Abortion V.5

[DeliciousMoon]

Originally Posted by DancingMaenid

Shoot, it even seems more commonplace for men to get vasectomies than for women to get their tubes tied.

A vasectomy is actually a much easier and safer medial procedure, so usually if a husband and wife don't want kids, a vasectomy is the safer choice. Getting tubes tied is a much more invasive surgery with more complications.

[Voldemorts8thHorcrux]

1. What term would you use to describe your abortion stance, and why?
Prochoice, because while i would like to have as few fetuses aborted as possible, it's not my decision

3. If you are pro-choice, what is the single biggest thing that you wished pro-life people would understand about your position?
It would be nice if no one wanted to or had to abort, but there are many varying situations that i bet even the past 4 threads haven't even thought about so it would be unfair to ban all abortions.

4. What are some ways in which both sides can work together to reduce the number of abortions? What compromises would have to be made to make this happen?
I think what needs to change is more teaching about safe sex, improving the tests that show whether or not a woman is pregnant, more support being shown for the woman rather than putting her down in hopes of trying to let her make hte "right" decision for her case, which is hopefully adoption, but again, that's not always a good decision.

5. Do you think that it's realistic that both sides will be able to work together to reduce the number of abortions? Why or why not?
I think ti's very realistic as long as everyone keeps an open mind

[coco1965]

Originally Posted by wickedwickedboy

I think this actually hurts in the long run because males knowing that they have few if any rights relative to the abortion decision, the issue becomes "her problem" and frankly, I think it can lead to a neglect among some males when it comes to taking responsibility for preventative measures

Herein lies part of the problem. I can't speak for all males, (or any for that matter seing that I'm not one ) But I wonder, do males think of the consequenses at all when it comes to having casual sex, and the possible creation of a baby? or is it simply sexual gratification they are thinking about?? I'm sure that for most women who have unprotected sex, the thought of pregnancy is on her mind at some point during the act (if only fleetingly), but emotions evoked in the heat of the moment, put those thoughts aside. I don't think there are men out there who intentionally try to impregnate women on a whim,(though there are some women who intentionally try to get pregnant) but if conception does occur, having the attitude of 'if she gets pregnant its her problem', gives them the out, where for the woman, it is physically impossible to simply walk away and ignore the consequenses.
As stated above, a vasectomy (which can be more easily reversed than a tubal ligation) would to me seem like a more logical course of action for men (or couples) who don't want children. I'm not saying that the woman shouldn't take precautions as well, but most forms of female contraceptives are not 100% effective. If the man wants to sow his wild oats before settling down, wouldn't this be a more reasonable and responsible action to take?
It takes two to tango, but if both parties are not willing to take resposibilities for their actions, the burden ultimately falls on the woman, (simply because of her anatomy), who has to make a life alterering decission regardles of her choice. Where as the male can (not neccessarily will) walk away and continue on with his life, in whichever manner he choses, without the same repercussions. If he has that attitude, how many times will it happen?

5

[Overdose]

Firstly because reversal of a Vasectomy is not particularly reliable. At the end of the day, condoms are pretty much 98% successful.

Originally Posted by coco1965

I' m sure that for most women who have unprotected sex, the thought of pregnancy is on her mind at some point during the act (if only fleetingly), but emotions evoked in the heat of the moment, put those thoughts aside.

Men I think are pretty much the same when it comes to this.

[DancingMaenid]

Originally Posted by grams

Without a mother's care for about 18 years the "baby" wouldn't survive. For real though it's parasitic for at least the first year or so. It might be able to breath but wouldn't last long without external influence. At what point does it quit being a parasite? Mobility maybe at a year or so? Ability to survive doesn't seem a good line to make unless you're also willing to accept that line could go well into childhood.

A baby is not physically dependent on its mother for survival. If this were the case, a baby would die if its mother did, and there would be no orphaned babies. A baby needs to be cared for, but it's not reliant on the mother, specifically. Nor is it strictly necessary for the baby to receive nutrients directly from the mother (if this were the case, there would be no baby formula).

It's not comparable at all on a biological level.

[Voldemorts8thHorcrux]

well, by physically able to survive i would mean that if the baby is given nutrients and medical support it will not die.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6742983/

well, i guess i would draw the line at that. If the baby can survive outside the mother's womb, it is good enough for me. Having a baby that's at a blastocyte stage, and in a test tube doesn't count

I still think the line could be drawn earlier of course, but that's my reason that i'm against late abortions, unless if the fetus is severely deformed, like if no brain developed so no amount of medical help would let the baby survive

[Lord Godric]

Originally Posted by grams

Without a mother's care for about 18 years the "baby" wouldn't survive. For real though it's parasitic for at least the first year or so. It might be able to breath but wouldn't last long without external influence. At what point does it quit being a parasite? Mobility maybe at a year or so? Ability to survive doesn't seem a good line to make unless you're also willing to accept that line could go well into childhood.

Once that baby can physically live on its own, without needing the umbilical cord to sustain live, anyone can take care of it: grandparents, adopted parents, hosptial staff, father etc. The only time the child needsthe mother specifically is when it is in the womb. From there on out, any responsible adult would do.

[grams]

Originally Posted by Yoana

Once outside the womb, it doesn't fiit the definition of parasite. Once it can be transferred somewhere else (if that's possible), I no longer support abortion, because it becomes unnecessary.

Webster: parasite - An animal or a plant that lives on or in another organism at whose expense it obtains nourishment and shelter.

The only thing the definition misses is the "on or in" so it comes down to a preposition. I nursed my first for nearly a year and believe me when you're sleep deprived and haven't had time for a nice hot bath in months it starts to feel like a parasite. Don't get me wrong, the positive emotional feeling way overroad those self pity moments but the care of something so helpless doesn't put much weight on the "on or in" either. If a baby doesn't have a "host" it won't survive.

If technology was such a fetus could be safely transfered then nearly all the pro-life people would support it. That would be real choice and not destroy anything. Since that choice isn't commonly available I see the next "choice" to be stick it out for 9 months and allow the baby to be adopted if circumstances prevent you from being a parent.

[Yoana]

Originally Posted by grams

Webster: parasite - An animal or a plant that lives on or in another organism at whose expense it obtains nourishment and shelter.

The only thing the definition misses is the "on or in" so it comes down to a preposition.

So? It still doesn't fit the definition as stated. Prepositions are as much parts of the speech as any class of words and removing or replacing them changes meanings. So as the definition currently stands, a born baby is not a parasite, and saying that it is at best a metaphor.

If a baby doesn't have a "host" it won't survive.

The significant difference with a born and unborn baby is that for the former the host doesn't have to be the biological mother if she doesn't want to.

Since that choice isn't commonly available I see the next "choice" to be stick it out for 9 months and allow the baby to be adopted if circumstances prevent you from being a parent.

Well you've put the words in quotation marks yourself. That's no choice at all.

[Voldemorts8thHorcrux]

well, i think the people calling an unborn baby a parasite mean that it can't feed off of any other "host". If an unborn baby is removed from hte womb, it will die. While a born baby cannot survive without being taken care of, it can survive off of different "hosts". It can be transferred from parent to parent, different baby formulas, different doctors, different nurses, etc.

And that does bring up an interesting point, is it physically possible for like a baby to be transferred from one womb to another after it's somewhat developed?

http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html well, according to this, most abortions are before the 9th week, so could a 9 week old baby be transferred?

The site also says that most abortions, a whopping 93% occur for social reasons which is something that we can help change.

[DeliciousMoon]

Originally Posted by Voldemorts8thHorcrux

The site also says that most abortions, a whopping 93% occur for social reasons which is something that we can help change.

Imo, until birth control becomes 100% reliable (including the human error factor) there will always be unwanted and inconvenient pregnancies (what the site describes as "social reasons"). The site gives three reasons for abortion - medical, rape, and social, and since I don't see medical or rape abortions going up in percentage, the majority of abortions, imo, will always be because of social reasons, that is, like I said earlier, unless birth control becomes 100% reliable including the human error factor.

Even if birth control/contraception become 100% effective, there would still be abortions due to social reasons imo. I know of one example where a married couple decided to try and concieve a third child. Once they were pregnant, they rethought the idea and decided that they didn't have the time or money for another child, so they aborted it.

[Voldemorts8thHorcrux]

Originally Posted by DeliciousMoon

Imo, until birth control becomes 100% reliable (including the human error factor) there will always be unwanted and inconvenient pregnancies (what the site describes as "social reasons"). The site gives three reasons for abortion - medical, rape, and social, and since I don't see medical or rape abortions going up in percentage, the majority of abortions, imo, will always be because of social reasons, that is, like I said earlier, unless birth control becomes 100% reliable including the human error factor.

However, I would think it's easier to be extra careful with birth control and making adoption an option and having a woman's family be more supportive if there's on maternity leave, that kind of thing. I'd say that it's easier to fix that than making medicine to let a fetus grow a better brain or correct severe deformation of the spine.

[DeliciousMoon]

Originally Posted by Voldemorts8thHorcrux

However, I would think it's easier to be extra careful with birth control and making adoption an option and having a woman's family be more supportive if there's on maternity leave, that kind of thing. I'd say that it's easier to fix that than making medicine to let a fetus grow a better brain or correct severe deformation of the spine.

IMO, that doesn't sound very easy at all. Being "extra careful with birth control" still won't make it 100% effective. From what I'm given to understand, that 2% or so failure rate in the most common forms of birth control is only if you used it perfectly. If you weren't "extra careful" and did something wrong, the failure rate is a lot higher.

Making adoption a more avaliable option isn't that easy either imo. You'd still have to take in account how difficult it can be psycologically to the mother to give up the baby she kept for nine months and gave birth to. From what I'm given to understand, it's a very hard thing to do. Plus, you'd still have the people like me, who would rather die than carry another body in their own for nine months and then go through the physical and mental strain of giving birth.

Trying to get a family that would disown a child that got pregnant unexpectedly to be supportive isn't the easiest thing either, or so I'm given to understand. IMO, for a lot of people, abortion is the easiest option.

[Voldemorts8thHorcrux]

however, over time, society does change, starting with kids, teaching them safe sex (which does NOT happen in all schools). Maybe once the economic recession isn't so bad, less mothers will abort because of financial issues anyways, but maybe by that time the government or some other organization could offer financial aid, like maybe a type of insurance for a short period of time while you give birth and afterwards you can get a better job. Also, teaching more kids in biology about fetuses and embryos so kids can respect them as life and hopefully not want to be unsafe and run the chance of being pregnant and having to abort. (We do learn about fetal development, but it isn't very specific)

IMO, that doesn't sound very easy at all. Being "extra careful with birth control" still won't make it 100% effective. From what I'm given to understand, that 2% or so failure rate in the most common forms of birth control is only if you used it perfectly. If you weren't "extra careful" and did something wrong, the failure rate is a lot higher.

I'm not really talking about wiping out all unwanted pregnancies, but reducing the numbers. And there is a lot more reducing that is not only possible, but likely. Someone can have no protection, as in like no contraception, no condoms, etc, or have just a condom, just the pills, you get my point. Many people think that just a little bit is enough because they are uneducated about it.

Making adoption a more avaliable option isn't that easy either imo. You'd still have to take in account how difficult it can be psycologically to the mother to give up the baby she kept for nine months and gave birth to. From what I'm given to understand, it's a very hard thing to do. Plus, you'd still have the people like me, who would rather die than carry another body in their own for nine months and then go through the physical and mental strain of giving birth.

Again, i'm just talking about cutting down the number of abortions. I dont think abortion will ever be wiped out, but cutting the reasons down little by little all adds up. a 1% reduction in the amount of abortions doesn't seem like much, but it adds up.

Trying to get a family that would disown a child that got pregnant unexpectedly to be supportive isn't the easiest thing either, or so I'm given to understand. IMO, for a lot of people, abortion is the easiest option.

Cultural values change over time if we do the right prodding. What i'm proposing isn't anything that will likely be effective in the near future, but better late than never.

[DeliciousMoon]

Originally Posted by Voldemorts8thHorcrux

Cultural values change over time if we do the right prodding. What i'm proposing isn't anything that will likely be effective in the near future, but better late than never.

The first sentence bothers me a bit, in the sense that the way I'm interpretting it to mean that it implies changing people's values. I am one of those people that I suppose you can call "pro-abortion" in that I think often in the times of unwanted pregnancies, it is the best choice avaliable and should be done (though I refuse to take away someone's choice if they believe otherwise). It is my very personal opinion that abortion can be almost beneficial to society (ie. using aborted fetuses for stem cell research, having more educated woman, having more career woman, having more equality with the sexes, not adding more unwanted children into the world...), however I know many many many people do not share my views. I would not want to "prod" them and change their beliefs so they fit mine, but I would not be happy if they tried to change mine and tried to change the course of my life either.

[Voldemorts8thHorcrux]

I identify myself as pro choice mostly because i'm still not too sure how much i care either way, there's good and bad on both side. However, I do firmly believe that no matter what, a woman should be able to count on support from her freinds and family, whether she wants to abort, adopt, go lesbian, support a political party that some people don't believe in, become a different religion, anything. Being put down doesn't exactly help clear someone's mind up and make them better able to make a decision. From personal experience, it usually makes me a bit more stressed out. Sorry for the confusion, but that's whta I meant by my post.

About the aborted fetuses for stem cell research part, does that even work? I thoght the embryo would have to be extremely undeveloped for its cells not to even begin specializing, like at blastula stage. I think that even adults have some stem cells (i remember it was brain cells and blood cells, but I can't be sure) just not the type that a blastula has

ETA:I would jsut like to say that to me, part of being pro choice is letting people know about their choices and let their choice be their own, not something forced on them. They should also know about the procedure of abortion, the fetus/embryo, how to have safe sex in the first place, etc.

[DancingMaenid]

Originally Posted by grams

Webster: parasite - An animal or a plant that lives on or in another organism at whose expense it obtains nourishment and shelter.

A dictionary definition isn't always best when we're talking about a biological concept. But even that definition shows that a born human being is not a parasite.

[Voldemorts8thHorcrux]

im not too sure how accurate this is but

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Parasites

parasite

(Science: biology) An organism which obtains food and shelter from another organism of a different species

[Chris]

We done with discussing the definition of parasite yet?

[DeliciousMoon]

Originally Posted by Voldemorts8thHorcrux

ETA:I would jsut like to say that to me, part of being pro choice is letting people know about their choices and let their choice be their own, not something forced on them. They should also know about the procedure of abortion, the fetus/embryo, how to have safe sex in the first place, etc.

I agree with this. (Thank you by making your thoughts clear to me by the way. ) I agree that everyone has the right to knowledge about safe sex practices, and what exactly the science behind a fetus and abortion is. However what I could not ever agree on, is people saying "this is the science behind the fetus, and therefore abortion is wrong because...". The answer to the question on whether or not abortion is wrong, or if the fetus is a life that's worthy of protecting should never be taught, imo. Rather it should be addressed as "this is the quesion, these are some opinions that exist, and these are reasons why so-and-so believes this". But never "you should believe this because...". At least in my humble opinion. Imo, people should get to chose whether or not they think abortion is wrong.