My Anti-Abortion Rant

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by stevento, Sep 12, 2010.

  1. stevento macrumors 6502

    stevento

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2006
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #1
    I just read a story on ABC news about a abortion provider being charged with murder (it's about damn time, right?) because the woman having the abortion died because he didn't properly monitor her while she was under anesthesia.

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=11617159
    When you click that link the video should start, and the third video played is part of an episode of The View. Whoopie Goldberg is mad because a new law in Oklahoma forces women to view an ultrasound of their baby before deciding to decapitate it.

    Joy Behar said this:
    So she means to say sticking a knife or vacuum up there to remove the child is okay?

    Woopie Goldberg says:
    So basically what she's saying is that a killing a child before birth is sometimes a good choice because if it's born there's a chance you may kill it afterwards. Kill the fetus to prevent killing the baby... NO!

    I just don't understand how people think there's a difference between killing a six month old baby and killing a six month old fetus. Perhaps if there are any pro choice people out there they could answer this for me.

    I am anti-abortion - not anti-choice. If a woman feels like sticking a scalpel up her vagina - that's her choice. I only care when it's harming a child.

    And back to the original news story:
    The guy makes a living by tearing fetuses to shreds (by knife or by vacuum, I don't know). Is there any surprise that he doesn't have the moral fiber to follow procedure when something goes wrong?
    I generally don't support the death penalty but there are some crimes so heinous that it's appropriate.
     
  2. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #2
    If he is convicted, I hope he receives the maximum penalty allowed.
     
  3. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
  4. spblat macrumors 6502a

    spblat

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2010
    #4
    The way I look at it is that no one has the right to occupy the body of another without consent. And I favor a woman's right to withdraw her consent at any time for any reason. I trust women.

    Carl Sagan and his widow Ann Druyan take a more moderate, and very well reasoned approach. They advocate for a cutoff at around 20 weeks, which I think is a reasonable compromise.
     
  5. flopticalcube macrumors G4

    flopticalcube

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    In the velcro closure of America's Hat
    #5
    13 weeks < 6 months. Very few cases of any abortion greater than 24 weeks. The doctor should rightly be charged with manslaughter at worst and malpractice at least. The fact that "he doesn't have the moral fiber to follow procedure when something goes wrong" has nothing to do with his chosen field of practice.

    BTW, the fetus is usually not touched in an abortion. No knives, no vacuums.
     
  6. HarryPot macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2009
    #6
    Saying you approve of abortion in the first 20 weeks, but not in the last 3 months of the pregnancy is, in my opinion, fooling yourself. That 10 or 20 weeks fetus will eventually transform into a 6 months one, and then into a fully grown baby.

    I also have problems when pro abortion activists say that the women have the right to choose, so they should be able to abort. But, the right to choose was when they decided to have unprotected sex.

    There exist cases, like rape, which have a different perspective. But the vast majority of cases are from the former situation, so the argument that they have the "right to choose" is also, for me, fooling yourself. They did gave consent into having sex, and they knew the possibilities of getting pregnant exist.

    I think that from conception to 9 months old, an abortion is just as bad as killing a new born. If you think you won't be able to sustain the child, give it in adoption, a lot of couples would be grateful for that.
     
  7. Surely Guest

    Surely

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2007
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
  8. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #8
    Which, as you point out, is your opinion. Not one shared by many other people outside the religious world. Others a quite a bit more pragmatic thankfully.


    Which is entirely an untenable position. One which as bought up in the last abortion thread would have you investigating all spontaneous abortions (millions upon millions of them) on grounds of manslaughter/murder.
     
  9. Heilage macrumors 68030

    Heilage

    Joined:
    May 1, 2009
    #9

    Bingo. Eventually. Which means it's not a full grown baby. It's a lump of cells and goo. Like cancer. :)
     
  10. djellison macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Location:
    Pasadena CA
    #10
    I'm not pro abortion. I'm pro- the rights of a women to decide what goes on inside her body.


    stevento, harrypot - I ask you both, again, in this thread...

    Your wife or daughter gets raped. She becomes pregnant as a result.

    Would you give your blessing to terminate that pregnancy, or would you wish to see your wife/daughter go through the hell of pregnancy, the manifold clinical complications it can cause, the genuinely indescribable pain of childbirth, and the knowledge, for the rest of their life, that they carried and delivered into this world, a sick evil rapists child.

    When you say you're 'anti abortion' - how anti-abortion are you exactly. Think hard about the situation above, then answer simply...

    Would you allow your wife/daughter to terminate that pregnancy if they wanted to.
     
  11. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #11
    For me, I agree with HarryPot that life begins at conception. And like him, I wish people were more responsible when they decide to have sex. I find it heartbreaking that there are over 1 million abortions every year here in the United States. That said, I would allow for abortions for cases of rape.

    This doctor was preforming a legal medical procedure, the nature of which should not matter in his trial. The abortion isn't on trial here it is the doctor's competence or lack thereof.
     
  12. zap2 macrumors 604

    zap2

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Location:
    Washington D.C
    #12
    I don't understand how you can believe that 1) Life begins at conception and 2) You'd allow the killing of someone who is the result of a rape

    If number 1 is true, you're saying you'd agree with the murder of someone based on the parents, which they had no control over. Seems like a dangerous thought line. Holding a child responsible for their parents mistake hardly seem fair.

    (That being said, I don't think life begins at conception because the cells inside the women can't function outside of the women and certainly doesn't have any brain function at the moments of conception.)
     
  13. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #13
    Or presumably allowing the "termination" of a molar pregnancy or ectopic pregnancy. The definition of "life" is entirely synthetic. It can't be defended.
     
  14. HarryPot macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2009
    #14
    It's very well known that the human body, naturally, produces spontaneous abortions. Some of them are also product of the lack of precautions from the mother. But the big difference from this spontaneous abortion, to a clinic abortion, is that in the later you have the decision of doing it or not doing it.

    So no, the government wouldn't have to be going house by house checking if a spontaneous abortion occurred, or if it was a clinical abortion. But don't legalize something that is murder.


    Why you say that the child will be "a sick evil rapists child"? It would be a child just as any other.

    As for your question, I guess I'll never know for sure, and I hope I never have to make that decision.

    But right now, I would opt for having the child. The process would be hard for the wife/daughter, as well as hard for the husband/father (in a lesser degree), but I wouldn't be able to justify killing someone because of this.

    If someone chooses differently, even if my wife/daughter choose differently, I would respect them. I would surely don't force them to have the child, but still, I would try and convince them not to do so.
     
  15. spblat macrumors 6502a

    spblat

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2010
  16. HarryPot macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2009
    #16
    Knowledge? It's always good to know how people think, and how/why they differ from you.
     
  17. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #17
    Well no. If a spontaneous abortion is the result of "lack of precautions of the mother" (whatever that means) then the mother is culpable and it is her decision, just as it is getting an abortion. Remember "spontaneous" is really synonymous with "unexplained".

    Your claim was that the death of a foetus is equivalent to the death of a child. You would most definitely ask for a medical and possibly legal enquiry into the unexplained death of a child. The fact that you wouldn't ask for a medical/legal enquiry into the death of a foetus demonstrates that you don't actually equate the two.

    Likewise a mother who starves her baby would be up for legal prosecution. However a mother that doesn't provide adequate nutrition in the form of folate in her diet for a developing baby resulting in spina bifida would not be up for legal prosecution. The whole claim that "life begins at conception" and that a foetus should have all the rights of a post-partum individual is nothing more than a religious meme that is entirely impossible to apply in reality.
     
  18. spblat macrumors 6502a

    spblat

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2010
    #18
    Let's meet up on page 5 (or 15) of this thread to see whether that worthy goal will have been met. :)
     
  19. SwiftLives macrumors 65816

    SwiftLives

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2001
    Location:
    Charleston, SC
    #19
    You don't like abortion? Me neither. But I have a hard time taking anti-abortion folks seriously when they insist on teaching abstinence-only education in our schools and refuse to allow more accessible options for birth control. It seems to me that if one was truly against abortion, he or she would do everything in his power to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

    Asa for the doctor mentioned above, he didn't follow medical procedure by failing to monitor the woman and it cost her her life. That's despicable, and he should face the consequences for that. But not because he was giving an abortion.
     
  20. CaptMurdock macrumors 6502a

    CaptMurdock

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    Location:
    The Evildrome Boozerama
    #20
    Good luck with that. Six thousand years of recorded history later, it ain't looking good.

    This. The procedure is irrelevant; this is a case where the doctor failed to follow the standard protocols.
     
  21. HarryPot macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2009
    #21
    The difference being, that the spontaneous death of child is way below the probabilities of a spontaneous death of a fetus.

    If human beings died spontaneously in the rate fetuses die, then the government would have a hell of a job investigating all cases. And they would probably end up giving up in investigating every single decease.

    But still, you wouldn't legalize clinics that kill human beings because they have the "right to choose". And you wouldn't let a case were clear evidence exist that someone else killed a human being go by.

    Now, the spontaneous death of a fetus is even harder to get noticed, because it either is unrecognized even by the mother and because there is no census of fetuses, so keeping control of them is nearly impossible.

    So, the situation comparing the investigation of a child death, and the one of a fetus death, is completely different. Hence the difficulty of investigating every single spontaneous abortion. The lack of evidence and the probabilities that a spontaneous abortion occurs make this nearly impossible. That's the reason a medical/legal inquiry is not asked for.

    I'll quote the definition of life:
     
  22. HarryPot macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2009
    #22
    Haha, I know.I might have missed saying that I enjoy the process of discussion/debate.:)

    I know the most probable scenario is that .Andy wont change his point of view, and that I will also not change mine, but I still enjoy the process of discussion/debate.
     
  23. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #23
    Probabilities don't make a difference. If it's an unexplained death it's an unexplained death. Your attempts to manouver away from you claim of equality between the death of a newborn and death of a foetus show that you need to make enormous caveats on the fly. It's not as simple a comparison as you pay lip service to.

    Just as an abortion is "completely different" from the death of a child. Despite your claims that "killing a foetus is just as bad as killing g newborn", you have demonstrated that you apply far different criteria to a foetus as you do a newborn.

    Which is not a definition of "life" as applied here as beginning at conception. Life in this case would include the sperm and egg. It would included cancer. It wouldn't include viruses. Life under that definition doesn't "begin at conception". It's a continuum.
     
  24. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #24
    As for me the only time I have a huge issue with abortion is if it is being used as a contraceptive basically.

    Personally abortions should really only be used in terms of Rape victim or mothers life is in danger. But to many people use it because they had unprotected sex got pregnant and boom.

    That being said it is a fine line that has to be walk. make it to hard to get one and you will get more back ally ones and that is a danger.
    At the time time I do not feel that people should just go willy nilly on them and suggest other options to them and let them think about it. other options are things like adoption
     
  25. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #25
    Which doesn't really happen and is a bit of a bastardisation of terminology. A procedural abortion is an incredibly invasive procedure and one that is neither cheap or easy. It would be far easier to have cheap and equitable access to mifepristone. Which the majority of women would choose to take. But the religious lobby (especially the catholics) try to get involved in that as well as reduce the choices of women and put them at further risk.
     

Share This Page