Some sense on the abortion issue

a reply to: Lumenari

I don't think it should just be marketed as a means of birth control (which let's be honest that's exactly what is really happening with big money involved). Much less what it has turned into now... to me killing your kid after you've birthed it is infanticide, not abortion.

It's also become quite the cash cow for abortion providers in the baby organ market -- and I'm figuring that includes the black market.

The abortionists are making money on the front end AND the back end.

Even from a purely practical aspect, I don't see what making abortion illegal hopes to achieve. We already know it doesn't stop abortions, it only makes them less safe. I agree that we should strive for less abortions, but I don't agree that making them illegal is the solution. Improving sex education, removing the stigmas around even the discussion of sex, making contraception and family planning resources easily and cheaply available...these are the things that actually work.

OP, when you say that it should be a state's rights issue and that if you don't like it, you can move, I don't think you are fully grasping the situation for many women. Women of lower income households and women in minorities are for whatever reason, overrepresented in abortion statistics. These aren't people for whom moving interstate is necessarily as easy as your remark suggests.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Subaeruginosa

See, if you're going to use those "rationales" for justifying abortion, then you open the door up to the genocide argument of focusing population control on the poor, those carrying hereditary mental illnesses, and those whose cultures seem to be the most likely to spark incidents that lead to wars. Safe to say you probably don't support genocide, so why open that door in the first place? Give each individual a chance to succeed on their own merits.

That would only be true if the people you refer to were forced to have abortions. No one is forcing them to have them. They are merely offered the choice.

a reply to: eletheia
Until the man has a say in what he helped to make then there really is no discussion on the matter.

originally posted by: JON666
a reply to: eletheia
Until the man has a say in what he helped to make then there really is no discussion on the matter.

No thanks. It isn't his body, and it isn't his health being put on the line as a direct consequence of the decision made. And what of rapists and cases of incest? Under your suggestion, should they not also get a say in whether or not a woman is forced to have a baby she doesn't want, or forced to have an abortion?

a reply to: hypervalentiodine
Here is the problem if you get pregnant by a male, if he wants to keep the baby you can say no if he does not want to keep the child he has no say but must pay child support on the child. So tell me how its fair?

originally posted by: JON666
a reply to: hypervalentiodine
Here is the problem if you get pregnant by a male, if he wants to keep the baby you can say no if he does not want to keep the child he has no say but must pay child support on the child. So tell me how its fair?

I am not commenting on whether or not it is fair that a man should pay child support for a child he didn't want. That's a separate issue entirely. I am saying that no one except the woman in question should be able to make a decision on whether or not to see the pregnancy to term, because pregnancy is a huge health burden and risk that only she is undertaking. I equally abhor the suggestion that a man should be able to force a woman to have an abortion (a not insignificant trauma to mental and in some cases, physical health) because he doesn't want the child.

a reply to: Boadicea

It's also become quite the cash cow for abortion providers in the baby organ market -- and I'm figuring that includes the black market.

What possible black market could there be for fetal tissue and organs?

originally posted by: JON666
a reply to: eletheia
Until the man has a say in what he helped to make then there really is no discussion on the matter.

What kind of say? Final say?

The abortion itself is one difficult issue to resolve. The satellite issues surrounding it are not as confusing but somehow never seem to get resolved either. Its almost as if coming to a conclusion on one means having to settle them all.

The decision to abort is the woman's domain. It seems the men involved are rarely even consulted for their opinion or feelings on the matter. Imagine the horror of a man trying to tell a woman who has decided to abort that he wants the child. How can he possibly expect her to endure nine months of carrying and excruciating labor, just because he wants her too?

But the reverse of that situation is, for some reason, a no-brainer. If she decides to have the child the man is on the hook for no less than 18 years of support. He can be jailed for failure to pay. He will be blamed for the child's antisocial behavior for being an absent father - and he has no say in the matter whatsoever.

It seems to me that fathers are nothing more than sperm donors. Until something happens or there are bills to pay, then it's their problem. Men have feelings too. Our love for our children is just as strong as their mother's. We should have an opinion, we should be asked, and we should honor that responsibility.

a reply to: underwerks

Many here probably do not remember the days of abortion before it was legalized in the 70s. I do. Many, many women were penalized for getting pregnant outside of a marriage, heaven forbid. And most of the men involved did not want a child or marriage. So, women had to make a choice. Many times a woman was scorned for giving birth without a father; that has changed, obviously.

Now, men want to control the mother's decision. After many years of safe abortion, time for a reversal.

Men can make decisions when they take responsibility. Like male birth control.

Anyone else been hearing the sound of the American war drums of late? They claim it's because Iran has been too hostile. But in an attempt to convince us we need to bomb Iranian villages full of children they have tried to blame iran for an attack that occurred in Afghanistan that I believe the Taliban or ISIS has already taken credit for. But oh, they are gonna cut off the flow of middle eastern oil and cause the price of oil to skyrocket. We have to do something or oh my god we might have to actually walk the two blocks to the store and cut down on the unnecessary travel. Ya, that's great justification to murder a few thousand or so kids by bombing them to hades!
But the young child in Alabama that was taken advantage of by some sick sob and impregnated? oh no, shes gonna have to carry the child to term. No abortion for her! That would be murder! Doesn't matter if the experience leaves negative effects on her physically and mentally. Those consequences are no justification for her to get an abortion. That's murder.
But bombing a few villages to dust and killing their inhabitants for what is probably a bunch of trumped up accusations well that is just war.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

In a previous thread about abortion someone posted a study that was done to learn the non-health related reasons why women have late term abortions. Among the top five reasons given was that it was what the father wanted.

I think that for many cases the father is getting a say. It's just that sometimes you can have two people who just can't reach an agreement. It's the women's body that will endure the pregnancy. It will be her health that will be affected, maybe permanently. It is she who will be walking into an abortion clinic and allowing a medical procedure done to her body. And it is her that might be compromising her morality by doing so. Let's turn it around. What if a father has an accident and hurts his back. The injury will result in a lifelong disability that will severely effect his earning potential. There's a possibility that surgery might correct the situation but it is rather risky and might leave him in worse shape. Do you think the mother of his child should have the final say as to weather he should have the surgery or not since she is dependent on him being able to earn enough to help support the child?

medical schools no longer administer the Hippocratic oath to new doctors.

You know why? Because in the Hippocratic oath, one of the conditions for being made a physician was that you promised not to perform an abortion, and not to give a woman a drug to make her miscarry (like the "plan B" pill today).

The Hippocratic oath is the oldest statement of medical ethics of ANY civilization. 2500 years ago. And it mentions abortion by name, as a forbidden practice.

But screw all that. Old people were idiots. We are the smartest people who have ever lived.

originally posted by: Graysen
medical schools no longer administer the Hippocratic oath to new doctors.

You know why? Because in the Hippocratic oath, one of the conditions for being made a physician was that you promised not to perform an abortion, and not to give a woman a drug to make her miscarry (like the "plan B" pill today).

The Hippocratic oath is the oldest statement of medical ethics of ANY civilization. 2500 years ago. And it mentions abortion by name, as a forbidden practice.

But screw all that. Old people were idiots. We are the smartest people who have ever lived.

Appeal to tradition much? I don't know about you, but I for one am very glad I don't live in the world from 2500 years ago, and I'm sure okay with my doctors using medicine from the 21st century AD as opposed to the 5th century BC. Being from an older time doesn't make it right, nor even better than what we have now. Most doctors do still pledge an oath, they just don't all use the one that also pledges their allegiance to gods and goddesses from 2500 years ago.

Edit: A quick Google will also tell you that the original Hippocratic oath has been out of fashion for a fairly long time. In 1989, only 3 of 126 medical schools used it. Really, it's not been overly relevant since the AMA code of ethics was brought in during the 1800's.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Vroomfondel

In a previous thread about abortion someone posted a study that was done to learn the non-health related reasons why women have late term abortions. Among the top five reasons given was that it was what the father wanted.

Is that true? I couldn't find any research to support it. Most late-term abortions (of which there are not that many) are performed before 24 weeks, and it's usually because the person didn't know they were pregnant, couldn't afford the procedure, had trouble finding somewhere to get it done, etc. I suspect, but do not know, that abortions due to foetal anomalies or health risks to the mother would be decisions made together with the father (if he is around) or other family members, since these pregnancies are otherwise wanted. Ultimately, however, it is her choice.

originally posted by: hypervalentiodine


Appeal to tradition much?

It was universal until Roe v. Wade. That one case showed us how wrong we were. But wait, appealing to Roe v. Wade is appealing to tradition, too; just one one 2400 years less precedence....

I don't know about you, but I for one am very glad I don't live in the world from 2500 years ago, and I'm sure okay with my doctors using medicine from the 21st century AD as opposed to the 5th century BC.

I wasn't talking about the medicine. I was talking about ethical boundaries for doctors. Which seemed to work ok until this generation....

Being from an older time doesn't make it right, nor even better than what we have now. Most doctors do still pledge an oath, they just don't all use the one that also pledges their allegiance to gods and goddesses from 2500 years ago.

They didn't just cut the reference to gods, though. They cut the reference to infanticide. stick to the topic, if you can.

originally posted by: hypervalentiodine
Ultimately, however, it is her choice.

And why is that? If her elderly mother was incompetent, could she have the old bat killed? Why not? Why are there ethics panels for one case, but not the other? The baby has a whole potential life ahead of it. The old woman not so much.

But if it is a scared teenager, there's no parole board, no review panel; just a doctor who gets a couple of thousand dollars if he can talk a frightened young woman into the procedure. And he doesn't get paid anything if she chooses to have the kid. Maybe that's why PP clinics never EVER advocate for putting a baby up for adoption, even though the mother could get tens of thousands fo dollars for the baby plus her medical costs. In every state in the union, the waiting list to adopt a baby, even a very sick one, is more than a year long. And most parents offer to pay the woman's expenses. But no, having a doctor make three grand is more important for some reason, than her getting thirty.....

originally posted by: Graysen

originally posted by: hypervalentiodine


Appeal to tradition much?

It was universal until Roe v. Wade. That one case showed us how wrong we were. But wait, appealing to Roe v. Wade is appealing to tradition, too; just one one 2400 years less precedence....

I don't know about you, but I for one am very glad I don't live in the world from 2500 years ago, and I'm sure okay with my doctors using medicine from the 21st century AD as opposed to the 5th century BC.

I wasn't talking about the medicine. I was talking about ethical boundaries for doctors. Which seemed to work ok until this generation....

Being from an older time doesn't make it right, nor even better than what we have now. Most doctors do still pledge an oath, they just don't all use the one that also pledges their allegiance to gods and goddesses from 2500 years ago.

They didn't just cut the reference to gods, though. They cut the reference to infanticide. stick to the topic, if you can.

You've missed my point entirely. I mentioned the reference to gods to highlight to you that the original oath is largely irrelevant in modern medicine, and has been for a long time (since the AMA code of ethics came about, really). You suggested that it we should listen to it because it has been around and in use to whatever extent for a long time. That's a logical fallacy. Abortion isn't bad because some guy from ancient Greece said so.

originally posted by: Graysen

originally posted by: hypervalentiodine
Ultimately, however, it is her choice.

And why is that? If her elderly mother was incompetent, could she have the old bat killed? Why not? Why are there ethics panels for one case, but not the other? The baby has a whole potential life ahead of it. The old woman not so much.

I fail to see how this post relates to what I said. However, I am all for legalising euthanasia.

originally posted by: Graysen
But if it is a scared teenager, there's no parole board, no review panel; just a doctor who gets a couple of thousand dollars if he can talk a frightened young woman into the procedure. And he doesn't get paid anything if she chooses to have the kid. Maybe that's why PP clinics never EVER advocate for putting a baby up for adoption, even though the mother could get tens of thousands fo dollars for the baby plus her medical costs. In every state in the union, the waiting list to adopt a baby, even a very sick one, is more than a year long. And most parents offer to pay the woman's expenses. But no, having a doctor make three grand is more important for some reason, than her getting thirty.....

Adoption is literally discussed on their website. www.plannedparenthood.org...

originally posted by: hypervalentiodine


Adoption is literally discussed on their website. www.plannedparenthood.org...

They perform 82 abortions for every adoption. It's safe to say they are not in the adoption business.

Sounds like some of their clients choose adoption IN SPITE OF the counseling, not because of it.