abortion classic or dud?

A story: in the '80s my wife suffered from Chron's Disease. One side effect was that, the doctors told her, she lost any chance of ever getting pregnant. Relieved rather than upset, she stopped taking the pill. In 1989 she became pregnant. Her doctors told her that her health would suffer hugely if she tried to have the baby; that she had only a tiny chance of carrying it to term; and that if she did there was only a tiny chance of the baby being born healthy. Neither of us wanted a child anyway. We wanted an abortion. We went to the Health Authority's appointment to set this up, and gave him this background. He said (I swear this is absolutely true) that the pregnancy was clearly a miracle, and had my wife considered that she might be carrying the Second Coming? Did she want to kill the Second Coming? Knowing we had to go through this doctor to get the abortion, we stayed calm but stood our ground. He eventually told my wife that she was a very evil woman who did not deserve this miracle, and he would authorise the abortion to protect the baby from her.

I know that doesn't make any kind of case for or against abortion, but I think it explains some of why I don't believe that it should be available at doctor's discretion: it gives crazed doctors this kind of colossal power over other people's lives.

Let me emphasize again that this clinic is practically next door to a fucking Burger King.

One thing that's definitely dud: a LOT of doctors won't tell women about -or prescribe- the emergency contraception pill, which is nothing more than 2 birth control pills, taken 12 hours apart. It has to be taken within 72 hours, and I've heard horror stories of racing against the clock to try to find a doctor (esp. if you have a HMO) to prescribe it. That's just ridiculous; women should not have to be bouncing from doctor to doctor over something as simple as that.

I dont know how is it in places where abortion is okay but in Brasil where its prohibited most of the abortions by poor people are made by people there are more butchers than doctors. That or you take a shitload of pills there are prescribed for something else since there isnt a abortion pill

No but its unfortunate Martin, still Id be interseted in a rational explanation for abortion. Torankeo is the only one who appears to have any reason behind her beliefs. Anyone else?

The question of when life begins is a tough one though Donna I hope that its not something that cannot be looked at objectively -re belief systems.

Martin I find your definition about being able to survive independantly outside the mother not the most helpful- what happens in the future when they will be able to grow a baby from a test tube and never use the mother at all?

The Roe vs Wade really it was a non decision. The courts chose not to decide when life began because of conflicting medical evidence basically it was chucked in the too hard basket. Thirty years of medical evidence has swung the balance of scientific evidence in favour of the "religious pro life side" and will continue to do so. Thus we see arguments such as Tornakos ethical ones being pushed to the fore by abortion activists Id like to discuss that as well but later eh .

So when does life begin? Can we define it? Surely if we can define when death occurs we can define when life begins? That seems logical to me. So when do we die...
Where does life begin?:
1) Clinical death: Your heart stops. If when your heart stops, you’re dead, then by extension when your heart starts, you’re alive. Using this definition, most of even the earliest abortions are now illegal. But there is a problem. Clinical death is not final. You can be “brought back” from that, so it isn’t really death.

2) Biological death: All electrical activity in the brain stops. If when you cease to have an EKG reading you’re dead, then by extension when you start to have an EKG reading you’re alive. Since these brain impulses must be present to start the heart, they are readable before that. Even more of the earliest abortions are now illegal. But there is a problem. Even without the brain you can be put on machines that keep your body “alive”, so that isn’t really death, either.

3) Cellular breakdown and organ failure: The machines can feed you and pump your blood until your organs give out. Once the cell structure disintegrates and your organs fail there isn’t anything a machine can do for you. You would require an organ transplant which you would not get if you were in this degrading situation. Therefore, when your cell structure gives out you’re dead (really dead this time), SO BY DEFINITION WHEN YOUR CELL STRUCTURE IS FORMED (CONCEPTION) YOU ARE ALIVE.

I dont pretend to be an expert doctor, so my logic might be faulty nor take the moral high ground on abortion Id just like to hear rational sciencetific arguments for abortion not ethical ones as interesting as they are.

I firmly believe that abortion should be freely available to those who want it, those who don't believe in abortions needn't have them. The exception to this being that if the father wants the foetus aborted then I don't believe the woman should be allowed to carry on with the pregnancy.

I do understand than many anti-abortionists feel that they must protect the rights of the foetus because it cannot protect itself - even if the parents believe in abortion, *perhaps* the foetus doesn't?? This is where I have to partially agree with Martin - I don't consider the foetus's "live" status to be important but I do not believe that a foetus has any rights. The main difference between Martin & my beliefs is that "when it can survive independently of its mother" doesn't do it for me. Foetuses can survive from less than 20 weeks old with medical support these days. I'd say "when it can survive without any more assistance than the average full-term baby" or something like that - although that would be a bit of a compromise because I don't think a woman who gives birth to a full-term baby and kills/attempts to kill it straight away has done anything wrong.

As for abortion as birth-control, I reckon this almost doesn't exist, even amongst women who say that is what they have done/will do. I'd say most of them are actually in total denial of their fertility status - which is really a psychological problem that may have "abortion as birth-control" as a resultant symptom, or they have a lot of difficulty with birth-control for maybe physical or non-compliant partner reasons. Especially when a woman is in a compromised state due to depression & other mental problems, drug-abuse, physical or psychological abuse, etc. responsibiliby for fertility control can be beyond her abilities. I know quite a few people who've had multiple abortions and not one of them considers it to be a "form of birth control" but rather an unpleasant but thankfully available last resort.

For a woman who uses the rhythm or billings methods for birth-control then perhaps 3 abortions in 20 years would be far more acceptable than being on the pill or depo-provera or whatever (let's say she is intolerant to hormonal contraceptives, gets urinary tract infections from using the diaphragm and is allergic to the spermicide, can't use an IUD and is or has a partner who is allergic to latex or a partner who is too well hung for condoms or refuses to use them due to decrease in sensation) - especially seeing as women who are using the pill/diaphragm/IUDs etc also get pregnant every so often.

As I see it (and have studied it), you're not sentient until at least 3 months (but I suspect it's more like 6 months). Thus, by my definition, a 2-month-old foetus is not human. I give not a scrap for 'potential human beings', the same way I don't worry about potential car accidents.

If it has not and will not happen, then those involved (including the 'potential' itself) are not harmed.

I dislike the way anti-abortionists are labelled 'pro-life'. In my eyes, abortion is pro-life. It's pro the lives of the parents, or those who would have to care for an 'unwanted' child.

Ah Im not really surprised at this type of thinking but it still horrifies me... but I guess my views must be as offensive to others as this is to me.

Torankeo

"Classic, not least of all because if the body is able to decide to spontaneously abort a foetus for whatever (frequently physical) reason, then when the mind decides that it wants to abort one for whatever physical, social, economical, psychological, etc. reason then it should also be able to follow through with its decision."

This to me is perhaps the most interesting point you make, still I find it difficult to accept as logical- any way I think about it.
Let me see if Im reading you right. Bear with me Ill try and extend your logic.

If we kill someone in self defense that gives us the right to murder *innocent*others?

If cancer or other diseases kill people then we should allowed to murder *innocent * others?

What you have avoided is intent.There is a crucial distinction between an unavoidable physical process taking place, and someone actually using his or her *will* to cause the death of another. Wrongdoing takes place in the will, whether in acting, or not acting.

Why is it that this sentence is never followed up with an extrapolation that supports the original speaker?

as lyra said, emergency contraception is a big part of this. it needs to be readily available to women who want it.

me too. mind you...

http://www.theonion.com/onion3119/stupidbabies.html

Andrew Im not sure what gives you the right to create a whole new defintion of a human being. I would venture my guess but that would be uncharitable of me. No honest biologist would agree with you.

A "human being" is defined by objective reality -- i.e., someone existing [a "being"] and consisting of at least one living cell that contains "human" chromosomes. The term "human being" can't be defined by a political, arbitrary formula based on convenience to you.

Even pro-death courts admit that there are non-sentient "human beings" (both born and pre-born).

& kiwi - yr third paragraph makes no sense/contradicts itself!

I think it's completely tragic, too, that the 'using it as birth control' idea is so often bandied about by the antichoicers -- women who do that are probably a bit less mythic than the 'welfare queens' so often invoked by anti-public assistance politicians.

Also the high percentage of in-power antichoice types who are male = total dud to the umpteenth degree, because like they've ever had to deal with worrying over a missed period, or not having the money to feed and care for a baby if it comes to term? (Note how the antichoice and anti-public assistance politicans frequently walk in the same personae?) And how many of those placard-wavers have funded abortions of wives, daughters, mistressesof theirs, anyway? I suspect the answer to that question is not "zero."

actually i DO know someone who uses abortion as a method of contraception. i don't know why - its bloody illogical, you're not okay with condoms but you ARE okay with abortion??!!

other than that, i think abortion is classic, for exactly the reasons ned said. i also think that someone who has never and will never carry fetuses inside them has a downright gall to decide that abortion is wrong period. if you are the biological father of the child maybe you have some say but ultimately it is a womans choice because a woman plays a much greater role in childbearing than a man. i agree with toraneko that arguments when about when life begins are not productive. even if they were, defining what life is by using medical definitions of death is pretty faulty. what is not death != life.

*blush* To you and to Di both, thanks. :-)

All I was trying to illustrate (however muddily, and I apologise), is that I don't have any problem with destroying something that isn't sentient.

(unless it was once sentient, in the case of someone in a coma or some such, and has the potential to become sentient again. Obviously the destruction of such a future-sentient being would be detrimental to those who loved it in it's previous sentience.)

You're the only one who'll nurture this discussion into an "atomic kitten sized debacle" with blatantly provocative comments like "do you hate all men or just the ones who have a penis?"

I don't agree with this, for any number of personal reasons. Your body is your own, not your partner's (or anyone else's for that matter).

The decision to abort a child is, ultimately, the mother's.

However, if a man and a woman are in a relationship together, and the woman becomes pregnant, obviously the two will have to have lengthly discussion, and arrive at a mutual decision, before any action is taken.

From the male point of view:

I would not want a child that is 'half me' being born without my consent, especially if I wouldn't be able to care for the child directly. I would expect many to react with sympathy for me on this issue.

On the other hand, were I anti-abortion, and were I wanting my partner (or ex-partner) to have this child on my behalf, I would expect people to react negatively towards me. I have no right to force someone else to have a child.

I guess the bottom line is this: before sleeping with someone you should find out how they feel about abortion. If you're not comfortable with their views, then don't fuck. End of story.

translate: you feminist bitch, shut your mouth, how dare you make valid criticisms of my flimsy arguments?

I realize that this is considered the "logical" way of looking at pregnancy, but unfortunately it is wrong wrong wrong. A women HAS to DO NOTHING (and should not have to DO ANYTHING). She does not have to inform her husband. No mutual decision need be arrived at. No lengthy discussions either. A women wants to end a pregnancy, she does. No man, no other woman, no government, no religious organization should be able to decide whether or not the pregnancy is carried to term. End of story.

the articles read like that guy is still with his girlfriend. Maybe they are low in their knit cap/shitty tattoo fund$ thus the reason they are suing.

and abortion is absolute classique.

referring to it as a baby is wrong as fuck, may as well call it a teenager or middle aged person

Humans are emotionally hard-wired to protect infants. The anti-abortion leadership understands this perfectly well and have consistently promoted fetuses to the status of infants in their propaganda. Literally no one in the "pro-life" faction ever says the word "fetus".

I like how they call him a father, like sticking his dick in someone makes him a father.

I thought this was going to be about pro-lifers claiming abortions are happening after a babies are born.

HOW DOES THAT WORK

at six weeks it's not even a fetus, it's technically an embryo

I usually call it a really strong sneeze while on your period.

That story is 100% terrifying. Fucking hell.

how do those shouting "INFANTICIDE!" reconcile their perception of liberals as both bleeding-hearts who tie themselves to trees so a butterfly's habitat won't be destroyed, and bloodlusting baby-killers?

When you know something is true, you don't need to reconcile its apparent internal contradictions because the truth cannot be inconsistent with the truth. It's just 'what is' and must be taken at face value.

Oh hi I’m going to Alabama this week, because my parents have chosen to live in that particular corner of hell.

I hate going down there and this makes it even worse.

True White Kid - it's easy - the left cares more about the butterfly (which doesn't matter) than AN ACTUAL HUMAN BEING. It's all about the "ensoulment" (actual concept). Which to me is, like, a religious concept and shouldn't be validated by government.

Speaking from personal experience here (family in the anti-abortion movement in the US) - if you're in the movement, you commit to "the unborn" at the expense of ALL OTHER LIFE, even "post-born" human life. You're expected to put that issue above all others. I guess that's why I didn't buy the arguments when they were first peddled to me in the early 80's. That commitment means NO environmental issues, NO to issues of social and economic justice, NO to peace activism. A handful of the A-A's do "seamless garment" politics, but I don't buy the "pro life" argument. It just seems to me that propagating this issue has been a way of disempowering the left. Jerry Falwell, for example, was a segregationist who adopted a "family values" agenda when segregation became politically unpalatable. A little too convenient.

per the wapo: The father of the pregnant teenager, who asked that his and his daughter’s names not be used to protect their privacy, said his “family is really distraught” over the lawsuit. He said his daughter was 16 and a high school senior, and that Magers was 19 and unemployed when they discovered that she was pregnant.

The guy suing is such a loser.

"He said his daughter and Magers are no longer together. "I knew he was pressuring my daughter to have sex, and I can’t believe we are here now.”

Months ago I listened to an episode of The Daily about Missouri's last open abortion clinic, and a husband/wife doctor team - he works in a clinic in MO, she works in a clinic across the border in IL. As MO's options dwindle, IL struggles to take up the slack. So I heard an interview with the Missouri director of health and human services yesterday, and it was maddening. I guess the burden of legal impositions is becoming such that the one MO clinic is in danger of closing, imminently (today? tomorrow?), which would leave MO with literally no place to get access to an abortion. The smug asshole kept saying she's very sympathetic, and understands there are two sides to the issue, but, well, if only the doctors simply submitted to the new rules (which, as written, could reportedly now leave them legally vulnerable to serious charges) we wouldn't have a problem. Last year, says the interviewer, 2018, there were apparently 3000 (I think she said this) abortions recorded in Missouri. If this last clinic closes, where would those people get their care? The smug asshole responds that abortion is still legal and that multiple neighboring states offer the service. So wait, says the interviewer. You are telling people who need medical care they will actually need to leave the state and travel somewhere else? Well, begins the asshole again, if only the doctors simply submitted to the new rules ...

Fuck all these backwoods shitholes.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/abortion-geneva-consensus-declaration-trump-pompeo-azar-us-saudi-arabia-uganda-b1250419.html

The Trump administration has joined 32 illiberal or authoritarian countries in declaring that women have no intrinsic right to abortion.

The Geneva Consensus Declaration, which received no support from America’s liberal allies, calls on states to protect the health and “inalienable rights” of women, but appears largely aimed at curbing global abortion rights and promoting heterosexual family units.

It was co-sponsored by Brazil, Egypt, Hungary, Indonesia, Uganda and the US, and was also signed by a host of autocratic countries including Saudi Arabia, Belarus and the United Arab Emirates.

…and Poland, of course, who has just tightened its already draconian abortion laws.

co-sponsored by Brazil, Hungary, ok already terrifying

classic

OP is not so sure and wants to have a rational discussion about it.

Dayglo Abortions - really classic

i think that i dont have a vulva, and therefore its not really my business.

odd choice of body part, but fair

i think that i dont have a vulva

better be sure

btw there was a positive end to the Baby Roe case mentioned last year

https://www.al.com/news/2019/08/judge-tosses-baby-roe-abortion-lawsuit-filed-against-huntsville-clinic.html

Poland last week made it illegal for women to seek abortions for cases where the foetus has a serious birth defect. Situations where the baby would be born unable to sustain life, where a woman would have to carry a child to term knowing it wouldn’t live outside the womb.

Polish citizens have been protesting the past few days. A friend of mine there says everyone’s out, not just the usual groups who go to protests.

I’m not sure we ever went as hard as disrupting Mass in Ireland, but this is significant from a country where the institutional regard for the Church has lingered.

At the weekend protesters in several towns and cities picketed and in some instances disrupted church services, amid signs that the anger felt by many Poles about the the Catholic church’s role in public life was spilling over into open confrontation.

At the Church of the Holy Cross in central Warsaw on Sunday, pro-choice protesters clashed with far-right activists, and one woman was taken away in an ambulance after allegedly being thrown down the steps in front of the church.

The far-right leader Robert Bąkiewicz announced that nationalist groups would create a “national guard” to defend churches from the protesters.

The table says "We are sorry for the inconvenience. We have a government to overthrow".
Hundreds of thousands of Poles in all cities have blocked the streets today. The traffic is being stopped. The protests get bigger and longer every day. #Poland #AbortionBan pic.twitter.com/cDo6BnUyHD

— Katarzyna Knapik (@ciotkarewolucji) October 26, 2020

‼️ Trasa Łazienkowska. Ruch w stronę crntrum blokują taksówkarze. Są logotypy wszystkich warszawskich korporacji, kilkadziesiąt samochodów. pic.twitter.com/HwO4gcru7Q

— Bartłomiej Eider (@bk_eider) October 26, 2020

On the 5th day of protests against anti-abortion rulling of Constitutional Tribunal, a lot of #Polish cities were blocked! Not only the biggest ones, also smaller like my hometown #Żywiec, city of 30,000 people ❤🖤 And I was one of the oldest! Get the fuck off, fundamentalists! pic.twitter.com/hPqCAUARhb

— Magda Dropek (@magdadropek) October 26, 2020

best of luck, Poland. god, fuck the Duda administration

Spontaneous protest in support of #StrajkKobiet in #London against #Poland's new #abortion laws. Only a handful of Police officers, masks everywhere. pic.twitter.com/XIkig5iQPr

— Kasia Madera (@BBCKasiaMadera) October 26, 2020

WATCH: Something extraordinary is happening in Poland

This story has not got the attention it deserves, night after night of protests, big crowds after a court ruling that further limited its restrictive abortion laws pic.twitter.com/R6o5VK19e6

— Darren McCaffrey (@DarrenEuronews) October 30, 2020

classic

Polish ban delayed:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/03/poland-stalls-abortion-ban-amid-nationwide-protests

Yes, great for everyone who got there, but they have to keep pushing.

US needs to take note.

Looks like the fash scum government won out in the end:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/27/poland-to-implement-near-total-ban-on-abortion-imminently

Travelling abroad is the only option and it’s one they don’t have at the moment. Support and donate to the Abortion Support Network and to the organisations listed at the end of this article, and never ever take your rights for granted.

Great job y'all:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/mar/09/arkansas-abortion-ban-supreme-court-roe-v-wade

fucking gross.

wtf is wrong with these people? I'm so angry right now

I think in some cases the age of timing of legal abortion should rise to fit the circumstance.
How old is Ted Cruz again?

looks like dr. ligma is about to lose medical license no. 8008135

So… apparently Texas has passed some asinine anti-abortion law where private citizens can claim a fucking bounty for spying on their neighbours, and someone setup this site to take reports from anyone on which women to persecutehttps://t.co/FpQ8HimpaV

— Claire Ryan (@aetherlev) August 21, 2021

also C. Ray Oneater, M.D.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/06/politics/texas-abortion-ban-federal-judge-order-block/index.html

but thanks to SCOTUS punting, some facilities hesitant to re-open considering Texas has appealed already

was on leave when this email went out, but apparently my company is reimbursing colleagues who have to travel 50 or more miles for an abortion (though apparently this was already in place, unbeknownst to me, and is continuing and more visible now).

anybody else's company have policies like this? I am kind of smiling thinking of the pro-life assholes who probably got angry at this email and are putting in their 2 weeks notice.

I really thought our CEO would make an announcement like that last week or at least by this week. They were so on the money regarding the pandemic. And people working at our Mississippi distribution center are already living under an abortion ban.

There was an email soon after the decision, mentioning ‘divisive issues’ and ‘respecting others’ beliefs’ and that kind of crap. I heard that wasn’t gonna be THE announcement. But since then… nothing.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/13/health/otc-birth-control-pill.html

i didn't see that coming...

Paxton and Texas SCOTUS are fucking inhuman ghouls

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/11/us/texas-woman-leaves-state-abortion/index.html

Kate cox is a hero. Voluntarily signed up for weeks of expense and scrutiny and risk to her health, and probably years of harassment, to get them on the record.

Definitely

Highly recommend reading the Texas Supreme Court decision for the rage factor alone: https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1457645/230994pc.pdf.

It's like the Dred Scott decision, the same kind of viciousness disguised by dry judicial reasoning. And so hypocritical — they're like, "Hey, the law leaves it up to doctors, not judges." Not acknowledging at all that a doctor risks prosecution themselves by having to meet a standard that is both exacting and vague. Just so so awful. This is where we are just 18 months after Dobbs.

and of course, we know not everyone is fortunate enough to be able to go to another state for the procedure, or might not be willing to go through the scrutiny in the same way.

this is what they wanted. literal control over women at the granular level.