Why is it OK to kill a woman, but not a baby?

Originally posted by JoshGator54
Nearly all ectopic pregnancies develop in a fallopian tube; the remainder occur in an ovary, the cervix, or the abdomen.2 Generally none of these areas are capable of holding or sustaining a growing fetus."

Yes it would be a bit hard for a fetus to continue developing inside a corpse.

How is terminating an ectopic pregnancy not abortion?

politics.abovetopsecret.com...

Not to do the job of a Mod but subject covered here for well, forever. Looks strange now since the Bunny Man's posts are gone, or to me they are. I'm not sure why though, Seth hasn't been online though so can't get ahold of him. Needs to get a damn cell phone like the rest of us.

Never mind.

[edit on 2005/9/7 by GradyPhilpott]

Leaving aside ectopic pregnancies, what about anencephaly?

The mother would not be harmed with such a fetus growing (and indeed, being born) - but the fetus will not live outside of the womb for very long (though it's possible to see such full terms/near full terms born and survive for a few days or so). There are no exceptions to this. Anencephaly is not compatible with life, but a live birth can result.

The implication I'm seeing is that the argument keeps switching back and from about the "if the fetus is not sustainable, then it's not abortion" matter.

So, with that in mind...

The fetus cannot be sustained outside of the womb (most anencephalic fetuses are miscarried or aborted) for any length of time.

Is it thus acceptable to abort this fetus, or not?

If it's not - then why does the rule change with an ectopic pregnancy? Does the "viability" criteria only apply in certain cases? Which cases?

If it is - then are other "non life compatible" conditions also acceptable reasons for termination?

Why is right to kill a women but not a fetus, well it has to do with what fundamentalist and the bible portray the role of a women.

We are to be second class citizens and we are nothing more than incubators.

Then again talking seriously about pro life advocates they are very much for fetuses rights, but women have none.

Have anybody notices how this pro life people tend to be conservatives, anti gay, for war, and anti any social program for single mothers?

They will argue to death that fetuses have rights but when the mother is hungry with a child that she chose to give life they are the first ones to scream out loud not to used public funds to help the poor and needy.

I think is a double standards.

or hipocrecy.

Originally posted by AWingAndASigh
There's something I just don't understand about the abortion debate. I could live with some restrictions on abortions - I don't think it should be used as a form of birth control. But what most pro-lifers want seems to go way beyond that. They don't want to save the life of the mother by aborting the child.

Why is it OK to kill the mother, but not the child?

I don't think it should be used as a form of birth control either, and I also don't understand why those who believe in killing the mother but not the baby.
Both are life forms.

I also don't understand why people in third world countries kill and rape babies.

I suppose we're all idiots in our own unfortunate ways.

Originally posted by TrueLies
I also don't understand why people in third world countries kill and rape babies.

Happens in the west as well.. though it may happen more in certain places as there is a myth that having sex with kids [virgins] will cure the aids virus. The most ironic part though is that this myth apparently came from missionaries and spiritual leaders.

No where in the bible does it say a fetus is a human. In fact the bible specifically says it isn't! it says until it breaths on it's own it is nothing! Hell if a guy punches your wife in the stomach and she miscarriges you can decide wether or not you want him to pay a fine for lost PROPERTY!!!! So Pro-Lifers using bible need to read it.

EDIT: Guy two posts below, the Seekerof dude, where can I get that picture? or one like it? One with Bush in Hippie clothes instead of Kerry, or one of Bill "I didn't inhale" Clinton like that!

[edit on 16-9-2005 by Full Metal]

Apparently before abortion became illegal [1800?] the catholic church were actually against it being criminalised because the belief was the soul entered the body at the first breath.. to believe otherwise was considered blasphemous. It's interesting how cultures change.

as originally posted by AWingAndASigh
But what most pro-lifers want seems to go way beyond that. They don't want to save the life of the mother by aborting the child.

Before I respond more on this broad and sweeping generalization of pro-lifers by you, I would simply ask you this:

Out of the 46 million +/- abortions [from 1973] that have taken place since Roe vs. Wade [abortion legalization], how many of them were done to save the life of the woman/mother?







seekerof

[edit on 16-9-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Seekerof
Out of the 46 million +/- abortions [from 1973] that have taken place since Roe vs. Wade [abortion legalization], how many of them were done to save the life of the woman/mother?

Considering that this isn't what the thread is actually about.. this is not relevent. I am quite certain though many were performed to protect her health.. this is where it becomes relative to personal opinion as it could include her phychological health as well, or her financial health [she may be a single parent of 4 and sole breadwinner].. or mean that an abortion was performed to prevent her becoming a paraplegic. When is this justifiable? Discuss it with her doctor when you can justify having the right to.

[edit on 16-9-2005 by riley]

Originally posted by riley
Considering that this isn't what the thread is actually about.. this is not relevent.

I'll be darned if it is not relevant, riley.

I am quite certain though many were performed to protect her health

Being "quite certain" is not cutting it for me, riley.
How about back what you are indicating with something numerically factual? Thanks.

this is where it becomes relative to personal opinion as it could include her phychological health as well, or her financial health [she may be a single parent of 4 and sole breadwinner].. or mean that an abortion was performed to prevent her becoming a paraplegic.

Semantics amounting to excuses for societies and individuals problems.
An excuse breeds more excuses.
Your response was irrelevant because it was simply given to avoid answering what was asked by myself.

The question is still valid:
How many of those 46+/- million abortions performed since 1973 have been done to save the life of the mother or for medical debilitating or mental/psychological considerations?




seekerof

[edit on 16-9-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Seekerof
Out of the 46 million +/- abortions [from 1973] that have taken place since Roe vs. Wade [abortion legalization], how many of them were done to save the life of the woman/mother?

The only honest answer is nobody knows. Nor should we. Because as everyone should know, the Roe decision did not legalize abortion "to save the life of the woman" but rather deemed that such decisions of relative risk and medical treatment were a matter of protected privacy and personal responsibility and it was unconstitutional for the government to intervene. So while reasonable restrictions and compromise may be enforced, broad brush strokes towards prohibitive bans may not.

Certainly there are both elective as well absolutely necessary abortions not to mention 46 million shades of grey inbetween, but it's really not the issue as to whether the procedure saved a simple 1,000 of our mother's, sisters and daughter's lives or 20 million of them. The point is the government didn't make the unconstitutional decision to kill any.

Seeker,

FactsNFigures here

In particular:

Most U.S. women cite more than one factor contributing to their decision to have an abortion: Three-quarters say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities; about two-thirds say they cannot afford to have a child; and half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner.

Hth

This is probably the most objective resource I've been able to find online.

Thanks RANT and Tinkleflower for your replys to what I was asking.
Much appreciated and I will look at that link, as well.

Thank you both again.






seekerof

Originally posted by Seekerof
Semantics amounting to excuses for societies and individuals problems.
An excuse breeds more excuses.
Your response was irrelevant because it was simply given to avoid answering what was asked by myself.

It seems you overlooked my main point:

When is this justifiable? Discuss it with her doctor when you can justify having the right to.

Considering there are no statistics based on medical records there would be no statistic that would be accurate. Tell me.. when is it justifyable to interefere with a woman's medical issues? Would you demand to know if I use the pill or a diaphram? The pill might prevent an egg implanting so would be classed as abortion to some. Would you like to know my pap smear or mamogram results? If I have a drug habbit I may harm a potential pregnancy so by your logic shouldn't that be public business as well? I'd also like to know what percentage of men have caused unwanted pregnancies and why they haven't had the snip or using contracetion.. of course most women who have had abortions obviously empregnated themselves so I guess thats not an issue anyway.
There are hundreds of different disorders and diseases pregnant women can suffer from [physical and phychological].. how can it be decided when abortion is acceptable.. and how can it be policed without invading her privacy and freedoms?

[edit on 16-9-2005 by riley]

Originally posted by riley
Considering there are no statistics based on medical records there would be no statistic that would be accurate.

We do have statistics - many based on medical questionnaires. See linky I posted earlier

The pill might prevent an egg implanting so would be classed as abortion to some.

With all due respect, I think that's a reach. By medical terminology alone, this would never be classed as a termination or abortion. Those two words only ever apply after conception has occurred. More to the point, I don't know anyone who would class that as abortion. (Though I obviously don't know everyone, so this doesn't preclude the possibility)

? If I have a drug habbit I may harm a potential pregnancy so by your logic shouldn't that be public business as well?

There have been one or two cases where a judge has ordered a drug-addicted woman to either never become pregnant, or make a promise to have a termination should a pregnancy occur....I'm going to try and track the cases, k?

I'd also like to know what percentage of men have caused unwanted pregnancies and why they haven't had the snip or using contracetion.. of course most women who have had abortions obviously empregnated themselves so I guess thats not an issue anyway.

I don't think anyone is trying to push the blame solely on a woman...but by the same token, it could be argued that if it's a woman's right to decide after conception, then it's a woman's fault before conception.

(It wouldn't be an argument I'd use, but you can see the pattern in logic...)



[edit on 16-9-2005 by Tinkleflower]

Originally posted by Tinkleflower

Originally posted by riley
Considering there are no statistics based on medical records there would be no statistic that would be accurate.

We do have statistics - many based on medical questionnaires. See linky I posted earlier

It doesn't cover medical reasons however.

With all due respect, I think that's a reach. By medical terminology alone, this would never be classed as a termination or abortion. Those two words only ever apply after conception has occurred. More to the point, I don't know anyone who would class that as abortion. (Though I obviously don't know everyone, so this doesn't preclude the possibility)

Check out the prolife sites.. [abortionfacts.com?- I'm about to log off so haven't got time to google] they consider it abortion. I know it's not but that is my point.. the abortion issue has been extended to contraception which is further infringing on women's privacy.

There have been one or two cases where a judge has ordered a drug-addicted woman to either never become pregnant, or make a promise to have a termination should a pregnancy occur....I'm going to try and track the cases, k?

Sounds intiguing. Thanks. I'm not sure about this one though as if a woman has habbitually given birth to coke babies or fetal alcahol syndrome perhaps she could get councelling and rehab? Where would these controls end?

I don't think anyone is trying to push the blame solely on a woman...

I rarely see the male mentioned.

but by the same token, it could be argued that if it's a woman's right to decide after conception, then it's a woman's fault before conception.

(It wouldn't be an argument I'd use, but you can see the pattern in logic...)

Not all women choose conception either [whole seperate issue].. repoduction is complicated. It just annoys me that women are continually morally condemned for something they require a male to do.. seems men are excempt by prolifers for accountabilty. I'm not for them being condemned either.. I just think that if there were as much stigma and demands attached to male sexuality; there might be alot less unwanted pregnancies. I'm sure they'd get alot further by handing out condoms rather than pamphlets decorated with bloody fetuses.

Originally posted by riley
It doesn't cover medical reasons however.

I did find numbers for 1976-1983, riley.

Abortion statistics 1983.

[No authors listed]

PIP: A table presents the number of abortions and rates/1000 women aged 15-44 by age and marital status of women and grounds for abortion for the years 1976-83. The total number of abortions performed was 7219 in 1976, 7334 in 1977, 7453 in 1978, 7754 in 1979, 7905 in 1980, 9007 in 1981, 8425 in 1982, and 8419 in 1983. The abortion rate was 6.9 in 1976, 7.0 in 1976, 7.0 in 1978. 7.3 in 1979, 7.3 in 1980, 8.3 in 1981, 7.6 in 1982, and 7.6 in 1983. In 1976, 43 abortions were performed on the grounds of risk to life of woman, 6866 on the grounds of risk to physical or mental health of woman, 1184 on grounds of risk to physical or mental health of existing children, and 176 on grounds of risk of abnormality to fetus. In 1977, 33 abortions were performed on the grounds of risk to life of woman, 7054 on the grounds of risk to physical or mental health of woman, 999 on grounds of risk to physical or mental health of existing children, and 161 on grounds of risk of abnormality to fetus. In 1978, 27 abortions were performed on the grounds of risk to life of woman, 7089 on grounds or risk to physical or mental health of woman, 973 on grounds of risk to physical or mental health of existing children, and 224 on grounds of risk of abnormality to fetus. In 1979, 28 abortions were performed on grounds of risk to life of woman, 7362 on grounds of risk to physical or mental health of women, 948 on grounds of risk to physical or mental health of existing children, and 329 on grounds of risk of abnormality to fetus. These figures were, respectively, 28, 7593, 826, and 241 for 1980; 23, 8683, 780, and 232 for 1981; 27, 8141, 607, and 210 for 1982; and 16, 8140, 608, and 209 for 1983.

National Library of Medicine

Some comparative total abortion numbers, for the clarification purposes on the numbers cited in the above link, for 1977-78:
National Library of Medicine


This medical site mentions these numbers and years, also for comparative purposes:

....about 1.29 million abortions were performed in 2002 and 1.3 million were performed in 2001. An AGI census of U.S. abortion providers found that about 1.31 million abortions were performed in 2000, 1.61 million were performed in 1990 and 1.18 million were performed in 1976...

Medical News Today








seekerof

[edit on 16-9-2005 by Seekerof]

Thankyou.. I'm still confused however how they managed to get stats on records that aren't supposed to be public.
Now perhaps you could explain to me how a woman's medical business should be anyone else's apart from her own?