Abortion Discussion Thread

[Teenwolf]

How has no one commented about this statement?

This is a very conservative viewpoint that I'm surprised you hold Fresno. I find this sentiment pretty repugnant.

I also strongly disagree with the 2nd part regarding sterilization. It sounds like implemented eugenics. We may reach this state of requiring reproduction licenses (likely before 2100), but I'm guessing it would be a last ditch effort to thwart extinction. We are naturally a reactionary species. I'm sure it will be too late.

[Sour Masher]

What about late-term abortion? If we see any movement in the next couple of years it will likely be to restrict the abortion of a potentially viable fetus. Given that the woman has had a minimum of three months to have an abortion, can you see taking steps to support the potential child?

J

This topic is likely gonna go no where, but I can't help but chime in to point out what abortions are ever considered after 20 weeks. I'll preface by saying that I get the arguments against any abortion after the developmental stage where a fetus can survive on its own, outside of the womb. That stage has gotten earlier and earlier as technology has improved, so it is a moving target. I also concede there may be rare cases where a woman knows she is pregnant and chooses not to abort earlier and then wants to do so later for what most would consider poor reasons. However, in my experience and understanding the vast majority of situations where a woman would want to have an abortion after 20 weeks relates to the revelations made from exams and testing of the fetus related to the long term quality of life of that fetus. The vast majority of women who are pregnant that long want to have a baby. Some of them then find out, through testing and ultrasounds, that the fetus has abnormalities that make then reconsider. It may be fair to argue about some of those reasons, and the range of defects that are not often discovered until this stage. But lets be clear that this is why most late term abortions are considered. Not because a women is mad at her cheating husband or just changes her mind, etc.

For instance, how many of you would understand the decision to abort in cases where the genetic or congenital defects found lead to a short, pain-filled life for the baby with no cure available? How many would understand the decision in cases where the fetus may survive and live many years, but would be brain dead? How many would understand the decision, if the issue isn't longevity and cognitive functions, but a combination of missing limbs and sense like blindness and deafness (some conditions have these two things go together)? The line is likely different for people in the abstract that it would be if they were faced with those choices--the choice of abortion or raising a child you know will die before their first word, or who will spend much of their life in pain and suffering, or even children born without limbs and senses others take from granted. Some will calculate ending the potential for that life and giving it to another potential life in the form of another pregnancy that would not have occurred if the first pregnancy went to term is for a better outcome. Or if no future pregnancy is considered, maybe the decision is a life of pain and suffering that is also taxing financially and emotionally is not a net positive for the family and other children in it. Some will disagree with all of that as justifications for murder. Some, when faced with those choices, may think differently.

But what frustrates me is the assumption, mostly guys, often make about the motives of a late term abortion. Instead of assuming significant health issues with the mother or fetus, it is assumed it is just a whimsical decision made by a woman who cannot be trusted to make such a decision. All I'll say on this is that it is really easy for an anti-abortion absolutist to say no, it is never right, or no, a late term abortion is never right. It is easy for such people to tell a woman to risk her life and potentially leave her other children motherless. It is easy for them to say, grow that fetus to term, have it, love it, and watch it die. It is easy to call such women monsters when they choose to terminate a fetus that has not developed into a baby, who they have not yet held and bonded with--ignore the life you will choose in trying to raise that child, who will spend more time in a hospital than in your home, ignore the suffering that child might experience from major deficits that cause it pain, ignore the trauma proper care and treatment of that child will cause on your family. Commit to that life. God would never give you more than you could handle, so rise to the challenge and love and lose, on the timeline nature dictates. It is easy to make those judgments from afar.

[Fresno Bob]

How has no one commented about this statement?

This is a very conservative viewpoint that I'm surprised you hold Fresno. I find this sentiment pretty repugnant.

A monthly shot of DepoPrevara and you are fine. I'm not saying anything difficult to reverse. Is it the mechanism, or the fertility control part that you find repugnant?

I believe in a social welfare component for government, that being said, for it to work at a national level, it needs to be orientated as short term help, not institutional/generational, for the vast majority of people. I find the whole "higher welfare checks for more children" to be the wrong incentive. I'd rather pay/incent for job/skills training, and that's hard to do if you have to spend time taking care of children. I'd also like it applied to both men and women.

[DMT]

Good points SM. I should've included viability/genetic defects as well as health of the mother.

[Fresno Bob]

This topic is likely gonna go no where, but I can't help but chime in to point out what abortions are ever considered after 20 weeks. I'll preface by saying that I get the arguments against any abortion after the developmental stage where a fetus can survive on its own, outside of the womb. That stage has gotten earlier and earlier as technology has improved, so it is a moving target. I also concede there may be rare cases where a woman knows she is pregnant and chooses not to abort earlier and then wants to do so later for what most would consider poor reasons. However, in my experience and understanding the vast majority of situations where a woman would want to have an abortion after 20 weeks relates to the revelations made from exams and testing of the fetus related to the long term quality of life of that fetus. The vast majority of women who are pregnant that long want to have a baby. Some of them then find out, through testing and ultrasounds, that the fetus has abnormalities that make then reconsider. It may be fair to argue about some of those reasons, and the range of defects that are not often discovered until this stage. But lets be clear that this is why most late term abortions are considered. Not because a women is mad at her cheating husband or just changes her mind, etc.

For instance, how many of you would understand the decision to abort in cases where the genetic or congenital defects found lead to a short, pain-filled life for the baby with no cure available? How many would understand the decision in cases where the fetus may survive and live many years, but would be brain dead? How many would understand the decision, if the issue isn't longevity and cognitive functions, but a combination of missing limbs and sense like blindness and deafness (some conditions have these two things go together)? The line is likely different for people in the abstract that it would be if they were faced with those choices--the choice of abortion or raising a child you know will die before their first word, or who will spend much of their life in pain and suffering, or even children born without limbs and senses others take from granted. Some will calculate ending the potential for that life and giving it to another potential life in the form of another pregnancy that would not have occurred if the first pregnancy went to term is for a better outcome. Or if no future pregnancy is considered, maybe the decision is a life of pain and suffering that is also taxing financially and emotionally is not a net positive for the family and other children in it. Some will disagree with all of that as justifications for murder. Some, when faced with those choices, may think differently.

But what frustrates me is the assumption, mostly guys, often make about the motives of a late term abortion. Instead of assuming significant health issues with the mother or fetus, it is assumed it is just a whimsical decision made by a woman who cannot be trusted to make such a decision. All I'll say on this is that it is really easy for an anti-abortion absolutist to say no, it is never right, or no, a late term abortion is never right. It is easy for such people to tell a woman to risk her life and potentially leave her other children motherless. It is easy for them to say, grow that fetus to term, have it, love it, and watch it die. It is easy to call such women monsters when they choose to terminate a fetus that has not developed into a baby, who they have not yet held and bonded with--ignore the life you will choose in trying to raise that child, who will spend more time in a hospital than in your home, ignore the suffering that child might experience from major deficits that cause it pain, ignore the trauma proper care and treatment of that child will cause on your family. Commit to that life. God would never give you more than you could handle, so rise to the challenge and love and lose, on the timeline nature dictates. It is easy to make those judgments from afar.

We went through this with our 2nd child, 12 week sonagram showed "nucal translucentcy" basically a thick, waterfilled neck which is seen as a indication of Downs Syndrome. We did further testing, including genetic, to determine this was a false positive. (Which the British Healthcare system determined roughly 20 years ago, 12 week sonagrams have huge "false positive" rates)

I would have pushed for an abortion. We already had a child, we were young and could have more without a problem, and we would have tried again.

[In the Corn]

A monthly shot of DepoPrevara and you are fine. I'm not saying anything difficult to reproduce. Is it the mechanism, or the fertility control part that you find repugnant?

Who are you to tell someone else what to do with their body? (See what I did there?)

What about drug testing for those on welfare?

I don't disagree that we shouldn't be giving more money for more kids. At some point we need to say, "And that's the cap."

What do we do when the economy is bad and unemployment is high? Do we make the person head to the clinic for their shot and their unemployment check?

We can incentives for job, but the reality is some people are lazy, or they look at certain jobs as below them. I have a friend who is on SSI, permanent disability. What's his disability...neuropathy in his feet. The guy is smart, educated and could certainly work a desk job, but he refuses to even look. I don't get it, but I could in my right mind tell him, "Hey, when you check comes, make sure you get your shot, as well."

[Fresno Bob]

Who are you to tell someone else what to do with their body? (See what I did there?)

What about drug testing for those on welfare?

I don't disagree that we shouldn't be giving more money for more kids. At some point we need to say, "And that's the cap."

What do we do when the economy is bad and unemployment is high? Do we make the person head to the clinic for their shot and their unemployment check?

We can incentives for job, but the reality is some people are lazy, or they look at certain jobs as below them. I have a friend who is on SSI, permanent disability. What's his disability...neuropathy in his feet. The guy is smart, educated and could certainly work a desk job, but he refuses to even look. I don't get it, but I could in my right mind tell him, "Hey, when you check comes, make sure you get your shot, as well."

I just dont want there to be an incentive to have more children when you are being supported by the government, not raising the check amount might do the same thing.

[baldgriff]

Hold on a tick.....

I thought that there was no such thing as people living on welfare and having kids to get more welfare??

Im so confused.

[Teenwolf]

I just dont want there to be an incentive to have more children when you are being supported by the government, not raising the check amount might do the same thing.

I think if UBI (Universal Basic Income) becomes a reality, it would replace large parts of other social safety nets, such as large portions of welfare, unemployment, or disability benefits. I see UBI as taking away various financial incentives to having kids, so it's a work-around that doesn't infringe on personal rights, but still addresses your stated concern that we're incentivizing people to have more kids than otherwise, if you take financial incentives out of the equation. Sounds Pie-In-The-Sky, but even the noted centrist, Obama recently endorsed it.

https://mic.com/articles/190303/bara...l-basic-income

I have a cousin in her early 40's. Never worked. Had kids at 16, neglected both for her drug addictions (grandmother at 32)... been on methadone program for 20 years, but it's just the gravy, she's still using hard drugs. She makes her money as a care-taker for her husband, and I believe he does the same for her... not sure if that's possible, perhaps my socialist Canadian government is allowing it to proliferate through their incentives... sure makes UBI seem like a more practical solution though, as a way of concentrating social welfare into a more centralized system to avoid incentivizing the births of unwanted/neglected children.

[cardboardbox]

yikes, I find myself agreeing with fresno a little too much in this thread. Going to go bang my head on the wall for a bit now...

[Fresno Bob]

yikes, I find myself agreeing with fresno a little too much in this thread. Going to go bang my head on the wall for a bit now...

I agree that you should go bang your head on the wall

[cardboardbox]

I agree that you should go bang your head on the wall

it didnt help, I still feel sick.

[onejayhawk]

Good points SM. I should've included viability/genetic defects as well as health of the mother.

Viability was given and genetic defects should be long since known. Those are not even caveats. Essentially what Sour Masher is arguing is that the welfare of the pre-birth child is not and should not be the only consideration. Medical emergencies due occur due to the pregnancy. It is not a simple thing.

All that said, there seems to be broad support to legally acknowledge the child at some point pre-birth. The nature of that acknowledgment is a minefield but it's what lawyers do. We will never make everyone happy.

J

[B-Fly]

I'm with baldgriff on this. We're never going to convince each other on the baby vs. embryo/fetus distinction, so within the parameters established by the Supreme Court, let's work together to minimize the number of unplanned/unwanted pregnancies with comprehensive sex education and access to birth control.

[Teenwolf]

I'm with baldgriff on this. We're never going to convince each other on the baby vs. embryo/fetus distinction, so within the parameters established by the Supreme Court, let's work together to minimize the number of unplanned/unwanted pregnancies with comprehensive sex education and access to birth control.

BG doesn't get to the same conclusion though. He talks about the merits of abstinence education. I think an explanation to kids of the concept of abstinence is fine, but it has to be followed with " be prepared to have safe sex, even if you dont plan on having sex yet." As well as all the newest sex education info.

I would hope BG would agree with my conclusion. Abstinence should never be the primary focus of sex ed. That's like the opposite of sex ed.