I Finally Understand Why Abortion Can't Be Discussed Logically.

I agree. People also need to realise there a host of valid reasons why a woman might abort.. which may be better for the baby than abortion.

Drugs
Alchohol
Rape
Abuse
Inability to provide/love/care for them
Arguments
The failure of other contraceptives
Irresponsibility
Lust
Breakdown of a relationship
Poor health in mother
Poor health in foetus

Sorry to break it to you folk.. It isn't just due to accidents, there is often more involved here.

There could be more that could be done to assist women with these problems/issues but as it stands there isn't. You need to address these issues before you can prevent abortions from accurring.

And as no one is doing anything they will continue...........

reply to post by windword

Dear windword,

Aha! It seems as though I am getting closer to understanding, which means I can ask more pertinent questions. Thanks for your patience.

The truth of this statement depends on the developmental stage of X. If it's before, or during the early stages of implantation, it's chances of survival are 50%.

AGREED! See how easy this is? That leads us to the not so surprising conclusion, that the longer X is in the mother, the better its chance for survival. (assuming no outside interference)

6) There is no reason to believe X desires, or agrees to, an abortion.

There's no reason not to assume that X has the same desires as the mother, or no desire at all.

I was hoping that #6 would be combined with #7 "The inability of a citizen to give consent, means consent is not given. (See, unconscious rape victims.)" Where I was going with that was, if we decide X is a citizen (and I'm using the word Citizen to avoid the confusion we've fallen into in the past), it would be assumed that X would not want its life ended. Thus, the situation arises where the mother wants X to die, and we assume, reasonably, that X doesn't want to die. The mother, currently wins, but only if we assume X is not a citizen.

The business of the camping trip was to explore the role viability plays in all this. In those situations, X is born and is breathing, crying and whatever else new babies do, but it one case it is still entirely dependent on its mother, and in the other, it is still not viable as there are no other people around.

See, it's born and breathing, entitled to society's protections, but it's not viable or it's completely dependent on it's mother, no one else can do. So, even a non-viable baby is a citizen, so is a baby completely dependent. Therefore, in both of those situations it's NOT viability or dependence on the mother that makes the difference.

After viability it has state protection and the mother can be imprisoned for the safety of the protected fetus.

Third trimester abortions are still being done in the US, although only four doctors perform them. Here's a link to a short article about them and a trailer to the film that has been made about them.
www.motherjones.com...
As they're not in jail, abortions after viability have to be legal somewhere, and I'm too lazy to find out where.

I think this is where I'm still confused:

The older a fetus gets, the more rights it's entitled to.

There seem to be only three divisions, before viability, between viability and birth, and after birth. ( I don't know what the status is for partial-birth abortions, but no one will ever convince me that those are all right.) Why those three divisions instead of implantation, or fertilization, or heartbeat, I can't explain. Nor, have I heard anyone else explain, except that 24 weeks is a convenient time to choose.

Your statement is correct, of course, the Supreme Court has said so. But it dodges the question of WHY it should be that way. As was pointed out earlier, slavery was completely legal by court decision, but the "why" of the decision was flawed. Many believe that Roe is flawed in the same way.

It's the logic, or lack thereof, that I'm missing.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by OrphanApology

Dear OrphanApology,

A late welcome to ATS, and accept my gratitude for your contribution. Thanks for taking the time to come by and participate.

It seems that the main point of your post is in the first paragraph;

People have a right to do with their bodies as they see fit. Regardless of what you call a pregnancy whether it's fetus, baby, unborn baby, unborn child, cells, whatever, the point is all of those are dependent on another life form's body for existence. An unborn baby cannot exist outside of the host mother's body, and I do not believe that anyone besides an individual should tell him or her what to do with their own bodies. If a woman wants to terminate a pregnancy because she no longer wishes to host the baby, it is her body and her choice to do so.

Actually, I should have said main points, there seem to be two. The first is that it is the mother's body, and she can do with it what she wants. I agree with the statement, but not the conclusion you draw from it.

We are not talking about the mother's body, but the baby's body. It can't be the mother's body, otherwise we'd have the ridiculous position that a pregnant woman has four eyes, ears, arms, legs, and, quite possibly a penis. Further the baby has an entirely different DNA from the mother. That's how crime shows determine whether a sample is from the same or a different person.

As far as not being able to live outside the mother's body, that's sometimes true, sometimes false. Don't women sometimes have fertilized eggs taken from one woman, kept alive, and passed to another? Besides, that's not a strong argument. See some of my earlier comments. But yes, normally if a baby is taken from inside a mother to outside a mother it will not do well if it's in early stages of development. But if you try to remove a baby eagle from it's egg it won't do well either. Does that mean it's not an eagle? I don't see where there is a logical argument to be had there.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


Here's the thing, if a woman does not want to be a host for the baby, living organism, whatever you wish to call it. It is her body and if she wants to pay someone to remove it then that is her choice.

For instance, I am a lesbian in the United States living in one of the states that currently gives parental rights to rapists and the children sired through rape. If tomorrow some man raped me, I would save up money (and who knows how long that would take as I currently have two broken feet and am not working) and get abortion as soon as possible. I would not think twice about it, and in the off-chance that it was illegal I would have it done illegally. Women are not vessels. My body is mine, it is unfortunate that biology doesn't allow women to turn a switch on and off for pregnancy, but it is what it is. If women laid eggs we wouldn't be having this discussion, they don't though. The nature of the human biology is parasitic in the way that pregnancies proceed, that still doesn't mean a woman doesn't have the right to control what's in her body.

Women still have the rights to do with their bodies as they choose, in this case that would mean I refuse to be a host. I refuse. I will not host any child that I do not wish to. Women have the right to not have their bodies be a vessel.

reply to post by OrphanApology


And I would expect nothing less than that sort of selfish reply. You had to throw in the rape issue. Let's be honest. Most women use abortion as a second hand birth control. They were too lazy or drunk to care about the consequences of unprotected sex, care nothing about the life of a child, and it's all about "me me me me" and we wonder why our world is going to hell.

reply to post by OrphanApology

Dear OrphanApology,

Forgive me if I sound crabby, I'll try to be better next time.

Women have the right to not have their bodies be a vessel.

And the way to exercise that right is to not have sex. After all, the mother has let herself be the vessel for the man. Is she saying "I didn't really mean it?" Or, "I didn't know I might get pregnant?"

If you don't want to pay high gas prices, don't drive a car.

Again, sorry that I'm so irritable.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


Thankfully she is a lesbian and does not have to worry about being a vessel for a man willingly. Too many women don't take responsibility before they have sex. Too many men don't take responsibility before or after they have sex. I wish those who don't care would just get sterilized and save themselves the trouble of pregnancy.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by OrphanApology

 

And I would expect nothing less than that sort of selfish reply.

And why is that? Is it because she's a lesbian, or because she's pro-choice?

You had to throw in the rape issue.

Well, since she's a lesbian, and all, I guess that rape would be thing that would put her in a situation where she would find herself seeking an abortion! DUH

Let's be honest. Most women use abortion as a second hand birth control. They were too lazy or drunk to care about the consequences of unprotected sex, care nothing about the life of a child, and it's all about "me me me me" and we wonder why our world is going to hell.

What do you know about most women? Or, about being honest?!

reply to post by windword


I could care a less if she is a lesbian, but the prior poster asked her about having sex with a man, so I did not think that would matter as per her choice as his statement was not about rape but hetero sex, and thus my statement that only rape would be an issue. The fact is, very very few of abortions are done because of rape. The vast majority are because the woman or man did not use protection, did not think about the consequences, and once a baby is in the mix, they just don't care and get an abortion because life is cheap. They don't even care that it is a life because they can get an abortion. It would be a whole lot easier if the men or women like that would just get sterilized.

You see, abortion is now a sacred right of women. It can't be limited because that is limiting her right to choose. I mean, just putting a limit to first trimester is screamed as unfair. She can go get an abortion up to the time she is delivering it, and I dare say she could be in labor and say, "HEY, I DON"T WANT IT... KILL IT NOW BEFORE IT CAN BREATH!" and there will be a doctor waiting to help the poor thing out of her predicament. I can think of one who would even kill it after it managed to crawl out of it's host.

beezzer

I found it ironic that gay rights supporters spoke of the rights of the individual, yet those self-same people disregarded the rights of the unborn individual.

So people supporting Gay Rights, are all for Abortion ?

I think you got a Candidate for Dumbest Reply of the Month there Beez.
But I'll play your "Game of Ironic" a bit.

I find it Ironic that the Same People who are Anti-Choice, Want to eliminate Support Payments and Funding for those who need help raising these children.
The Anti-Choice crowd get all teary eyed when they are Fetuses , but when they are born...
"You on your own B****h "

UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by windword

 

I could care a less if she is a lesbian, but the prior poster asked her about having sex with a man, so I did not think that would matter as per her choice as his statement was not about rape but hetero sex, and thus my statement that only rape would be an issue. The fact is, very very few of abortions are done because of rape. The vast majority are because the woman or man did not use protection, did not think about the consequences, and once a baby is in the mix, they just don't care and get an abortion because life is cheap. They don't even care that it is a life because they can get an abortion. It would be a whole lot easier if the men or women like that would just get sterilized.

You see, abortion is now a sacred right of women. It can't be limited because that is limiting her right to choose. I mean, just putting a limit to first trimester is screamed as unfair. She can go get an abortion up to the time she is delivering it, and I dare say she could be in labor and say, "HEY, I DON"T WANT IT... KILL IT NOW BEFORE IT CAN BREATH!" and there will be a doctor waiting to help the poor thing out of her predicament. I can think of one who would even kill it after it managed to crawl out of it's host.

You don't know the reasons for abortions and never will. To make a claim that "few abortions are done because of rape" is making a statement based on unknown data. Rape is a very widespread problem and so is incest. I am sorry, but it just is. It is impossible to know the real statistics behind it but one things for sure, incest and rape have been around for as long as mankind has existed.

As the previous poster stated, the reason why I pointed out rape is because for me, personally, that would be the only reason why I would be seeking out an abortion.

Again though, the one who decides abortion is the woman as it is her body. It is not the job of the state, other women, other men, neighbor Joe down the street who drinks 40's or anyone else. The decision of what one puts, removes, does, alters, and changes of their body is their decision and no one else's. That's my opinion, and the other side will always disagree.

But just keep in mind that while the pro-life pro-gun people fight for one side, and the pro-choice pro-life(gun control) people fight for one side, neither side wins. Both should realize that pro-personalfreedom is not always the perfect solution but it's the only stance where everyone comes out on top more often than not. Having governments control what a woman does with her body (yes even during pregnancy), or what a man does with his body, or what a hermaphrodite does with it's body is not the place of law but that individual. I reserve the right to control my body. I think everyone has the right to do with their bodies as they see fit. With that, I leave the conversation because these arguments have no end. Have a goodnight everyone.

reply to post by charles1952


Charles,

I'm still having a bit of difficulty in understanding exactly what your trying to say.

Your statement is correct, of course, the Supreme Court has said so. But it dodges the question of WHY it should be that way. As was pointed out earlier, slavery was completely legal by court decision, but the "why" of the decision was flawed. Many believe that Roe is flawed in the same way.

I don't understand how the choice of abortion is akin to slavery. I do understand, however, that forced birth is tantamount to slavery and indentured servitude.

There seem to be only three divisions, before viability, between viability and birth, and after birth.

I'm guessing that you mean there are three stages where X may be vulnerable to abortion and you don't understand why it's divided in such a way, right?

1) Before viability: The stage where a woman has a choice to abort.
2) After viability: Where cases of the mother's health or a severe problem with the fetus may end the life of the fetus with abortion, under extreme circumstances.

( I don't know what the status is for partial-birth abortions, but no one will ever convince me that those are all right.)

(1) The term 'partial birth abortion' is not a medical term. The AMA will use the term "intact dilatation and extraction"(or intact D&X) to refer to a specific procedure comprised of the following elements: deliberate dilatation of the cervix, usually over a sequence of days;................

The AMA recommends that the procedure not be used unless alternative procedures pose materially greater risk to the woman. Twww.ama-assn.org...

Why those three divisions instead of implantation, or fertilization, or heartbeat, I can't explain. Nor, have I heard anyone else explain, except that 24 weeks is a convenient time to choose.

24 weeks was chosen, not because it's convenient, but because that was what the medical community deemed to be the stage of viability. Why viability? Because it's a time when there is a more even yoke between the life of the mother and the fetus. Because denying her an abortion earlier than viability, claiming that fetal rights trump hers, violates her right not to be pregnant. If you draw the line at fertilization, the woman can't use many birth control methods to avoid pregnancy.

The heart beat can be detected as early as six weeks, many women don't even know they're pregnant at that time. At this stage, abortion is relatively safe, safer that giving birth. Statistically, more women die in child birth than early stage abortions. The developing embryo, at six weeks, doesn't deserve rights that are greater than the woman's right to not be pregnant.

3. After birth: There is no threat of abortion.

6) There is no reason to believe X desires, or agrees to, an abortion.

There's no reason not to assume that X has the same desires as the mother, or no desire at all.

I was hoping that #6 would be combined with #7 "The inability of a citizen to give consent, means consent is not given. (See, unconscious rape victims.)"

Parents are responsible for their children. Children don't give consent.

Where I was going with that was, if we decide X is a citizen (and I'm using the word Citizen to avoid the confusion we've fallen into in the past), it would be assumed that X would not want its life ended.

By citizen, do you mean born, with citizenship rights? Are you trying to propose that "if fetus X was born, fetus X would wan't to live"? Color me confused.

Thus, the situation arises where the mother wants X to die, and we assume, reasonably, that X doesn't want to die. The mother, currently wins, but only if we assume X is not a citizen.

Are you trying to say that "If the mother is suicidal, we should assume the fetus isn't"? I'm pretty sure that if a woman attempts, or succeeds, in a suicide attempt, doctors would do everything they could to save the fetus.

The business of the camping trip was to explore the role viability plays in all this. In those situations, X is born and is breathing, crying and whatever else new babies do, but it one case it is still entirely dependent on its mother, and in the other, it is still not viable as there are no other people around.

See, it's born and breathing, entitled to society's protections, but it's not viable or it's completely dependent on it's mother, no one else can do. So, even a non-viable baby is a citizen, so is a baby completely dependent. Therefore, in both of those situations it's NOT viability or dependence on the mother that makes the difference.

When a baby is born it's dependent on someone, but not necessarily the mother. If it's mother dies, and no one is around, the baby is still viable. But it's vulnerable to the elements and neglect. If a stranger hears the baby crying, and calls for help, that baby is still viable, a citizen and eligible for all society has to offer it.

reply to post by OrphanApology


Actually I do know the statistics on abortion and many women get them after the fact because they couldn't bother with birth control. I have known women who have had multiple abortions, and it's not big deal to them.

Who Has Abortions? Fifty percent of U.S. women obtaining abortion are younger than 25: Women aged 20-24 obtain 33% of all abortions, and teenagers obtain 17%. 37% of abortions occur with black women, 34% with non-Hispanic white women, 22% to Hispanic women and 8% to women of other races. Women who obtain abortion represent every religious affiliation. 43% of women obtaining abortion identify themselves as Protestant, and 27% as Catholic; and 13% of abortion patients describe themselves as born-again or Evangelical Christians. Most women receiving abortion (83%) are unmarried. Women who have never married obtain two-thirds of all abortions. 16% are separated, divorced, or widowed. Married women are significantly less likely than unmarried women to resolve unintended pregnancies through abortion. About 60% of abortions are obtained by women who have one or more child.

source

Abortion is a form of genocide in the black community. That is why they have a majority of planned parenthood clinics in the black community. Try watching Maafa 21. That will open your eyes.

Watch the trailer



Here is the ten minute section on Planned Parenthood



continued

Black women are more than 4.8 times more likely than non-Hispanic white women to have an abortion, and Hispanic women are 2.7 times as likely (AGI).

source

Yes, the majority of abortions are from lack of planning and the pregnancy is seen as an inconvenience in the woman's life, not for medical reasons.

Three-fourths of women cite concerns for or responsibility to other individuals; three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents; and half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner.

source


How many abortions are performed a year in America?

Based on available state-level data, an estimated 1.16 million abortions were performed in 2009, 1.13 million were performed in 2010, and 1.06 million in 2011.

source

Each year, about 13,000 women have abortions because they became pregnant as a result of rape or incest.

source

So, out of 1 million abortions and it's got to be higher now, only 13,000 were for rape or incest. Abortion is a means for the pharmaceutical industry to get cheap fetal tissue when prior to Roe V. Wade they had to buy them from overseas at a high cost. So, pulling the rape card is really quite disingenuous when talking about this topic. Just trying to lower the limit to 20 weeks in Texas created havoc because it's a women's right to choose, yet it's lower in liberal states like New York! No, this is an issue the left uses to divide and play the "right is out to get you women" card.

Abortion is not what people think it is. It's not about women's rights. It is from it's inception a means to kill the black population of America. The Eugenics society wanted to find a solution to all these black people they viewed as lower then whites:

It was Sangers who wrote in 1939 to her benefactor Charles Gamble of Proctor & Gamble:

“The American ruling class had mad a hard decision, Americans of African descent would accept their miserable lot or die… the venerable Saturday Evening Post issues what might be termed as ‘White Paper’, in which it warned Black America that they had better understand and accept the fact that absolute freedom and equality were not part of the game plan for them, and that the consequence of non-acceptance would be wholesale genocide” John Oliver Killens 1982.

The minister’s work is also important and also should be trained, perhaps by the Federation as to our ideals and the goal we hope to reach. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten if it ever occurs to their more rebellious members.”

The advances made in various communities, on reflection were but mere experiments to see how far the ruling classes could go and with what, and to modify where necessary in order to make further gains within societal structures of nations. Now the supposedly advancements of women’s equality, comes full circle in the U.S. with a two pronged attack on their loins and their wombs under the women’s right to choose regardless of the fact that a woman pays a price either way!

source

This part of Maafa 21 is worth watching as well

If we are going to talk about the issue of abortion, then it might be helpful to see what Nixon thought of it. tapes were released and this is a transcript of Nixon talking with a staffer in March 1972:

March 30, 1972

Nixon: A majority of people in Colorado voted for abortion, I think a majority of people in Michigan are for abortion, I think in both cases, well, certainly in Michigan they will vote for it because they think that what's going to be aborted generally are the little black bastards.

Unidentified Staff: Sure.
---------------------------------------- April 3, 1972

Nixon: ... as I told you and we talked about it earlier, that a hell of a lot of people want to control all the Negro bastards.

Unidentified Staff: Yeah.

Nixon: Isn't that really true?

Unidentified Staff: Yeah
---------------------------------------- April 3, 1972

Nixon: You know what we are talking about — population control?

Unidentified Staff: Sure

Nixon: We're talking really — and what John Rockefeller really realizes — look, the people in what we call the 'our class' control their populations. Sometimes they'll have a family of six, or seven, or eight, or nine, but it's exception.

Unidentified Staff: Sure.

Nixon: People who don't control their families are people in — the people who shouldn't have kids. Now that's . . .

Unidentified Staff: The black population in the city of San Francisco has gone from 3000 — right after World War II — to where they represent 30 percent of the population of San Francisco.

Nixon: What?
Unidentified Staff: Yes sir.

source

reply to post by windword

24 weeks was chosen, not because it's convenient, but because that was what the medical community deemed to be the stage of viability. Why viability? Because it's a time when there is a more even yoke between the life of the mother and the fetus.

Little known interesting fact is that because viability depends on medical technology, this limit established by famous Roe vs. Wade wont last. It was originaly placed at 28 weeks and there are now talks about 20 weeks bans, and as time goes on abortion will be open for a ban even sooner. If we ever get mature artificial wombs, then maybe even from conception.

Viability is a convenient line for now, but merely utilitarian and it does not answer the hard questions of what makes human organisms worthy of right to life. Question we will sooner or later have to answer.

edition.cnn.com...

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

You see, abortion is now a sacred right of women.

That is what freaks me out, they have twisted the sacredness of the feminine.

It is twisted.

It is often said that the first sound we hear in the womb is our mother's heartbeat. Actually, the first sound to vibrate our newly developed hearing apparatus is the pulse of our mother's blood through her veins and arteries. We vibrate to that primordial rhythm even before we have ears to hear. Before we were conceived, we existed in part as an egg in our mother's ovary. All the eggs a woman will ever carry form in her ovaries while she is a four-month-old fetus in the womb of her mother. This means our cellular life as an egg begins in the womb of our grandmother. Each of us spent five months in our grandmother's womb and she in turn formed within the womb of her grandmother. We vibrate to the rhythms of our mother's blood before she herself is born. And this pulse is the thread of blood that runs all the way back through the grandmothers to the first mother. We all share the blood of the first mother - we are truly children of one blood.

I know I have posted this before, but it sums it up for me, and page after page of debate seems pointless.

Time, it is time to break the cycle, awakening, time to wake up, it takes time to overcome the indoctrination.
www.blackgenocide.org...

All you have to do is look where they place abortion clinics, in the hood.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


OH I replied before I saw your post.

AS I have said abortion grew out of ignorance, one day science will have the answer.

However, don't be surprised if they come up with another solution to eradicate most of us.
www.dailymail.co.uk... html

reply to post by Maslo


Hi Maslo,

Little known interesting fact is that because viability depends on medical technology, this limit established by famous Roe vs. Wade wont last.

Agreed

It was originaly placed at 28 weeks and there are now talks about 20 weeks bans, and as time goes on abortion will be open for a ban even sooner. If we ever get mature artificial wombs, then maybe even from conception.

Agreed. Did you see this thread? Making Abortion Obsolete

If if artificial wombs are developed there still will be questions of economics and ethics.

Viability is a convenient line for now, but merely utilitarian and it does not answer the hard questions of what makes human organisms worthy of right to life. Question we will sooner or later have to answer.

I disagree. I think it's a fair and reasonable line, for now. Until we discover better methods of birth control, that stops unwanted conception, the right of the mother to NOT be pregnant will still be a vexing problem for the pro-life, anti-abortion crowd.

I do believe that most of these pro-life people will be major opposition to the implication of the artificial womb for unwanted pregnancies. The way I see it, from my point of view, these people are more about controlling sexuality and imposed morality than solutions to a very real situation. Many of them want to ban contraception altogether.

They're Coming For Your Birth Control!

FreedomEntered
I agree. People also need to realise there a host of valid reasons why a woman might abort.. which may be better for the baby than abortion.

Drugs
Alchohol
Rape
Abuse
Inability to provide/love/care for them
Arguments
The failure of other contraceptives
Irresponsibility
Lust
Breakdown of a relationship
Poor health in mother
Poor health in foetus

Sorry to break it to you folk.. It isn't just due to accidents, there is often more involved here.

There could be more that could be done to assist women with these problems/issues but as it stands there isn't. You need to address these issues before you can prevent abortions from accurring.

And as no one is doing anything they will continue...........

edit on 18-9-2013 by FreedomEntered because: (no reason given)

I like your delving into the real societal issues that plague us - remember women normally don't get pregnant by themselves and many women are abandoned or badgered by their partner to have the abortion, due to many reasons, but I would guess the biggest one would be financial (or lack thereof).

Here's a good article explaining more reasons why.

womensissues.about.com...

Worldwide abortion stats by country. It's a known fact why China is on top due to the one child law, but Russia? I wonder what levels of poverty the Russian people face there.

www.johnstonsarchive.net...

This 'poverty in Russia' article reveals alot.

I still believe the poverty levels are high.

www.telegraph.co.uk...