Bear - 2015-07-16 4:24 PM


You are wrong. These organs were procured for research, not transplantation. We don't use organs from babies that were terminated prematurely in transplantation......not yet anyway. Nobody knowledgeable will say that organs for transplantation is one reason to support late term abortion, because they aren't used for that purpose.

oija - 2015-07-16 4:10 PM Totally unrelated point. You are trying to attack the common argument that abortions are performed because the ones involved do not think it is a 'life,' which might be pertinent except the particular discussion and video under discussion is about late term abortions. In late term abortions certain organs are certainly viable for donation. It is one of the major points the woman addresses. One does not have to think of organs as a commodity at all to recognize the value of needed organs or tissue for another child who needs that organ. I would much rather such organs be obtained in another fashion than late term abortions, but it is certainly part of the argument that people who are in support of late term abortions do use to defend their position.

foundation horse - 2015-07-16 9:12 PM I would recommend Folks research (a simple google search will suffice) the name Margaret Sanger and review the origin of abortion and purpose...................................Especially those who purport 'Women's Right to Choose'. Then please look in the mirror at One's Self and see/who looks back!

Bear - 2015-07-16 3:43 PM


Without abortion, women have no rights? Really? I think a lot of people are crying out that those babies have no rights. What do you say to them?

If a woman is 22 weeks pregnant and her boyfriend shoots her in the abdomen, killing the unborn baby, but not the mom, is that murder?

cheryl makofka - 2015-07-16 11:44 PM


If women loose the right to make a decision on whether to have an abortion is the beginning or loosing women's rights.

Why I believe this if abortion is outlawed, then women's, health and right to choose is superseded by an unborn fetus that has the same characteristics of a parasite, it is feeding off of the woman.

Since the fetus is protected, then society/government will be deciding what a pregnant woman can and can't do, ie alcohol (no sustainable proof on how much, at what stage, etc this is why abstinence is best but many children are born from mothers who have consumed some alcohol), riding horses, due to the fetus well being is more important then the mother we will not be allowed. It becomes a slippery slope when the fetus rights are more important then a woman's.

Also during delivery there are risks and adverse effects to delivering a child, if abortion is outlawed it can be seen as torture, drugs, epidurals, during labor and delivery have negative effects on the fetus during the delivery and after, since the fetus is more important, the woman will be forced to go through delivery without anything.

Ongoing bladder problems, tearing, episiotomy, emergency c section (if the fetus has more rights elective c sections will be outlawed as evidence suggests it has adverse effects to the child)

This is all possible if the fetus rights are put before women's rights

As for your murder comment, as the way the law reads in my country a fetus does not become a living being until they take their first breath of air, so no I don't see this as murder, but I do know that some courts have ruled it is murder, and I also know some courts have already taken away women's rights to protect the fetus (incarcerating due to drug or alcohol use till fetus is born).

This also comes down to religion. We have the freedom of religion, and most people do not believe in abortion due to religious reasons. This is also a way these religions are shoving their religion down a woman's throat so to speak. I have noticed religious organizations who use graphic images, and attempt to shame the individual into going through with the pregnancy.

As for the people crying out for the unborn babies rights, they are not a baby, they are a fetus. Again this boils down to beliefs, culture, and values. As I said the law in my country does not consider a fetus a human till it takes it's first breath of air, not sure on the laws in the USA, this is what I go by.

Again I think abortion may be the lesser of two evils, I have seen a baby born with physical deformities, a laundry list of medical issues in foster care because the mom was on hard core drugs throughout the entire pregnancy.

I will also comment on the comment that says she believes all fetuses born would be adopted.

Sadly where I live this is not the case, families only want healthy babies, some families are gender specific too. I am an advocate for adoption, my neighbours adopted two boys, and during their application they stated no drugs no alcohol prenatally. Who wants a one eyed multiple medical issue baby when a healthy child is the same price? It is also cheaper to adopt abroad, when my neighbours adopted it was 10k/child this was 18 yrs ago and this includes all the lawyer fees and was a public adoption.

Also more people are leaning more to surrogacy or egg/sperm banks as a surrogate mother is used when the individual cannot carry their own child or don't want to this way this child is genetically theirs. Egg/sperm banks if one is infertile, atleast the child genetic make up is half family. Also an easy option for a single parent, or homosexual couple looking to start a family.

There are so many other options besides adoption that are less stressful, less time consuming, and immediate results so no I don't believe all infants would be adopted.

I also believe it would be cheaper for the government to perform the abortions free versus caring for an unwanted child for 18 yrs. This also needs to be considered if abortion is outlawed who is going to fund all medical, and social (housing, feed, schooling) costs that each child would incur

cheryl makofka - 2015-07-16 10:44 PM If women loose the right to make a decision on whether to have an abortion is the beginning or loosing women's rights. Why I believe this if abortion is outlawed, then women's, health and right to choose is superseded by an unborn fetus that has the same characteristics of a parasite, it is feeding off of the woman. Since the fetus is protected, then society/government will be deciding what a pregnant woman can and can't do, ie alcohol (no sustainable proof on how much, at what stage, etc this is why abstinence is best but many children are born from mothers who have consumed some alcohol), riding horses, due to the fetus well being is more important then the mother we will not be allowed. It becomes a slippery slope when the fetus rights are more important then a woman's. Also during delivery there are risks and adverse effects to delivering a child, if abortion is outlawed it can be seen as torture, drugs, epidurals, during labor and delivery have negative effects on the fetus during the delivery and after, since the fetus is more important, the woman will be forced to go through delivery without anything. Ongoing bladder problems, tearing, episiotomy, emergency c section (if the fetus has more rights elective c sections will be outlawed as evidence suggests it has adverse effects to the child) This is all possible if the fetus rights are put before women's rights As for your murder comment, as the way the law reads in my country a fetus does not become a living being until they take their first breath of air, so no I don't see this as murder, but I do know that some courts have ruled it is murder, and I also know some courts have already taken away women's rights to protect the fetus (incarcerating due to drug or alcohol use till fetus is born). This also comes down to religion. We have the freedom of religion, and most people do not believe in abortion due to religious reasons. This is also a way these religions are shoving their religion down a woman's throat so to speak. I have noticed religious organizations who use graphic images, and attempt to shame the individual into going through with the pregnancy. As for the people crying out for the unborn babies rights, they are not a baby, they are a fetus. Again this boils down to beliefs, culture, and values. As I said the law in my country does not consider a fetus a human till it takes it's first breath of air, not sure on the laws in the USA, this is what I go by. Again I think abortion may be the lesser of two evils, I have seen a baby born with physical deformities, a laundry list of medical issues in foster care because the mom was on hard core drugs throughout the entire pregnancy. I will also comment on the comment that says she believes all fetuses born would be adopted. Sadly where I live this is not the case, families only want healthy babies, some families are gender specific too. I am an advocate for adoption, my neighbours adopted two boys, and during their application they stated no drugs no alcohol prenatally. Who wants a one eyed multiple medical issue baby when a healthy child is the same price? It is also cheaper to adopt abroad, when my neighbours adopted it was 10k/child this was 18 yrs ago and this includes all the lawyer fees and was a public adoption. Also more people are leaning more to surrogacy or egg/sperm banks as a surrogate mother is used when the individual cannot carry their own child or don't want to this way this child is genetically theirs. Egg/sperm banks if one is infertile, atleast the child genetic make up is half family. Also an easy option for a single parent, or homosexual couple looking to start a family. There are so many other options besides adoption that are less stressful, less time consuming, and immediate results so no I don't believe all infants would be adopted. I also believe it would be cheaper for the government to perform the abortions free versus caring for an unwanted child for 18 yrs. This also needs to be considered if abortion is outlawed who is going to fund all medical, and social (housing, feed, schooling) costs that each child would incur

heartswideopen - 2015-07-17 2:12 AM

 In this country we already fund people for 18 years when their parents cannot carry them (and in some cases up to 27 years old per the new Obamacare). It's called taxation. We tax those who work and who hold assets and we allow the "not so motivated" to continue to engage in unwanted pregnancy and continue to have abortion, after abortion, after abortion. If a woman has had one abortion, it is likely that she has had multiple.   

The problem with the arguments you present as "solutions" are not liberal in nature, but are deeply steeped in socialism.   
No one is this country is arguing that a woman's immediate health should be secondary to that of her fetus. In fact, by allowing abortion to act as an insurance policy against unwanted pregnancy, this country has watched its rate of venereal disease increase which as you seem to know, leads to more than a modicum of health problems associated not just with the reproduction system, but also with the immune system and general physiology.  

What we are arguing is that the mass slaughter of children is unethical.  For many it has nothing to do with religion, but has everything to do with ethics and moral obligation not to a deity, but to piece of mind and to humanity itself.   What separates us from animals is our humanity, our ability to formulate and reason using a moral and ethical compass as a means to differentiate between right and wrong.  Abortions end life. Taking life is murder. Thus, in every sense of the word, they are UNETHICAL and they defile the very nature of humanity.

Since you quoted several medical arguments, I suppose you're also familiar with cell migration (fetomaternal microchimerism). In cell adhesion and migration the pluripotent cells of a fetus will attempt to aid any wound or affliction the mother incurs, even preventing aging and will persist within the mother's system over the course of more than two decades, but in the opposite and predatory manner, a mother who aborts her child commits absolute treachery since she willingly harms the thing that would so generously give her life. 

 We DO NOT better society by REMOVING or ELIMINATING the poor, the afflicted, or those who are worse off. As others have commented, doing so is no better than the grotesque practices of Dr. Mengele.  We do not believe in the extermination of those in suffering third world nations, so why do Pro-Choicers condone the extermination of those who are unborn? Seems to me this goes against sociological  theory and greatly defies any human rights doctrine. 

You also argue that women should be freed of  responsibility to an unwanted child, but what frees the taxpayer from the responsibility of a unknown child, or the humanist the ethical responsibility? 

You also speak of torture, and as such, how can you argue that abortion to the child is not torture when ultrasound abortions show a child moving away and even screaming (Google the infamous Silent Scream) in pain?  If we look to female infanticide within developing nations such as a China and India, often performed against the pleas of the mother, how can you not call abortion torture? 

Also the argument you make for crime rates being decreased as a result of abortion, is FALSE. The data for that argument is also dated. There is simply correlation and no empirical evidence to suggest CAUSATION.  Anyone with any sort of background in statistical inference can tell you that without the empirical evidence you cannot infer causation simply given correlation.   
In fact, the evidence against the +abortion/-crime argument has strong statistical refutation. Had abortion been a cause for reduced crime, we would have seen among the population who generally commits crime (males 17-25), that the crime rate by this demographic would have DROPPED first.  This was NOT the case. Instead, crimes committed by OLDER rather than younger Americans declined first. We also see evidence in other countries such as England which legalized abortion in 1968. Fast forward 18 years to 1985, however, when the crime rate should have fallen (per the argument that abortion leads to reduced crime), violent crime in England instead increased.  

If we DO use non-refuted empirical evidence, we can look to developmental economics for predictors of the very long term effects of abortion; we can again look to the fertility replacement rate. In the developing world, high child mortality rates are positively correlated with how many additional children will be born to a mother throughout her child bearing years. In this rare case, we CAN infer causation from correlation:  the higher the mortality rate, the more children a woman will bear throughout her life.  We don't see this same pattern in the developed world as NATURAL child mortality is low,  however, by artificially INDUCING means of child mortality we open Pandora's Box and flip an economic switch. 

 If we flip the switch as a nation which has exported its industrial sector and increasingly demands HIGH skilled labor, with abortion ==> high artificial mortality ==> increased birth rate among young women, we land up with low-skilled laborers producing more children, while high skilled laborers have fewer children, greater income, and less economic burden. Again, this is empirically backed. The more education a female receives, the LESS children she will have.  In this country it is currently easier to have children and obtain a welfare check than it is to go to college. Thus,  If we live in a service-based economy such as the U.S. (and most developed nations) and also have an aging population, by allowing for abortion, we increase the rate at which women will continue to have MORE children and LESS education. Thus, by allowing for a large population of low skilled labor, and conversely a low population of high skilled labor, we have a recipe for economic disaster and we further stratify the social classes and increase the income gap.  

So while abortion might work in the long term, over the very long term, you induce women to have more births over the course of her child bearing years than she would have had had the option for an abortion never been present.  

Now I don't believe abortion should be outlawed, I think women should have to watch the procedure as it is revolting. I think most people feel this way, we simply do not condone the rampant abuse of the procedure and the for-profit market which has turned the procedure into an INDUSTRY. It's so very interesting to me that feminists are the ones behind Planned Parenthood, but they make no mention of the men who help create the babies.  In this country we have a program called the Maury Povich Show... Please Google it as it'll give you a better idea as to why people in this counttry are so upset about so called women's rights. Abortion does nothing to promote the well-being of women. It simply objectifies women and allows for a liberal-patriarchal system which upholds women as sex objects and genrates votes.  

I've presented you a very long, yet condensed argument which has no basis in religion. Such supposition is created in non-discerning citizens via the ploys of liberal controlled media outlets.  

TrailGirl - 2015-07-16 10:35 AM

Sorry....I certainly do not see her callous nature as "irrelevant".

heartswideopen - 2015-07-17 2:12 AM

 In this country we already fund people for 18 years when their parents cannot carry them (and in some cases up to 27 years old per the new Obamacare). It's called taxation. We tax those who work and who hold assets and we allow the "not so motivated" to continue to engage in unwanted pregnancy and continue to have abortion, after abortion, after abortion. If a woman has had one abortion, it is likely that she has had multiple.   

The problem with the arguments you present as "solutions" are not liberal in nature, but are deeply steeped in socialism.   
No one is this country is arguing that a woman's immediate health should be secondary to that of her fetus. In fact, by allowing abortion to act as an insurance policy against unwanted pregnancy, this country has watched its rate of venereal disease increase which as you seem to know, leads to more than a modicum of health problems associated not just with the reproduction system, but also with the immune system and general physiology.  

What we are arguing is that the mass slaughter of children is unethical.  For many it has nothing to do with religion, but has everything to do with ethics and moral obligation not to a deity, but to piece of mind and to humanity itself.   What separates us from animals is our humanity, our ability to formulate and reason using a moral and ethical compass as a means to differentiate between right and wrong.  Abortions end life. Taking life is murder. Thus, in every sense of the word, they are UNETHICAL and they defile the very nature of humanity.

Since you quoted several medical arguments, I suppose you're also familiar with cell migration (fetomaternal microchimerism). In cell adhesion and migration the pluripotent cells of a fetus will attempt to aid any wound or affliction the mother incurs, even preventing aging and will persist within the mother's system over the course of more than two decades, but in the opposite and predatory manner, a mother who aborts her child commits absolute treachery since she willingly harms the thing that would so generously give her life. 

 We DO NOT better society by REMOVING or ELIMINATING the poor, the afflicted, or those who are worse off. As others have commented, doing so is no better than the grotesque practices of Dr. Mengele.  We do not believe in the extermination of those in suffering third world nations, so why do Pro-Choicers condone the extermination of those who are unborn? Seems to me this goes against sociological  theory and greatly defies any human rights doctrine. 

You also argue that women should be freed of  responsibility to an unwanted child, but what frees the taxpayer from the responsibility of a unknown child, or the humanist the ethical responsibility? 

You also speak of torture, and as such, how can you argue that abortion to the child is not torture when ultrasound abortions show a child moving away and even screaming (Google the infamous Silent Scream) in pain?  If we look to female infanticide within developing nations such as a China and India, often performed against the pleas of the mother, how can you not call abortion torture? 

Also the argument you make for crime rates being decreased as a result of abortion, is FALSE. The data for that argument is also dated. There is simply correlation and no empirical evidence to suggest CAUSATION.  Anyone with any sort of background in statistical inference can tell you that without the empirical evidence you cannot infer causation simply given correlation.   
In fact, the evidence against the +abortion/-crime argument has strong statistical refutation. Had abortion been a cause for reduced crime, we would have seen among the population who generally commits crime (males 17-25), that the crime rate by this demographic would have DROPPED first.  This was NOT the case. Instead, crimes committed by OLDER rather than younger Americans declined first. We also see evidence in other countries such as England which legalized abortion in 1968. Fast forward 18 years to 1985, however, when the crime rate should have fallen (per the argument that abortion leads to reduced crime), violent crime in England instead increased.  

If we DO use non-refuted empirical evidence, we can look to developmental economics for predictors of the very long term effects of abortion; we can again look to the fertility replacement rate. In the developing world, high child mortality rates are positively correlated with how many additional children will be born to a mother throughout her child bearing years. In this rare case, we CAN infer causation from correlation:  the higher the mortality rate, the more children a woman will bear throughout her life.  We don't see this same pattern in the developed world as NATURAL child mortality is low,  however, by artificially INDUCING means of child mortality we open Pandora's Box and flip an economic switch. 

 If we flip the switch as a nation which has exported its industrial sector and increasingly demands HIGH skilled labor, with abortion ==> high artificial mortality ==> increased birth rate among young women, we land up with low-skilled laborers producing more children, while high skilled laborers have fewer children, greater income, and less economic burden. Again, this is empirically backed. The more education a female receives, the LESS children she will have.  In this country it is currently easier to have children and obtain a welfare check than it is to go to college. Thus,  If we live in a service-based economy such as the U.S. (and most developed nations) and also have an aging population, by allowing for abortion, we increase the rate at which women will continue to have MORE children and LESS education. Thus, by allowing for a large population of low skilled labor, and conversely a low population of high skilled labor, we have a recipe for economic disaster and we further stratify the social classes and increase the income gap.  

So while abortion might work in the long term, over the very long term, you induce women to have more births over the course of her child bearing years than she would have had had the option for an abortion never been present.  

Now I don't believe abortion should be outlawed, I think women should have to watch the procedure as it is revolting. I think most people feel this way, we simply do not condone the rampant abuse of the procedure and the for-profit market which has turned the procedure into an INDUSTRY. It's so very interesting to me that feminists are the ones behind Planned Parenthood, but they make no mention of the men who help create the babies.  In this country we have a program called the Maury Povich Show... Please Google it as it'll give you a better idea as to why people in this counttry are so upset about so called women's rights. Abortion does nothing to promote the well-being of women. It simply objectifies women and allows for a liberal-patriarchal system which upholds women as sex objects and genrates votes.  

I've presented you a very long, yet condensed argument which has no basis in religion. Such supposition is created in non-discerning citizens via the ploys of liberal controlled media outlets.  

Bear - 2015-07-17 8:44 AM Excellent.....well worth the read.

equussynergy - 2015-07-17 10:08 AM Best thread I've read on this subject in a long time!



 

oija - 2015-07-16 11:56 AM No I think she would come across as callous even without eating. I still find the meal irrelevant. I think it is being overplayed only because people feel so emotional about this topic. Abortion and her attitude is what matters, not her meal.

rodeomom3 - 2015-07-17 10:24 AM Ditto 

TrailGirl - 2015-07-16 11:24 AM The fact that she is talking about this casually over a meal IS relevant. It speaks to her absolute comfort with the topic. While a heart transplant surgeon may be comfortable discussing his work over dinner...that is completely different. It's not just her comfort level with the blood/organs/tissues itself (I get that as I can discuss veterinary procedures all day eating a hamburger)...it's the fact that unlike the heart surgeon who is performing a life saving procedure...she is discussing the best means to kill an infant in order to keep it's parts useful for sale. See the difference? See why context matters?

Cindy Hamilton - 2015-07-17 11:15 AM  AMEN....Abortion is the holy grail of the left and trumps EVERYTHING...oh yeah, but they are anti death penalty...huh???...just shows how screwed up they all are...