Abortion Survey...

[In My Memory]

Transdecimal,

What possible reason would there be for doing that kind of procedure? You've been carrying the baby for 9 months, it's a bit late to change your mind about giving birth now! It's now ready to be born - so why not just put it up for adoption?

Abortions never happen at 9 months. Partial-birth abortions (also known as dialation and extract abortions) take place no later than 24 weeks, in the 5th month of gestation. About 0.1% of abortions take place after 20 weeks, so its pretty evident that this partial birth abortions are not the norm.

 

One of my friends had a partial birth abortion one time, because the fetus didnt implant in the uterus. It implanted somewhere in the fallopian tube, and after a few months of pregancy the fetus grew and caused the fallopian tube to burst. The poor woman was screaming in pain and was bleeding so much, and she nearly died, but her pregnancy had to be terminated to save her life (the fetus had already died long before). She's missing a fallopian tube now, but its better than bleeding to death.

 

Of course, when you starbugs description "The abortionist stabs the scissors into the base of the baby’s skull. The scissors are spread to enlarge the opening. The suction catheter is then inserted and the brains are sucked out, causing the skull to collapse. The head slides out easily", it sounds very grotesque, but do you have any idea why its done like that? Its because some fetuses die in the womb, or they develop a condition known as hydrocephalis (a fetus with this condition is in a permanent comatose state), and the fetus's skull begins to fill with fluid. It swells to several times the size a normal head should be, which makes safe delivery of the fetus (who is already dead or comatose) impossible. So, the description of the D&X sounds gruesome, but the only alternative to that surgery is death.

[mrblond5311]

(m) 24

 

I'm anti-abortion (as long as the mother can handle the birth) but pro-choice. I would never do it but I believe the mother has the right to decide (provided she's in good mental health at the time). I'm a strong believer in things happening for a reason and I don't think it's right for people to suggest how the baby would handle it after they grew up. If you think about it most of us weren't supposed to happen. We just did (opps) and our parent(s) decided to go through with it. Should we have been aborted? I would look at being the result of a rape as motive to prove myself. Although, I'm sure it would be hard I still think they could be a good contributing member of society. If they couldn't handle it then I think that would be the fault of the people that raised them; not because of the situation that they were created. As far as abortion time is considered I think it is wrong in any tri-mester because even if it's not considered a "life" yet you are still aware of what it will become. If you are going through preventative measures to prevent the birth than that's evidence enough of life to me.

[starbug1]

Of course, when you starbugs description "The abortionist stabs the scissors into the base of the baby’s skull. The scissors are spread to enlarge the opening. The suction catheter is then inserted and the brains are sucked out, causing the skull to collapse. The head slides out easily[/i']", it sounds very grotesque...the only alternative to that surgery is death.

 

Still gross.

[mrblond5311]

Ecoli:

"And if the mother can't afford to keep the baby? It's not like it was her decision to have one... is it fair to bring a baby into the world that can't supported by it's own mother. Even adoption is not the prefect solution, preventing unwanted children from being born allieviates stress on the adoption clinics. Some children spend years being shifted from foster home to foster home, never finding a real place for themselves... often falling to cime... does that sound like the usual love and care?"

 

 

Dude,

The world isn't fair or perfect. If it was the lady wouldn't have been raped in the first place. It's less fair to make that decision for the baby and not give it a chance. The mother being poor or mentally unstable is by no means an excuse to end an unborn childs life. You would rather "allieviate" stress from the adoption clinics and crank up the business for the abortion clinics? That's just like saying we should stop arresting criminals because our jails are getting full. Some children who started out in a perfectly good homes end up in foster shelters and others who mothers can't or won't take care of them will be taken in by family members and lead a fulfilling and productive life. Seems like you need to take a look at it from a marolistic point of view than from a business perspective.

[rhiannon]

f(17) i am pro choice except in the case when it is just for convenience. people shouyld consider the possibilty of pregnancy before they have sex, even if it is protected.

partial abortion is if the parents find out the child has a disability or something seriously wrong with it that couldnt be detected earlier.

 

though wouldnt you rather kill the child before it is born, instead of adopting it out. i think that is just selfish then because the child isnt enjouing the experiance of having its true parents with it.

[ecoli]

The world isn't fair or perfect. If it was the lady wouldn't have been raped in the first place. It's less fair to make that decision for the baby and not give it a chance. The mother being poor or mentally unstable is by no means an excuse to end an unborn childs life. You would rather "allieviate" stress from the adoption clinics and crank up the business for the abortion clinics? That's just like saying we should stop arresting criminals because our jails are getting full. Some children who started out in a perfectly good homes end up in foster shelters and others who mothers can't or won't take care of them will be taken in by family members and lead a fulfilling and productive life. Seems like you need to take a look at it from a marolistic point of view than from a business perspective.

 

Assuming you misspelled "morallistic" and wasn't talking about something I've never heard of before... I am looking at it from a morallistic point of view: my own. From my perspective, a baby isn't a person until it's head touches air. Until then, it's just a body without a soul. So, don't go claiming I'm immoral when you don't even know what my moral's are.

 

I believe your description of what happens to children of rape victims is a 'best-case senerio' type thing. And while we would all love to believe everyone can find happiness given the situation, I would rather look at the world more realisticly... after all, it is people's lives we are talking about here.

 

You would rather "allieviate" stress from the adoption clinics and crank up the business for the abortion clinics? That's just like saying we should stop arresting criminals because our jails are getting full.

 

No, it isn't. It's more like arguing for the death penalty because our jails are getting full... but even then, it's not really the same, because I don't believe that a fetus is a person.

 

The mother being poor or mentally unstable is by no means an excuse to end an unborn childs life.

 

I repeat, how is it fair to a child to grow up in a home with a poor or mentally unstable mother. If the mother gives up the child, how is it fair for the child? If the child never was born, perhaps the mother wouldn't be mentally unstable or as poor. IMO, the present and future needs of the mother outweigh the needs future needs of a fetus.

 

The world isn't fair or perfect. If it was the lady wouldn't have been raped in the first place. It's less fair to make that decision for the baby and not give it a chance.

 

Yes, the world isn't fair or perfect... so you can't really convince me what situation would be "less fair." That's completely subjective.

[mrblond5311]

Assuming you misspelled "morallistic" and wasn't talking about something I've never heard of before... I am looking at it from a morallistic point of view: my own. From my perspective' date=' a baby isn't a person until it's head touches air. Until then, it's just a body without a soul. So, don't go claiming I'm immoral when you don't even know what my moral's are.

 

 

- I was suggesting you take a look at your own morals. I never said you were immoral; and what does having the babies head touch air have to do with them having a soul? Thanks for the spelling lesson by the way. I still like the "prefect" and "cime" spellings you used.-

 

I believe your description of what happens to children of rape victims is a 'best-case senerio' type thing. And while we would all love to believe everyone can find happiness given the situation, I would rather look at the world more realisticly... after all, it is people's lives we are talking about here.

 

- I don't see how you're looking at it "realisticly". You're viewing it from the worst case scenario. I'm just saying that you never know and I think it's better to atleast give them the benefit of a doubt. Would you kill a fetus if it's parents were known criminals? or if they both had alot of medical problems? Seems like you'd be taking the same chance to me.-

 

 

 

No, it isn't. It's more like arguing for the death penalty because our jails are getting full... but even then, it's not really the same, because I don't believe that a fetus is a person.

 

 

 

I repeat, how is it fair to a child to grow up in a home with a poor or mentally unstable mother. If the mother gives up the child, how is it fair for the child? If the child never was born, perhaps the mother wouldn't be mentally unstable or as poor. IMO, the present and future needs of the mother outweigh the needs future needs of a fetus.

 

-It's not about the needs of either one of them it's about the rights of the baby. Whether the sex was consensual or not. Now I still believe it should be her choice but I don't see how she could justify it just because she's poor or would become poor or if she was mentally unstable. I might be a little biased because my mother gave me up for adoption; she wasn't raped but the father left her after she had me so it's almost the same.I grew up going from foster home to shelter than finally I ended up with my grandmother.My mother is a bi-polar schizo, I never knew my father,and I grew up VERY poor and I turned out fine. No criminal record or physcological problems what so ever. I'm fine with the way I grew up and with the decisions my mother and father made. It made me who I am today and if I would have grown up differently I would be alot different. I feel that my childhood lets me view things differently than most people do. I'm almost grateful for the way things went.-

 

 

 

Yes, the world isn't fair or perfect... so you can't really convince me what situation would be "less fair." That's completely subjective.[/quote']

 

 

You have the right to your own opinion.

[Phi for All]

People, people, people, the OP clearly states that her specific survey question asks ONLY those who are OPPOSED to abortion if they would consider allowing them in the case of rape victims. There are other threads to discuss other aspects of abortion.

[Callipygous]

couldnt those of us who are pro choice say whether rape would in anyway add to our thoughts? like "im pro choice, but if your going to ban it i think there should at least be an exception for rape victims" kind of mentality?

[sunspot]

The position of extreme anti-abortionists is logically inconsistent. They assume that life begins upon conception. However, conception is more analogous to biochemistry than life. For example, when a person dies, their hair and fingernails continue to grow. Why doesn't this biochemistry of a dead person constitute part of their life, such that all funerals are postponed until this last little bit of their biochemistry stops?

 

For a religious person death is a rebirth to life ever after. This would logically imply that life and death have complementary definitions. Death is not based on biochemistry, such as hair still growing after death, but rather is based on the heart stopping or the brain ceasing to function, i.e., kept alive with machines. The religious continuity of life/death should logically imply that the definition of life is as soon as the unborn's little heart begins to beat and its brain begins to give off brain waves.

[mrblond5311]

The position of extreme anti-abortionists is logically inconsistent. They assume that life begins upon conception. However' date=' conception is more analogous to biochemistry than life. For example, when a person dies, their hair and fingernails continue to grow. Why doesn't this biochemistry of a dead person constitute part of their life, such that all funerals are postponed until this last little bit of their biochemistry stops?

 

For a religious person death is a rebirth to life ever after. This would logically imply that life and death have complementary definitions. Death is not based on biochemistry, such as hair still growing after death, but rather is based on the heart stopping or the brain ceasing to function, i.e., kept alive with machines. The religious continuity of life/death should logically imply that the definition of life is as soon as the unborn's little heart begins to beat and its brain begins to give off brain waves.[/quote']

 

 

I'm not saying the actual life has begun. The process of the life has begun. When you know you're pregnant you know fully well that molecules inside of the female will turn out to be a human life. Aborting this is then ending the process of the life. Shouldn't the cells forming together to create organs and cartilage be considered life? It's not a cancer or a disease that should just be removed and forgotten. It's almost a miracle that women get pregnant considering the circumstances that have to be just right. As for death not ending till you hair and fingernails stop growing (which I'm not sure is entirely correct, I thought it was something else happening): your life has ended and death has begun...not the continuation of life. Your cells aren't reproducing or creating anything anymore; they're being decomposed by micro-organisms. Totally different process. You can't kill a dead man or end his process of life; it has already occured.

[Kyle]

The hair and nails aren't growing, they are becoming apparently elongated because the body is drying out.

[mrblond5311]

The hair and nails aren't growing, they are becoming apparently elongated because the body is drying out.

 

 

Thank you. I thought there was something else to that.

[jeskill]

27 (f):

OK, I know this is only for anti-abortionists, but I'm pro-choice and of course, I believe that rape victims should be allowed to abort if they choose to do so.

 

A couple of comments to the other posters:

 

E.coli: The best time to abort is between 7 - 12 weeks. It's more dangerous for the mother before and after that period of time (you can take RU-486 before 7 weeks if you wish). And studies have shown that a fetus can't feel pain until at least the 20th week (some researchers say they can't feel pain until after they're born). So, as gruesome as an abortion sounds, the fetus is not traumatized before it's killed. (Yes, it's alive, and it's killed, but I don't believe it's sentient. That's my line I draw.)

 

What exactly does "abortion out of convenience" mean? For example, if someone has the choice of having a baby and NOT finishing school (possibly getting a lower paying job and not being able to provide for her child as well as she could), or finishing school and having a planned baby later, is that convenience? Is that a bad choice? I know three women who have been faced with the choice of having a baby by themselves (because their partners weren't willing to help or change their lives) or having an abortion. Is that convenience? Don't you think a child would be better raised if they had both parents to lean on? This is coming from someone who was raised by a single mom. I mean, kudos to women who can do it, but we aren't all superwomen.

 

Other interesting tidbits: A nurse told me that by the age of 40, 50% of Canadian women (sorry, don't know the stats for other countries) will have had an abortion. Second, contraceptives, even the pill, are not 100% effective. I know at least 2 people who have gotten pregnant while on the pill. One person missed one pill, the other didn't miss at all. Luck of the draw. The pills with lower hormone concentrations are particularly tricky. So if you don't want to have to make that choice, don't trust the pill. Or don't have sex.

[Aardvark]

Other interesting tidbits: A nurse told me that by the age of 40' date=' 50% of Canadian women (sorry, don't know the stats for other countries) will have had an abortion. Second, contraceptives, even the pill, are not 100% effective. I know at least 2 people who have gotten pregnant while on the pill. One person missed one pill, the other didn't miss at all.[/quote']

 

If that statistic is even nearly true it is disgusting. Yes, contraception isn't always 100% effective, but it is effective enough to mean that the great majority of women should be able to avoid unwanted pregnancy. Inevitably there will be mistakes and accidents but not enough to require 50% of women to have abortions.

 

Using abortion as a last resort is one thing, to casually use it as a means of birth control is degenerate.

[jeskill]

I don't know Aardvark. I think that contraceptives fail more often than we think. But it's such a taboo subject that nobody really talks about it. We're told that contraceptives are 99% effective, I think we also get a little lazy sometimes -- we think it's not going to happen to us. It always happens to those "other" women. You know, the women who have unsafe sex. Not to people who use condoms or have been on the pill for XX years.

 

I don't know how accurate that stat is. But I don't really think that abortion is used "casually" by most women who end up making that choice. At least, all the women I've talked to about it were definitely not casual about it.

[Hegemony]

Asking any question relating to abortion on the internet is like poking a hornet's nest. For the record, I'm pro-choice. Reproductive rights go both ways, the right to have children or to not. Just because it looks kind of like a person doesn't mean it is.

[Destroid]

(22m) Pro-choice here. I believe a woman has the right to terminate the child for whatever reason at all as, like others, I do not believe a foetus is a person.

 

Late term abortions I would only approve of in extreme circumstances, if you are sexually active you need to be aware of the possibility and you need to know ASAP if you become pregnant.

 

Also, on contraception, I believe Implanon (an implant) that is correctly installed has resulted in zero pregnancies in Australia. (where it is used by several hundred thousand women)

 

Now, I say to anti-abortionists: What is worse? Killing an unborn feotus that cannot feel or think, or say, a cow? To me, if you are anti-abortion and use animal products, you are nothing but a hypocrit.

[Aardvark]

.

I don't know how accurate that stat is. But I don't really think that abortion is used "casually" by most women who end up making that choice. At least' date=' all the women I've talked to about it were definitely not casual about it.[/quote']

 

I hope you are right. That stat could be off, it is the idea that up to 50% of women by 40 having an abortion that makes me think that a lot of people must take it very casually. I hope it's not true.

[Aardvark]

Now' date=' I say to anti-abortionists: What is worse? Killing an unborn feotus that cannot feel or think, or say, a cow? To me, if you are anti-abortion and use animal products, you are nothing but a hypocrit.[/quote']

 

Do you actually even know what the word hypocrite means?

 

It seems like you have no idea.

[ecoli]

I don't know how accurate that stat is. But I don't really think that abortion is used "casually" by most women who end up making that choice. At least' date=' all the women I've talked to about it were definitely not casual about it.[/quote']

 

It's a pretty accurate, but misleading statistic. The statistic means that birth controls don't work 1% of the times they are used. This doesn't mean that if you use birth control 100 times, it won't work once... it's more like, out of 100 people who use birth control, 1 person won't use it correctly. for example, women on the birth control pill should be on the pill for at least one month before "using it." Not everyone follows this rule, and as a result, they get pregnant. If you use birth control devices properly, you should have nothing to worry about.

[The Spith]

(m17) I'm fairly happy with the way the law is in my country at the moment. (Abortions allowed up until 6 months in pregnancy unless mothers life is endangered.)

 

I do not define "human" as having a certain set of chromosomes that are capable of reproducing with another certain set of chromosomes.

 

If this were the definition of human and your argument is that a human life or something which had the potential to become a human life received lawful rights, then surely if I plucked out a hair from my head that would be allowed human rights.

 

After all it contains human genetic information, from which it would be possible to sequence the order of bases, reproduce them and insert them into an empty nucleus, from which you could grow a human.

 

Of course you would need a lot of equipment, and the hair would not turn into a human on its own. However an embryo quite similarly will not grow on its own. It requires a womb with a blood supply to receive oxygen and nutrients.

 

The hair and the embryo both have the potential to become human, but that should not grant them any special priveleges.

[Destroid]

Do you actually even know what the word hypocrite means?

 

It seems like you have no idea.

 

I used to the word to describe people who say on the one hand that killing babies is terrible yet do not bat an eyelid at killing animals. Most seem to take this stance out of a view that "every life deserves a chance/deserves not to be killed ect" yet someone who willingly contribed to the death of hundreds/thousands/ect animals during their lifetime clearly cannot hold this belief.

[ed84c]

He just believes that humans life is much > animals life, that doesnt make him a hypocrite. Its not a feeling i share particularily.

[jeskill]

I agree with you that the main reason why contraceptives fail is because they are used incorrectly, either out of of laziness or misinformation. Some women who take the pill for a long time, and who miss occasionally or take it late without problems will start to think that they can't get pregnant ... hence the laziness.

 

That being said, one way that you can get pregnant while taking the pill correctly is if you have a really short period (i.e. 4 days) and you ovulate before you start up the pill up again. Because everyone always leaves 7 days for the period.

 

It's a pretty accurate, but misleading statistic. The statistic means that birth controls don't work 1% of the times they are used. This doesn't mean that if you use birth control 100 times, it won't work once... it's more like, out of 100 people who use birth control, 1 person won't use it correctly. for example, women on the birth control pill should be on the pill for at least one month before "using it." Not everyone follows this rule, and as a result, they get pregnant. If you use birth control devices properly, you should have nothing to worry about.