TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Abortion

Abortion

What do you think about Abortion? Right or Wrong? I watched a video on how abortion is done at school today, have any of you seen a video like this? It was called 'The silent scream'. It was a very graphical video and some people went out of the room it was that bad.

Your views....!

I was just going to post a thread on abortion......
I think all of us will agree it should not be the first choice for contraception. There are so many better options like condoms, pill, new female hormonal patch etc...

Is it legal in the UK by the way???

Here is a biased article I read today about "partial birth abortions."






� 2003 WorldNetDaily.com


Republican senators, seeking to pass a bill that will ban a practice that involves the killing of
a child in the very act of birth, received some unexpected help from a perky 11-year-old, who
once was a target of this brutal procedure.

Donna Joy Watts, accompanied by her parents, Donald and Lori Watts, made a return trip to
Capitol Hill this week to urge the Senate to pass the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, S.3, which
was introduced by their senator, Rick Santorum, R-Pa.

Six years ago, during a debate on a similar measure, the Wattses and their daughter were
unceremoniously ushered out of the Senate gallery at the insistence of Barbara Boxer, who is
the proud defender of this horrific practice. The excuse given was that Donna Joy was only 5
years of age, and the rules say you need to be 6-years-old to sit in on these debates.

What really had the "Queen of Infanticide" in such a dither?

The very presence of this beautiful child with sparkling eyes and shoulder-length brown curls
that encircle her angelic face, undercuts Boxer's argument that this procedure is entirely
elective and necessary to save the life of a mother carrying a doomed fetus � a medical term
Boxer likes to throw around to make a child in the womb, or one in the process of being born,
seem nonhuman.

When Lori was pregnant with Donna Joy, doctors and the Wattses' insurance carrier tried to
bully her into having a partial-birth abortion after a sonogram revealed that parts of Donna
Joy's brain were missing. Another part was outside the skull, the brain stem was deformed and
she had severe hydrocephalus. The Wattses were told that their child had "no chance" for
survival and this procedure was "necessary" to protect Lori's health because their baby's head
was so enlarged.

Lori, now a practical nurse, knew this didn't ring true. How could killing a helpless baby,
delivered feet first with only the head remaining in the birth canal, help a mother? If a vaginal
delivery was impractical, why not deliver this child by Caesarean section? After all, one of
Lori's older children had been delivered in this manner.

Soon, Lori and Donald would understand their motive. It was cheaper for the insurance
company and it guaranteed a dead baby � not one who would require surgery and expensive
medical care.

The Wattses were told that if their child survived, she would be a burden � a heartache and
sorrow. "Not so!" was the reply from these defiant parents. "She will be nothing but a joy,"
Lori assured her doctors.

Lori and Donald were willing to accept a disabled child, but they were not willing to be part of
her brutal demise in this dreadful manner.

They fought the system. They offered the hospital a choice: It could plan for the safe delivery
of their child or Lori would show up in labor in the emergency room. If the hospital boggled the
delivery, they could sue.

Lori doesn't want other women pressured into signing their children's execution orders. So
much for a woman's choice!

That's why Lori was willing to pack up her family and head to Washington in order to call on
senators who are on the fence on this bill. Lori knows it is urgently needed.

The American Medical Association seems to agree with her. The AMA says, "There is no
identified situation where intact dilation and extraction � that's the sanitized medical term
manufactured for this inhumane form of killing � is the 'only appropriate procedure' to induce
abortion." Furthermore, this blind procedure is extremely dangerous to the mother.

Donna Joy's life has not been easy, but she took her eight operations in stride. Today, this
little girl � who had so much to overcome and was not supposed to be able to walk or talk �
now runs and has an impressive vocabulary. In fact, Donna Joy's ambition has no limits. She
says that she wants to become a pilot, a TV star and a senator when she is an adult.

She's well on her way.

If you watched the debate on the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act on C-SPAN this week, you may
have seen Donna Joy in the Senate gallery. She was sitting there proudly as a reminder to all
those in attendance that every child deserves a fighting chance and every mother deserves the
best possible care.

Funny thing � as Donna Joy grows, Barbara Boxer's arguments shrink. They were pretty thin
right from the start.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31493

Yeah that bill just passed (today or yesterday).

Generally, I think abortion shouldn't be carried out often. There are few situations in which I'd allow, or even encourage abortion. First case is if the future baby shows up to be largely defective. While the article about the little girl sounds very nice, in reality, things like that don't happen often, so I don't think children who are obviously going to be retarded or badly disfunctional should be brought to life. Besides, it is as large burden for them as it is for their families. Also, a defective child focuses a lot of parent's attention to itself, so it is very probable that because of such child those people might never have a normal child later on. A severe genetic defect is also imo a good reason for the abortion.

Bad social conditions are oftenly being reffered to as a good reason, but there are many people incapable of having their own children, and willing to adopt them. If a family is really unable to support a child, which is rarely the case, that child can be given to somebody who can support it.

Most children, however, are usually born healthy, and abortions are mostly carried out because the would-be mother was irresponsible, and hadn't thought of the possible consequences of her actions. In situations like those, I don't think abortion should be allowed, because an innocent child would die because of its mother's lack of reason. If a girl gets pregnant solely because of her carelessness, she has to live with the consequences.

Sadly, though, parents sometimes aren't happy with their children, and a number of such unwanted children could increase if abortion would be restricted. Maybe the best solution would be that the state interferes and creates some sorts of centres for those unwanted children to be raised in and educated. Imo, it is much better to give away an unwanted child to such a center, than have it killed. The child would be left alive and the irresponsible mother could carry on her life. Besides, most western countries are having serious demographic problems, so such an initiative has an additional positive side to it.

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeJulez Yeah that bill just passed (today or yesterday).

The bill against "partial birth abortions" in the States you mean??

I think it's a 3rd trimester procedure, and should be restricted to cases of fetal abnormality or danger to the mother, or rape (extreme cases only).

Did it pass the House and the Senate? Or just the House? Everything is Republican controlled, so I'm sure it will pass all three branches of gov. If (when) it does pass, it will probably be brought before the US supreme court. This court is usually moderate on most issues these days, and not really on the liberal (or conservative) activist sides as it was in the 50-70s with the civil rights era. It's anyone's guess how it will rule. What it comes down to is this:

It doesn't matter what the law is...it matters who interprets the law.

Anyways, do any ladies ever read this forum. We need their opinions!

Abortion is equally merciful as it is murderous. The decision should not be made by small men in large buildings.

I don't think abortion should be a means of birth control. BUT if a woman was raped and she got pregnant I think she should be able to. So I guess I am undecided.

quote:

Originally posted by jesten I don't think abortion should be a means of birth control. BUT if a woman was raped and she got pregnant I think she should be able to. So I guess I am undecided.

I agree with that, but im not undecided. I only agree with it if the woman has been raped or her life is a risk.

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLI...tion/index.html

My mum and dad were told that my sister was going to be dasabled and that her life quality would be likely to be lessoned, but my mum still gave birth to her because she couldnt kill her own child.

quote:

Also, a defective child focuses a lot of parent's attention to itself, so it is very probable that because of such child those people might never have a normal child later on. A severe genetic defect is also imo a good reason for the abortion.

My sister would be included in this. She suffers from something called "optic dispasia" along with a bunch of other shit, which include a loss of smell, tendency to lose balance and things like that we take for granted.

I think my sister has made everyone in our family better ppl. We as a family look after each other, and are allot closer i think than what we would have been. Posatives should always be drawn up from negatives, and that brings light into a situation. My sister, some might say, has been a severe disruption in our familys life. We cannot take holiday together (and this summer is the first in 10 years) she cannot fly, she is wheelchair bound when she goes out, and that is when she does, but she is the light of my life, and a inspiration. When i feel bad, i just think about what it is life for her, and i know my problems are in no league to her.

I feel very strongly about abortion and that people dont think about their concequences. If you do not want the child, there are people out there who are willing to offer your child a life, which is always better than no life at all if you have an abortion.

If you are raped, you have to remember that half of that child is still you. I dont think a man can really, and never will, understand why a women would either keep or "get rid" (horrible word) of their child.

Matt

The 64-33 vote on Thursday sent the legislation to the Republican-controlled House, which is expected to pass it this spring.

Thursday's passage comes after eight years of Republican-led attempts to ban the procedure. President Clinton vetoed two bills banning it.

In 2000, the Supreme Court struck down a Nebraska state law similar to a measure that, at the time, was under consideration by Congress.

The court said the Nebraska law was vague and failed to take into account that banning the procedure could jeopardize the health of the pregnant woman.


A lot of Dems even voted for it based on that vote....

"Today's action is an important step toward building a culture of life in America."

This is one thing that scares me about Bush. What does he mean by this?? I'm sure he wished Roe vs Wade were overturned.

It SHOULD be the woman's choice, not some small man in an office as someone above stated.

The thing we all need to keep in mind about abortion, in my opinion, is not the concept of humanity, but that of personhood. A fetus, especially in the earlier stages of gestation, is no more a person than than the hair on your head, the nails on the end of your fingers or the sperm cells in your testicles. If the preservation/sanctity of human life was the primary reason to outlaw abortion, then surely any ejaculation wilfully entered into would constitute the death of a potential - and potential is the key phrase here - 250 million or so people. Afterall, anyone of those sperm cells wasted (by hand or by deed ) could have devoloped into a "person", so why should I consider the potentiality of a zygote (merely the conjoined cells of two different individuals) any differently? The zygote/early stage fetus is no more a person than the combined sperm/ovum in our collective bodies, so why should a termination of the "potentiality of personhood" of the former be morally reprehensible, where the latter is not?

There is still undeniably a point at which the line separating "personhood" and "the potentiality for personhood" is blurred, but I feel it is distinctly later than the 20 week mark designated in the legislation JJ posted a link to. The nervous system doesn't begin to form until the 18 week mark (I'm basing that figure on research done into the topic in year 12, so I'm willing to listen to differing evidence on this point) so there is absolutely no potentiality for pain at this stage (or at least no more potentiality for pain than there is in the "wasting" of a sperm cell) and, so far as I can remember, there is little likelihood of a fetus (either one that is aborted or one that is given birth to highly prematurely) surviving earlier than the 24-26 week mark. So far as I'm concerned - given that a fetus at this stage has no moral or scientific right to be designated any degree of "personhood" - pre tri-sememster fetuses must be considered a part of a woman's body, and the choice lies squarely with her. We should have no more say in a woman's right to abort the fetus gestating within her than we should her right to have an apendix removed. Not the most flattering of analogies, I agree, but it is nonetheless acurate to the extent that neither the fetus nor the apendix can be granted personhood despite the fact that both are undeniably "human" (to the extent that that which is comprised of homo sapien DNA can be considered "human") and that both - in this day and age of genetic engineering - have the potentiality of attaining personhood.

But then, what is personhood exactly?

For me, a fetus can only be considered to be a "person" once its dependence on its mother has "expired" so to speak - that is, when it is no longer biologically dependant on the womb in which it has been gestating. This is a very hard line to draw though, because - prior to the undertaking of the abortion - it is difficult to say in the post 24 week mark whether the fetus is capable of surviving independantly of its mother or not. For instance, there was a story in Melbourne a few years ago (which, from memory, lead to an inquest and a brief review of state/federal abortion laws) of a 25 week old fetus that was aborted and proceeded to live (even after the severing of the umbilical cord) for about 90 minutes, and yet was left to die slowly in a steel bed-pan. Now for me, even though it would not normally be expected that a fetus so young would be able survive outside of the womb, the fetus had demonstrated biological independance by surviving for so long, and should - as such - have been granted the full rights of personhood (i.e. we should have either done all that we could to ensure its survivial or terminated it quickly and humanely). It's cases like this that present some moral queasiness for me with regards late term abortions, and I'm yet to form an opinion on how their ideal legality.

For pre tri-semester abortions though (that is, pre 22-26 weeks) I feel it's a non-issue. It's up to the woman to decide what to do with the fetus gestating inside of her. (Although there is still conjecture about whether the "father" of the fetus should have some say in its termination, and that might make for some interesting discussion. )

TiestoMattFan:

That's a touching story. I think it points out why no-one is ever really "pro-abortion" merely "pro-choice", because, for instance, some families may not have been able to deal with the strain of a disabled child in the same way that your family was able to, and it would have been fair neither on the family nor the child to have forced the pregnancy through. Nonetheless, believe me when I say that I'm glad that in your case, the right decision was made.

Still, I think I have to ask. If it was made clear that the fetus was likely to develop into a severely disabled child/person (that is, beyond your sister's disabilities to the point where their life would be close to unliveable) would you think it would fair to give birth to the child and expose it to such a miserable life? I'm sorry if the question seems insensitive at all, but I'd be interested to hear what you think about the issue of "mercy abortions" (anyone else who has an opinion about aborting a fetus destined to a life of hardship is welcome to answer the question as well).

quote:

We cannot take holiday together (and this summer is the first in 10 years) she cannot fly, she is wheelchair bound when she goes out, and that is when she does, but she is the light of my life, and a inspiration. When i feel bad, i just think about what it is life for her, and i know my problems are in no league to her.

Don't think of me as insensitive, but I must ask you a few things. You are saying that when you feel bad, you think of her and see how your problems are irrelevant to her's. But, that means her life is constantly in worse situation than your ever was in. If your life was like that, would you consider it worth living? Would you rather spend 70 years being unable to take care of yourself and unable to do most things other people consider to be normal and entertaining, or not spend them at all?

Imo it all depends on the severity of the disablement, and since I haven't seen your sister, I can't say much. There are people however, born with even greater defects than your sister, and there comes a point where the opportunities and joys of life are outweighted by the problems and pain. So in my oppinion, also as an answer to Renegade, I think it's better to have an abortion than a life full of suffering.

quote:

The thing we all need to keep in mind about abortion, in my opinion, is not the concept of humanity, but that of personhood. A fetus, especially in the earlier stages of gestation, is no more a person than than the hair on your head, the nails on the end of your fingers or the sperm cells in your testicles.If the preservation/sanctity of human life was the primary reason to outlaw abortion, then surely any ejaculation wilfully entered into would constitute the death of a potential - and potential is the key phrase here - 250 million or so people. Afterall, anyone of those sperm cells wasted (by hand or by deed ) could have devoloped into a "person", so why should I consider the potentiality of a zygote (merely the conjoined cells of two different individuals) any differently? The zygote/early stage fetus is no more a person than the combined sperm/ovum in our collective bodies, so why should a termination of the "potentiality of personhood" of the former be morally reprehensible, where the latter is not?

It is different, because while you hair and nails have the same genetic code as the rest of you, therefore they already are a part of a human being, while the fetus is a new although yet unformed human being. When you lose a hair, another one just like it will grow, but when you kill a fetus, another one like it won't be born. The sperm you mentioned doesn't have a potential to become a person, it only has potential to become part of the person. Besides, no matter how well you nurture a sperm cell, or a cell from your hair, it will never develop into a genuine person, while the new zygote has that ability.

quote:

For me, a fetus can only be considered to be a "person" once its dependence on its mother has "expired" so to speak - that is, when it is no longer biologically dependant on the womb in which it has been gestating. This is a very hard line to draw though, because - prior to the undertaking of the abortion - it is difficult to say in the post 24 week mark whether the fetus is capable of surviving independantly of its mother or not. For instance, there was a story in Melbourne a few years ago (which, from memory, lead to an inquest and a brief review of state/federal abortion laws) of a 25 week old fetus that was aborted and proceeded to live (even after the severing of the umbilical cord) for about 90 minutes, and yet was left to die slowly in a steel bed-pan. Now for me, even though it would not normally be expected that a fetus so young would be able survive outside of the womb, the fetus had demonstrated biological independance by surviving for so long, and should - as such - have been granted the full rights of personhood (i.e. we should have either done all that we could to ensure its survivial or terminated it quickly and humanely). It's cases like this that present some moral queasiness for me with regards late term abortions, and I'm yet to form an opinion on how their ideal legality.

The age at which an unborn/born child can be independent of its mother is directly dependant upon technology. In not so distant past, children were dependant upon their mother's milk even after they were born. Nowadays, weeks old fetuses can be separated from the mother and kept alive in incubators. In not so distant future, it won't be a problem to keep the baby alive outside of the womb since the day of the fertilization.

Also, physical dependance here raises another question. Consider siamese twins. If one of them is dependant upon the other one, do you think the other one has the right to get him removed? Sure, if their life is in danger, the weaker one should be removed, but if that's not the case, you can't kill the weaker one unless he/she agrees.

Imo, the only clear point in the whole development process is the creation of the zygote. After that, it's all fuzzy and it's hard to pinpoint a specific point in development when the child becomes a person. Sure, the later the abortion done, the worse, but if the process already started, it shouldn't be violently interrupted. As I said earlier, adoption is always an option.

How about this:

We guys don't have a vagina, we have no idea what it is like to be a woman, so let's defer this issue to females.

Where are all the womenz?????

quote:

Originally posted by DaveSaenz Where are all the womenz?????

having abortions

Abortion: a nessiary evil

I really don't like it when conservatives say everyone could adopt the babies that are aborted. Who would want a baby whose mom was a crack whore or a hooker? Who would want a crack baby??
Also if you look at the rate at which the population is exploding, its pretty scary stuff. In China you can only have one kid and I wouldnt be suprised if they made similar laws in America or they will heavily promote birth control and pay poor women drug users ect to get an IUD device planted in them.

quote:

Originally posted by Eugene having abortions

Lol. Hopefully it's not because of that guy who wants to learn about GHB.

upto the mum i say...

quote:

Who would want a baby whose mom was a crack whore or a hooker? Who would want a crack baby??

As I said, abortion of weak or defected children should be allowed.

quote:

Also if you look at the rate at which the population is exploding, its pretty scary stuff. In China you can only have one kid and I wouldnt be suprised if they made similar laws in America or they will heavily promote birth control and pay poor women drug users ect to get an IUD device planted in them.

China until recently had a problem with large natural growth. US doesn't have that problem, and Europe infact has a problem of shrinking population.

quote:

Don't think of me as insensitive, but I must ask you a few things. You are saying that when you feel bad, you think of her and see how your problems are irrelevant to her's. But, that means her life is constantly in worse situation than your ever was in. If your life was like that, would you consider it worth living? Would you rather spend 70 years being unable to take care of yourself and unable to do most things other people consider to be normal and entertaining, or not spend them at all?

Yes i do consider it worth living, and so does she. Instead of finding entertainment like we do, for eg. clubbing and stuff like that, she runs her own website (www.xgam.org), she enjoys stuff like manga, and she has allot of friends online. As a family, we blame the government because it wasnt until joanne was about 18, till we discovered that there are programmes where ppl help ppl like us in situations like this, and they take joanne out on her own, and she would catch a bus, and stuff like that, so she would become more independant etc... But then the government scrapped that program (not too sure why) and so that meant that joanne was in the house all day again.

SHe went to school at Bramcote Part Secondary School as a normal person, and her eye sight was the only visible disability. It is only after she left college (brachkenhurst we she got a degree in animal science ) that her health deteriated - mainly because the programme stopped.

The doctors told my mum and dad when she was born that it is possible joanne could die anytime, and the oldest person with joannes condition (who lives in canada) is 28. Joanne is 22.

In situations like ours, everyone who has come into contact with joanne, knows what a bright person she is. She may get down allot from getting let down by ppl - social services etc... - but i talk to her allot of times when she is down and she always sees the posatives out of it. Thats why she has made everyone elses life so good!

Soon she will hopefully be going to Loughborough University. She can code HTML and all this other crap that looks japanese to me lol.

I just think that not all the time can doctors be right. Joanne was supposed to be brain dead upon birth, and even though her health is, well appauling, she stil enjoys life, and she has never thought about ending it. Her pain though is more pyschological tho i guess, tho she is on allot of meds all the time.

(btw i didnt take offence to ur post, i totally understand ur view point)

Another good view on abortion is whether or not you believe abortion is murder. I mean, when do u believe that a child growing inside is actually alive..soon as the sperm fertilises the egg? or when the baby is actually born during delivery? I believe it is alive and thats why it is murder if u were to have an abortion.

what is a zygote?

A fetus is a bunch of cells that are growing
so is a weed but people kill weeds all the time

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.