Deleted
Joined: Apr 29, 2024 10:42:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2011 21:59:22 GMT -5
Cumulatively, the cost is insignificant compared to the cost of end of life care.
You think keeping a one month fetus alive and developing it by artificial means will cost less than end of life care? ... I think that was what was being discussed... and yes... neo-natal, even now without those kinds of measures, can cost just as much as end of life...
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Jan 24, 2011 22:02:05 GMT -5
In reality a baby can not live outside the womb at all with out someone feeding it and keeping it from the elements.
But if someone was born but required 'something' external say a drug or medical device to keep them alive, should they not be considered viable since they can not live on there own, so killing them would no longer be murder?
|
|
|
Post by marjar on Jan 24, 2011 22:02:55 GMT -5
The pro-abortion folks can't answer this question honestly and without a lot of hemming and hawing and qualifications. That's why their arguments are weak and they tend to avoid direct discussion of this exact question... Because there are too many responses. For some, viability outside the womb, for others life begins at conception, meaning when sperm meets egg. There are those who would say at the time the embryo implants in the womb.
|
|
vonnie6200
Senior Member
Adopt a Shelter Pet
Joined: Jan 8, 2011 14:07:17 GMT -5
Posts: 2,199
|
Post by vonnie6200 on Jan 24, 2011 22:03:07 GMT -5
but I have actually been there ******************************** are you assuming others haven't? are you assuming that anyone else who has "been there" did it strict for convenience? and is it still an "innocent" life if it's a result of rape? incest? if the mother's health is in jeopardy? at what point is it acceptable and the fetus is no longer this so called 'innocent life'? No - I am very much aware that numerous people have been in the circumstance to consider an abortion. Having said that I still believe that an unborn baby is an innocent - and that how the pregnancy came about is a totally separate issue. As far as a mother's life being in danger - that is a sad decision but I truly believe "relatively" rare - I do believe the majority of abortion are a matter of convenience
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Jan 24, 2011 22:03:36 GMT -5
[/size] While the overall percent of 1.3% for abortions after 21w is close to what I've researched [1.5% is what I've found], the figures don't add up to the total number of abortions. Gest. week Abortions weeks/bin Abortions/week /1000 Percent <9 weeks 400197 8 50024.63 50.02 60.6% 9-10 112936 2 56468 56.47 17.1% 11-12 60323 2 30161.5 30.16 9.1% 13-15 41517 3 13839 13.84 6.3% 16-20 24837 5 4967.4 4.97 3.8% > 21 8365 19 440.26 0.44 1.3% There were more than 648k abortions in 2004. According to this: www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/abortionstats.htmlThere were slightly over 1.2m abortions in 2002 in the US.
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,532
|
Post by chiver78 on Jan 24, 2011 22:05:12 GMT -5
The pro-abortion folks can't answer this question honestly and without a lot of hemming and hawing and qualifications. That's why their arguments are weak and they tend to avoid direct discussion of this exact question... I will answer this question as soon as you answer the one that I already posted, directly to you.
|
|
steff
Senior Associate
I'll sleep when I'm dead
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 17:34:24 GMT -5
Posts: 10,772
|
Post by steff on Jan 24, 2011 22:05:50 GMT -5
Hmmm something to think about.... would it be considered "welfare" to have a woman who cannot afford these amazing "grow a 1 month old fetus outside the womb" using this service? Or because she wanted an abortion, and someone forced her into this choice, is the child now a ward of the state, destined for an over crowded foster care system? Is the govt going to start paying for all of this too? And is this a "tax" that the pro choice folks will happily support? Considering it's going to be mostly low income women.....
|
|
vonnie6200
Senior Member
Adopt a Shelter Pet
Joined: Jan 8, 2011 14:07:17 GMT -5
Posts: 2,199
|
Post by vonnie6200 on Jan 24, 2011 22:07:09 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 29, 2024 10:42:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2011 22:07:45 GMT -5
An infant needs to some-one to feed it to keep it alive... but it has lungs, and can breath by itself, and its heart beats by itself... it is not the same, and you know it... a mass of cells that is a 12 week old is no more a living being than a mass of your liver cut off... incapable of living by itself... even if it was given a drug or medical device... potential for life... yeah... just like every sperm and egg in your body... but not life in its own right...
|
|
vonnie6200
Senior Member
Adopt a Shelter Pet
Joined: Jan 8, 2011 14:07:17 GMT -5
Posts: 2,199
|
Post by vonnie6200 on Jan 24, 2011 22:08:33 GMT -5
Hmmm something to think about.... would it be considered "welfare" to have a woman who cannot afford these amazing "grow a 1 month old fetus outside the womb" using this service? Or because she wanted an abortion, and someone forced her into this choice, is the child now a ward of the state, destined for an over crowded foster care system? Is the govt going to start paying for all of this too? And is this a "tax" that the pro choice folks will happily support? Considering it's going to be mostly low income women..... What ever happened to adoption
|
|
steff
Senior Associate
I'll sleep when I'm dead
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 17:34:24 GMT -5
Posts: 10,772
|
Post by steff on Jan 24, 2011 22:09:13 GMT -5
Having said that I still believe that an unborn baby is an innocent - and that how the pregnancy came about is a totally separate issue.
*****************************
then why say it's okay in the cases of rape/incest or mother's health? Are those "innocents" less "innocent" than others? Why it is okay for a rape victim, but not the abused wife with 4 kids already?
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Jan 24, 2011 22:10:51 GMT -5
An infant needs to some-one to feed it to keep it alive... but it has lungs, and can breath by itself, and its heart beats by itself... it is not the same, and you know it... a mass of cells that is a 12 week old is no more a living being than a mass of your liver cut off... incapable of living by itself... even if it was given a drug or medical device... potential for life... yeah... just like every sperm and egg in your body... but not life in its own right... But if you do nothing to this 12 week old lump and allow the pregnancy to continue it will become a human being, I don't think a liver will do this. And there are people that require 'something' other than there own body to live,are these people not considered 'life in its own right' since outside of artificial means they would die.
|
|
vonnie6200
Senior Member
Adopt a Shelter Pet
Joined: Jan 8, 2011 14:07:17 GMT -5
Posts: 2,199
|
Post by vonnie6200 on Jan 24, 2011 22:11:57 GMT -5
then why say it's okay in the cases of rape/incest or mother's health? Are those "innocents" less "innocent" than others? Why it is okay for a rape victim, but not the abused wife with 4 kids already? Read more: notmsnmoney.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=politics&thread=2136&page=7#ixzz1C0rUal00I actually don't think it is OK - unless the mother wouldn't survive - I've had this belief for 40 years and I think it was what kept me out of Medical school - my answers were a definite turn off at the interview
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,532
|
Post by chiver78 on Jan 24, 2011 22:16:20 GMT -5
then why say it's okay in the cases of rape/incest or mother's health? Are those "innocents" less "innocent" than others? Why it is okay for a rape victim, but not the abused wife with 4 kids already? Read more: notmsnmoney.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=politics&thread=2136&page=7#ixzz1C0rUal00I actually don't think it is OK - unless the mother wouldn't survive - I've had this belief for 40 years and I think it was what kept me out of Medical school - my answers were a definite turn off at the interview ok, props for your undramatic honesty and lack of personal attacks for rational differing opinions. seriously.
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Jan 24, 2011 22:17:20 GMT -5
I don't really like discussing abortion because it really comes down to when does a fetus become a human being and I don't think this is answerable to any degree of certainty at this time.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 29, 2024 10:42:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2011 22:23:25 GMT -5
Yes... i went back to the original source, and it says select state and goes to the 600k figure... its Figure 6 on the link. If you look at Figure 1, and go to the index at the bottom, it seems like only some areas report by age of gestation. I'm not sure why that would be? I'm not sure how to find the exact from those states? .... but would think that 600k is a fairly generalizable sample... unless you can opint out something specific about the ones that might be left out... that would make them potentially different? When you do look at Figure 6, the states that do report don't have a significant range in what they report for each gestational stage, so i would think it would remain similar as far as overall percentages... www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5609a1.htm#tab6
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 29, 2024 10:42:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2011 22:26:49 GMT -5
iThat last one was for you expat.
"If you do nothing to this 12 week old lump"
Do NOTHING?... you think my body would have to DO NOTHING to turn that 12 week old lump into a baby?...
I guess i don't understand how people think a 12 week old fetus is a human being... when it obviously could not survive if it was not an extension of the mother...
|
|
vonnie6200
Senior Member
Adopt a Shelter Pet
Joined: Jan 8, 2011 14:07:17 GMT -5
Posts: 2,199
|
Post by vonnie6200 on Jan 24, 2011 22:26:57 GMT -5
I don't really like discussing abortion because it really comes down to when does a fetus become a human being and I don't think this is answerable to any degree of certainty at this time. Read more: notmsnmoney.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=politics&action=display&thread=2136&page=7#ixzz1C0u5aI4JI agree - the only thing I can totally agree with is that a fetus is human when it can survive outside the womb - which we know that in the last trimester is very likely - and with the miracles of modern medicine that can be even earlier. My biggest problem, concern, disgust - is with late term/partial birth abortions. These babies can live outside the womb and deserve a chance at life. Their abortions are not to save their mothers life - but are a matter of convenience. If the mother can survive the partial birth - she could survive a full birth - which it actually is. And if she does not want to or have an interest in raising the baby - there is the adoption option.
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Jan 24, 2011 22:27:35 GMT -5
Should states be able to protect doctors who don't want to perform abortions? i.e. doctors can not be fired for choosing not to perform an abortion (as long as the mothers life was not in immediate danger)
|
|
vonnie6200
Senior Member
Adopt a Shelter Pet
Joined: Jan 8, 2011 14:07:17 GMT -5
Posts: 2,199
|
Post by vonnie6200 on Jan 24, 2011 22:28:42 GMT -5
Should states be able to protect doctors who don't want to perform abortions? i.e. doctors can not be fired for choosing not to perform an abortion (as long as the mothers life was not in immediate danger) YES!
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Jan 24, 2011 22:34:49 GMT -5
And there is logic to saying that rape could be a viable exception to a no-abortion rule, because that is a case where the woman did not choose to undergo an activity that could result in a pregnancy. However, I think few abortions are from rapes, but I didn't look it up.
|
|
safeharbor37
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 23:18:19 GMT -5
Posts: 1,290
|
Post by safeharbor37 on Jan 24, 2011 22:39:39 GMT -5
" I'm a mother and a grandmother, but I simply am not arrogant enough to sit in judgement over some else's decision. "
Come-on. You sit in judgment constantly, even of those who you've just designated "arrogant" in this discussion. Furthermore, some mothers and grandmothers suck. That might not apply to you, but it's hardly a "qualification." Remember, this discussion is about mothers who kill their offspring before or during birth, frequently in collaboration with the one would become a grandmother.
|
|
steff
Senior Associate
I'll sleep when I'm dead
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 17:34:24 GMT -5
Posts: 10,772
|
Post by steff on Jan 24, 2011 22:39:56 GMT -5
And there is logic to saying that rape could be a viable exception to a no-abortion rule, because that is a case where the woman did not choose to undergo an activity that could result in a pregnancy. However, I think few abortions are from rapes, but I didn't look it up.
**************************************
Rape victims often do not come forward for many reasons. Fear, shame, and any number of other reasons. To expect them to seek approval from some random panel for an abortion is ridiculous. It's just revicitimizing them again. and how is an abortion panel any different than a death panel in the big picture? Same idea, some politically charged group deciding the fate and future of a single person they don't know, never met, and have no idea about their situation or circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by marjar on Jan 24, 2011 22:40:02 GMT -5
I know a woman who had an abortion at the beginning of her 3 trimester. This was 20 years ago and hopefully, medicine has advanced that this situation would not happen today. She had it because a late 2nd trimester sonogram detected severe abnormalities in the fetus. The spinal cord was almost completely outside of the body, severe hydrocephalus, the brain was many times smaller than normal, heart defects, intestinal problems, and more. Numerous doctor's consulted on the case. Most were astonished that the fetus had not spontaneously aborted, and every one agreed the child would not survive for minutes after birth, if it made it through birth. If, by some infinitesimal chance the child survived, it would face many painful and difficult surgeries and have no quality of life. She was a devout Catholic, btw, but given the risk to her, because of the increased amniotic fluid and other problems the fetus's issues were creating, and that she already had a child who needed her, she opted to abort. The delay until the 3rd trimester was to consult with various doctors and obtain as much input, from various specialists, as possible.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 29, 2024 10:42:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2011 22:47:13 GMT -5
The question about abortion that I think we have a hard time answering isn't totally the question of a fetus, embryo, zygote, being human. These stages of developement meet the generally accepted scientific definition of life. They all represent a unique stage of development, stages that we all had to go through to even be having this conversation. Since I have yet to hear of a embryo comprised of a human, female egg and a human, male sperm spontaneously turning into a chicken, I think it is safe to err on the side of 'human'.
However, the issue we as a society wrestle with ultimately is the question of who's rights come first? We have a woman who will have to carry a child to term, the Father who donated to the cause, and of course the child that resulted. Is it all up to the Mother? Do Father's have any say? And what about the child that lacks the ability to speak for itself?
I do agree that Roe vs. Wade was a bad decision because, as pointed out, it relied on 'implied' (arguable) rights, and I think it failed to address a rather stark issue. The 'right' to privacy is no more universal than the documented right to free speech. It also assumes that the child has no rights at all. It is at least an issue that should be decided by individual states, and should be addressed from all aspects, for all parties directly involved.
|
|
Loopdilou
Well-Known Member
AKA Mrs. Dark Honor
Joined: Feb 27, 2012 19:41:33 GMT -5
Posts: 1,365
|
Post by Loopdilou on Jan 24, 2011 22:49:41 GMT -5
Wow. It's really exhausting having to repeat yourselves numerous times. We've already well established that every person who has stated they are pro-choice has also stated that they don't believe that a fetus is a human being... am I wrong? Someone correct me if I am. Second thing that has already been well established - we all agree that a baby is a human being after they become viable, which occurs around 23 weeks (although the survivability rate even at this point is low, and chances for severe developmental problems are high). I've already given analogies for why, even after 23 weeks, abortion is an acceptable and LEGAL procedure. The only person who I've seen that's made an even halfway decent counterargument was whoever said that, "What about if they can only survive on a machine? Is killing them murder?" Unfortunately, at 23 weeks MOST (not all) babies cannot even survive on a machine. And I happen to believe in being able to pull the plug on people who A) can only survive on a machine and b) don't have a functioning brain - which is essentially what a baby is at 23 weeks. Now, as for why men don't get a say - men do not have to carry the baby. It's really very simple. Men are sperm donors, that's it. I honestly don't even think men should have to pay child support if all they did was have sex with a woman and knock her up... the woman is just as culpable, if not more so. Plus, she can terminate the pregnancy if she so chooses and then not be strapped with the responsibility and financial burden of a child. If the man knocks a woman up in a seemingly committed relationship, that's a totally different thing in my eyes. I should also add that I don't think a single one of us has ever said this issue should be taken lightly. I can't think of a single pro-choice person that I have spoken to that doesn't think abortion should be a last ditch effort and that more steps need to be taken to make sure that our youth are educated, prepared, and equipped BEFORE having sex. However, we also ALL believe that to take away the legal option of abortion would result in countless deaths of full on living breathing human beings along with the death of countless babies. It's a bit like pot - regulated it can be safe. Unregulated and you're asking for trouble Black market abortions are even worse than the legal kind.
|
|
|
Post by marjar on Jan 24, 2011 22:53:56 GMT -5
Wow. It's really exhausting having to repeat yourselves numerous times. We've already well established that every person who has stated they are pro-choice has also stated that they don't believe that a fetus is a human being... am I wrong? Someone correct me if I am. Second thing that has already been well established - we all agree that a baby is a human being after they become viable, which occurs around 23 weeks (although the survivability rate even at this point is low, and chances for severe developmental problems are high). I've already given analogies for why, even after 23 weeks, abortion is an acceptable and LEGAL procedure. The only person who I've seen that's made an even halfway decent counterargument was whoever said that, "What about if they can only survive on a machine? Is killing them murder?" Unfortunately, at 23 weeks MOST (not all) babies cannot even survive on a machine. And I happen to believe in being able to pull the plug on people who A) can only survive on a machine and b) don't have a functioning brain - which is essentially what a baby is at 23 weeks. Now, as for why men don't get a say - men do not have to carry the baby. It's really very simple. Men are sperm donors, that's it. I honestly don't even think men should have to pay child support if all they did was have sex with a woman and knock her up... the woman is just as culpable, if not more so. Plus, she can terminate the pregnancy if she so chooses and then not be strapped with the responsibility and financial burden of a child. If the man knocks a woman up in a seemingly committed relationship, that's a totally different thing in my eyes. Good summation.
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,532
|
Post by chiver78 on Jan 24, 2011 22:58:36 GMT -5
It also assumes that the child has no rights at all. it most definitely does not assume that. roe v. wade allows that a woman is provided the right to an abortion up to viability. it at no point transfers rights to a fetus, which you call a child.
|
|
steff
Senior Associate
I'll sleep when I'm dead
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 17:34:24 GMT -5
Posts: 10,772
|
Post by steff on Jan 24, 2011 23:03:32 GMT -5
I karma'd you for that post Loopi
|
|
Loopdilou
Well-Known Member
AKA Mrs. Dark Honor
Joined: Feb 27, 2012 19:41:33 GMT -5
Posts: 1,365
|
Post by Loopdilou on Jan 24, 2011 23:05:20 GMT -5
Thanks. Occasionally I can string together coherent and not blatantly offensive sentences
|
|