother already has children, and wishes to have no more. I definitely don't think it should be paid by the government. If you have enough money to have the procedure, you probably have enough money for therapy.

[rakuenso]

lol like natural selection cared, thats just more of already saturated human self-centered egocentric sentimentalism. Whatever adapts the best to environment and inter/intraspecific forces will be the best option.

[zyncod]

Well, at least you're consistent. I find the position that abortion should only be legal in cases of rape or incest indefensible. If it's murder, it's murder, and if it's not, it's not. To add murder to rape does not mollify the situation.

 

But, of course, abortion is not murder.

[krisino]

Why do you believe it is not murder? I think the government only uses what it wants, how it wants. The law only says what the government wants it to at the time.

[zyncod]

I have about as much respect for the bible thumpers' position that abortion is murder as a do for the ultra-hardcore vegans who think that roach motels are murder. Actually, I have less respect for the bible thumpers because, at the very least until the beginning of the third trimester, a roach is more conscious than a fetus. My definition of human life only respects consciousness.

 

And I can hear the objection now: but what about severely retarded people? And my response is that, unless they are conscious, they're not human. They might be happy and want to be alive, but cows are happy and want to be alive and we slaughter millions of cows every year for no really valid reason except we like how they taste.

[Nevermore]

Even with rape, there are other options, such as adoption. In my opinion (although not everyone shares it) abortion is murder. There is never an excuse for murder. I can see therapy if the pregnancy was brought about by rape, but statistics show that most abortions occur because the mother already has children, and wishes to have no more. I definitely don't think it should be paid by the government. If you have enough money to have the procedure, you probably have enough money for therapy.

For sentiance, you need a brain. A brain consists of several billion cells. Most aboartions are done in the first few week, of the 1st trimester, in which the fetus-to-be is still a zygote, consisting of a small cluster of cells. A 1st trimester fetus does not have the brain needed for sentiance. Therefore, a first trimester abortion is no more murder than a blood test.

[j_p]

But back to the main point; I think at least 40% of my tax dollars are spent on things I disaprove of. Why should one issue be granted special status?

 

To digress: as far abortion v. adoption? I do not understand how anyone can chose to create another person and then abrogate all responsibility.

[krisino]

but why "kill" it before it could have a chance to live. If it was adopted, it could be happy one day. I know and respect the opinions of those who don't think it's murder. I thought synthetic organs were a good idea at one point.

http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/photosbyage/index.htm

This changed my mind. I don't expect it to change yours, I just think it's interesting.

[j_p]

I respect the decision of one who choses adoption, I could just never do it myself.

 

Just because an ovum accidently gets fertilized doesn't mean one has to create a life one can not care for.

 

As for public funding, I will listen to complaints against therapy when public transportation receives the same kind of funding as the roads.

 

Those last two sentences read much more agressive than I meant them; sorry about that.

[Xyph]

http://www.priestsforlife.org/resou...byage/index.htm

This changed my mind.

Some of the earlier pictures might as well be skinned frogs for all the detail their limbs have. Would you still oppose an abortion if the fetus would fit into the palm of your hand? Surely you can't claim something that small could carry the machinery of human sentience.

 

That said, I'm not necessarily for abortion. I'm for responsibility. But that doesn't mean I'd stand in the way of someone who wanted one, although the earlier the better, perhaps.

 

As for therapy, I think the right to it should be evaluated on a case by case basis.