I Finally Understand Why Abortion Can't Be Discussed Logically.

reply to post by sad_eyed_lady


What are you saying, that doctors don't have the practice of attempting to kill the fetus before ripping it's limbs off?

spirited75

tetra50

Yeah, beezzer, I hate killing too. This is getting real ugly real fast. You think I like it. Let me ask you: ever tried to feed a life you have no money to feed, provide shelter with no money or help or skills to provide that?

Geez.....being simplistic, or what? You aren't the only one that earned or wore a uniform. And I don't need anyone to make me think about this, thank you very much.....

what total crap and total arrogance displayed here. Well, I'll say this much. Maybe you'll get an award for running me off this website. High five your homies over it. as its useless tripe any longer now

" what total crap and total arrogance displayed here."

the finger you are pointing and judging leaves three pointing
back at you. look at your own crap and arrogance.

I'm not pointing a finger, but responding to one being pointed. This is the problem, everywhere, now....
it's just a spinning cycle, these days, of retribution....and the retribution is totally staged. To keep that spinning going. You have done nothing but illustrate that, here. Thanks for the brand of "total crap and arrogance." So, we gonna keep pointing fingers at each other? To what purpose, I wonder? You think I don't live with my own "crap and arrogance?" HA. Who's judging whom? As to Beezer, and my comments, what, exactly does wearing a uniform or having served have to deal with this topic????????

Have you lived my life? Are you in my body? Do you have the right to judge me, really????

windword
reply to post by sad_eyed_lady

 

What are you saying, that doctors don't have the practice of attempting to kill the fetus before ripping it's limbs off?

edit on 24-9-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)

Yes! I have been spending the time since my last post trying to find any clinics that say they do this. So far I have found one in Florida that does what wikipedia says and I am done looking. I used this quote from wikipedia:
"Fetus termination is performed prior to the surgical procedure via an injection to stop the heartbeat." in the search engine.

If this were standard operating room procedure why would all these states be debating this after week 20 abortion ban because of fetal pain?

If you were to remove the equivalent in state populations that we have removed via abortion since Roe V. Wade, this map would look like this:



Any nation that kills off their young cannot survive as a nation.

What is the true cost of abortion?

windword
reply to post by sad_eyed_lady

 

There is a difference between Instillation and induction abortion. Instillation abortions, that you're referring to, are rarely done any more, less than 0.001%.

Authorities have suggested use of a combination of hyperosmolar urea and low-dose prostaglandin F2 alpha as a second-trimester intra-amniotic abortifacient to avoid the disadvantages of hypertonic saline solution. To examine the safety and efficacy of urea-prostaglandin compared with the instillation of saline solution, we analyzed data from a prospective multicenter study conducted in the United States between 1975 and 1978. Both agents were highly effective in producing an abortion. However, urea-prostaglandin had a significantly lower rate of serious complications when compared with saline solution (1.03 versus 2.18 per 100 abortions; p less than 0.001). Urea-prostaglandin also had a significantly shorter induction-to-abortion time (14.2 versus 25.6 hours; p less than 0.001). Urea-prostaglandin, therefore, appears to be superior to hypertonic saline solution as an abortifacient.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

edit on 24-9-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)

Thank you for the information. I deduced that from Dr. Levatino's testimony. Someone around here claimed saline this was the more humane method. That is why I brought it up. Honestly, never heard of the hyperosmolar urea and low-dose prostaglandin F2 alpha as a second-trimester intra-amniotic abortifacient. Thanks for giving me more homework!

reply to post by charles1952


Great question.

I was trying to think of an answer to this dilemma and I can come up with this perspective on killing in general. If you kill yourself it is suicide. If somebody else kills you it is murder. There is no way to punish a person who has committed suicide because that person is gone. Society simply weeps and wonders why. If some other person kills you they can be punished because they obviously are still around to be punished. Society still weeps and wonders why, but society also feels righteous while scapegoating the killer. Either way, you are dead, and more importantly society continues along a path of trouble and sorrows.

Now, consider what happens when a person does harm to their self. If you attempt and fail at suicide then you are deemed unsafe or mentally unstable. Society will try to fix you and your mental issues. If you use illegal drugs or drink heavily society considers you out of control and tries to fix you and your mental issues. If you cut yourself or burn yourself you will be considered unsafe and mentally disturbed and society will try to fix you and your mental issues. Why does society care? I think society feels guilty about such things. I think down deep inside society is conscious of the evil and harm it is creating as a whole entity. Society feels like it needs to step in and do something if for no other reason than to feel better than you and more in control than you.

So how does this relate to abortion? You have to know some particular thing first. You have to understand that for the history of human consciousness the female has been known to birth new humans. It is understood that the female originally split herself in what is known as immaculate conception. So when the female aborts her baby she is aborting a part of herself. She is destroying a part of herself. She also does this when she rids herself of unused eggs. Nobody outlaws menstruation. We all simply understand that the time was not quite right for baby making. The same happens with abortion. We all simply understand that the time was not quite right for baby making.

Another thing to consider is the way we send our children to fight in wars. You can have sex. You can have abortion. You can have war. You can die many ways. You absolutely are going to die. The really difficult part is the timing of it all. Time is very slippery.

And also, for the record, I think abortion doctors should never be punished for seeing the job through to completion. If a doctor removes a baby and deems it necessary to do some sort of procedure to complete the abortion, then that doctor should be able to destroy the baby by any means necessary. Let's not be ridiculous. The mother came in for an abortion and left without a baby. The end. When you see abortion doctors getting punished for killing babies then you are seeing a terrible injustice. Once the mother determines to have an abortion she is giving herself and her baby over to the doctor. She certainly does not imagine that she will leave with a newborn child. She knows she is going home and leaving part of herself in the bio waste bin.

reply to post by sad_eyed_lady


Regarding the doctor in the video testifying to crushing the skull,

Dilation and Extraction: a surgical abortion procedure used to terminate a pregnancy after 21 weeks of gestation. This procedure is also known as D & X, Intact D & X, Intrauterine Cranial Decompression and Partial Birth Abortion. *This procedure is now considered against the law in the U.S. according to the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1995*

americanpregnancy.org...

Also this:

What also has escaped notice is the distinction between how the fetus is killed and how it is extracted. In most post-20-week abortions performed by clinics U.S. News interviewed, physicians first kill the fetus by cutting the umbilical cord or injecting digoxin (a heart medication) or other lethal agents to stop the fetal heartbeat. Then the fetus is removed, either intact (using a D&X procedure) or in pieces (using D&E). But one of the three clinics that use the D&X approach and four that perform the D&E dismemberment procedure do not kill the fetus first. The legislation banning "partial-birth" abortions would prohibit the live-fetus operations done by D&X but not those done by D&E. Physicians who do not kill the fetus first argue that their method is safer for the mother.

www.usnews.com...

So some do stop the fetal heart, and others don't. But in ALL abortions after 20 weeks, here in the US, doctors must wait for the fetal heartbeat to stop before removing the fetus.

If this were standard operating room procedure why would all these states be debating this after week 20 abortion ban because of fetal pain?

Because the neural structures necessary to feel pain have not yet developed, any observable responses to stimuli at this gestational stage — like the fetal "flinching" during an amniocentesis — are reflexive, not experiential. Which is to say, the fetus at 20 weeks can't actually feel anything at all. Which is to say, the fundamental justification for these laws is a really big, really popular lie.

Fetal Pain Is A Lie: How Phony Science Took Over The Abortion Debate

Abortion shouldn't be banned at 20 weeks, because only after 20 are doctors able to determine birth defects.
community.babycenter.com...

reply to post by charles1952

It's a conundrum that's why...

To secure the rights of the unborn you have to ride rough shod over the rights of the women.

reply to post by windword

Dear windword,

Thank you for responding to my question, but I'm not sure that you answered it. Even your wikipedia quote says:

The tissues of the dead fetus will soften, making dismemberment easier.

The pro-life community is fond of evoking emotional responses and trying to shock and revolt it's targeted audience.

But so is the pro-choice movement. How many tens of thousands of women were dying in back alley, coat hanger abortions before Roe was decided? Not any. How many thousands? Well, if you add up enough years, going back far enough, you might get thousands.

If you look at data from the U.S. Bureau of Vital Statistics and the CDC, you'll see that the last time 1,000 women died from illegal abortions in a year was over 60 years ago, before penicillin was widely available.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Vital Statistics, due to the advances made in medical technology, about 39 women died from illegal abortions in 1972, the year before abortion was legalized. During that time of medical progress, abortion had been legal in Europe and their death rates for legal abortions paralleled the death rates of illegal abortions in America.

Furthermore, women were generally not getting "back-alley" abortions. Over a decade before the legalization of abortion, the president of Planned Parenthood, Mary Calderone, declared that "90% of all illegal abortions are presently done by physicians."

www.chastity.com...

But "coat hangers" show up in every abortion discussion I've seen. As you say:

They aren't past exaggeration and even lying,

Besides, consider baby seals, and polar bears, and any feed the hungry appeal. Those are all emotional appeals, do we object to that?

Actually, I WAS WRONG. YOU DID ANSWER MY QUESTION.

The pro-life community is fond of evoking emotional responses and trying to shock and revolt it's targeted audience.

The reason the pro-choice movement doesn't want to discuss dismemberment, Gosnell, or anything else that may be seen as "Yuccky," is because it's bad publicity. I understand that, but I don't like it. It puts us back to the comforting lie over the horrendous truth.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


Charles,

I never said that the pro-life community is the only community that uses those tactics! And, no, I don't like any of it, and try to stay away from those tactics, personally.

As for Gosnell. What he did was illegal, so why discuss it? However, as another poster just wrote, no one goes in for an abortion thinking that they're coming out with a newborn. Most late term abortions are done because the fetus is pretty bad off. If they survive, I agree, the doctor should have the right to finish the job.

As for dismemberment, if the doctor wasn't trying to make us believe that this is a normal method of performing an abortion on a 24 week fetus, and that the fetus feels excruciating pain, I wouldn't have called it out. The possibility of live fetal dismemberment is an ugly thing to think about, yes, but, as science has shown us, a fetus of 20 weeks, and younger, has no capacity for pain, as we know it.

charles1952
reply to post by windword

 

Dear windword,

Thank you for responding to my question, but I'm not sure that you answered it. Even your wikipedia quote says:

The tissues of the dead fetus will soften, making dismemberment easier.

The pro-life community is fond of evoking emotional responses and trying to shock and revolt it's targeted audience.

But so is the pro-choice movement. How many tens of thousands of women were dying in back alley, coat hanger abortions before Roe was decided? Not any. How many thousands? Well, if you add up enough years, going back far enough, you might get thousands.

If you look at data from the U.S. Bureau of Vital Statistics and the CDC, you'll see that the last time 1,000 women died from illegal abortions in a year was over 60 years ago, before penicillin was widely available.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Vital Statistics, due to the advances made in medical technology, about 39 women died from illegal abortions in 1972, the year before abortion was legalized. During that time of medical progress, abortion had been legal in Europe and their death rates for legal abortions paralleled the death rates of illegal abortions in America.

Furthermore, women were generally not getting "back-alley" abortions. Over a decade before the legalization of abortion, the president of Planned Parenthood, Mary Calderone, declared that "90% of all illegal abortions are presently done by physicians."

www.chastity.com...

But "coat hangers" show up in every abortion discussion I've seen. As you say:

They aren't past exaggeration and even lying,

Besides, consider baby seals, and polar bears, and any feed the hungry appeal. Those are all emotional appeals, do we object to that?

Actually, I WAS WRONG. YOU DID ANSWER MY QUESTION.

The pro-life community is fond of evoking emotional responses and trying to shock and revolt it's targeted audience.

The reason the pro-choice movement doesn't want to discuss dismemberment, Gosnell, or anything else that may be seen as "Yuccky," is because it's bad publicity. I understand that, but I don't like it. It puts us back to the comforting lie over the horrendous truth.

With respect,
Charles1952

With respect, Charles1952:

I am trying to discern why you started this thread, for it is obviously a hornet's nest..... Whether you are obviating the pro-life stance and the other, it is obvious, for many years now, how divisive and subjective this experience is. It is merely, IMHO, a way to judge women, and people, via their opinion and actions, as per the subject matter.

But the subject matter is necessarily divisive and explosive. We cannot hope, really, to discuss it if we don't agree upon certain criteria: where we are, for instance. If we are in hell, would you want to birth children here. It would take someone as crazy as me, and as unafraid of that label, I think, to say that to you, and address it herein.

For this is what we face. One need only to read a half the headlines, just here, on ATS, to assert that, so please don't let's argue that point, on the face of it.

I'm not defending nor scouraging abortion, per se.....

I am asking what the point of this discussion is: although, perhaps it is about someone like me showing up, and braving the "crazy" label to say what I am saying.

Don't mistkae me, Charles1952: I am a woman, and I love what I have borne.....but there is much inbetween this and that. I have seen many opinions on this thread that do not relate: opinions given with reference to serving in the military, etc, which is the point at which I entered this thread...for this, obviously, has no relationship, and if it does, it's necessarily "skewed," then. But skewing, as to this topic, is prolific, and obvious...
Tetra50

reply to post by XXX777

Dear XXX777,

I really appreciate your effort in putting together a thoughtful post. If you don't mind, I'd like to explore one or two of your ideas.

Why does society care? I think society feels guilty about such things. I think down deep inside society is conscious of the evil and harm it is creating as a whole entity. Society feels like it needs to step in and do something if for no other reason than to feel better than you and more in control than you.

May I offer an alternative explanation? Society hasn't seen itself in the way you describe until relatively recently. I suspect that society, as with almost all of its members, sees life as important and to be protected. The idea of wishing death for oneself has been historically so far out of mainstream thought that mental illness is suspected.

Sometimes, also, a suicide is not committed without hurting others. Car accidents, jumping from a building, dying in a fire, all have the potential to harm others. A society that values life wants to protect it. Not caring about suicide, attempted suicide, murders, is the mark of a society that has lost its way.

You have to understand that for the history of human consciousness the female has been known to birth new humans. It is understood that the female originally split herself in what is known as immaculate conception.

I'm afraid I don't understand this at all. There has only been one Immaculate Conception, and that was when Mary was conceived sinless.

So when the female aborts her baby she is aborting a part of herself. She is destroying a part of herself.

Besides the scientific fact that the baby isn't the mother's body, if it was, she would be damaging herself; the sort of thing that gets people locked up for self-harm.

She also does this when she rids herself of unused eggs. Nobody outlaws menstruation. We all simply understand that the time was not quite right for baby making. The same happens with abortion.

Unfertilized eggs are not going to become babies. Menstruation and abortion are not comparable.

Another thing to consider is the way we send our children to fight in wars. You can have sex. You can have abortion. You can have war. You can die many ways. You absolutely are going to die. The really difficult part is the timing of it all. Time is very slippery.

I think abortion doctors should never be punished for seeing the job through to completion. If a doctor removes a baby and deems it necessary to do some sort of procedure to complete the abortion, then that doctor should be able to destroy the baby by any means necessary. Let's not be ridiculous. The mother came in for an abortion and left without a baby. The end.

That position is so extreme that I wonder if it is worth discussing. Is the live baby, breathing on its own, outside the mother, subject to a time limit? Does the doctor have half an hour to kill it? Twenty-four hours? You do know, I hope, that some are saying that since a baby doesn't have a personality, "post-birth abortions" up to the age of two should be considered acceptable.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by tetra50

Dear tetra50,

You've asked a fair question and deserve an honest answer.

I started this thread because I wanted to see if the issue could be discussed with less rancor and condemnation than is normally the case. I was wondering if a logical argument could be made for the argument that abortion should be an acceptable option.

For instance if we were to say, that no human who is in condition "X" has the right to live in our society, and the unborn are in condition "X," therefore they don't have the right to live, that would be a logical argument that would be very persuasive. (There would remain the question about whether society's rule about condition "X" was just, but that's a different question.)

Or, if we were to say, that there is a value that is greater than the right to life, and the only way to secure that value is to kill the kid, we've got another good argument.

Yes, it is divisive. I'm not sure that's sufficient reason to avoid discussing it. How else do we come to truth, assuming the participants are looking for truth?

I deny, as strongly as I can, that I am judging women. In my opinion they are committing an act which is a deadly, serious mistake, but I don't know what is in their hearts, and I make enough mistakes of my own to go around judging people.

If we are in hell, would you want to birth children here. It would take someone as crazy as me, and as unafraid of that label, I think, to say that to you, and address it herein.

Whether I would want to birth children or not is less important than the fact that people do birth children in Hell, or as close as we can come to it. North Korea, Somalia, the poorer provinces of China, children continue to be born.

There is something in our hearts that desires love, birth, hope for the future, no matter what our circumstances.

Thank you for asking.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


The baby absolutely is a part of the mother. It is not a tapeworm. It is more like a toe nail. She can trim her toe nails. Girls get sunburned and parts of their skin die and fall off. They cut their hair. They get rid of all sorts of things they no longer need.

In fact, I actually believe in post-birth abortion. I believe a mother should be able to destroy her child at any time. Who are you to deny the creator? God told Abraham to kill his son. God killed his own Son! People send their kids to die in wars. People MUST destroy. Otherwise we would be destroyed.

reply to post by charles1952


Dear Charles1952:

Whether I would want to birth children or not is less important than the fact that people do birth children in Hell, or as close as we can come to it. North Korea, Somalia, the poorer provinces of China, children continue to be born.

There is something in our hearts that desires love, birth, hope for the future, no matter what our circumstances.

Your last statement has me in tears. Thanik you for your reply. However, my contention is that it IS NOT LESS IMPORTANT than the fact that people do birth children in hell....

For you see, as women, we cannot have sexual realtions without this being a probable consequence of the act of "love." No matter what we do, for there is no fool proof method of birth control, while we are inundated as women and the populus at large, with sexual relations, romantic love and this being a measure of our "normalcy." So, this being the case, there is no other way to live, nor be......
This is why I call your OP divisive.....
Respectfully,
Tetra50

reply to post by XXX777

The baby absolutely is a part of the mother. It is not a tapeworm. It is more like a toe nail. She can trim her toe nails. Girls get sunburned and parts of their skin die and fall off. They cut their hair. They get rid of all sorts of things they no longer need.

In fact, I actually believe in post-birth abortion. I believe a mother should be able to destroy her child at any time. Who are you to deny the creator? God told Abraham to kill his son. God killed his own Son! People send their kids to die in wars. People MUST destroy. Otherwise we would be destroyed.

Now I know you are not serious. I meant this to be a worthwhile thread. If you'd care to make a contribution, then try again, please. If you would rather persist in this behavior, do not expect a serious response.

reply to post by tetra50

Dear tetra50,

And your reply has saddened me. I had forgotten an important part of this discussion, and you have brought it forward.

For you see, as women, we cannot have sexual realtions without this being a probable consequence of the act of "love." No matter what we do, for there is no fool proof method of birth control, while we are inundated as women and the populus at large, with sexual relations, romantic love and this being a measure of our "normalcy." So, this being the case, there is no other way to live, nor be......

Women are so precious, so valuable. The feminine is the soul to the muscles of the masculine. They are art, beauty, poetry, love, music, and so much more.

I can't find it in my heart to accept what the culture is doing to women. Burying women under images of Victoria's Secret, dozens of magazines with a headline each month on "How to Please Your Man in Bed," the music which tells women that their highest aspiration is to be a "ho." None of that is "normal."

It reminds me a little of children who play realistic shooting games twelve hours a day, then we're surprised when they're not polite and respectful.

Women are made for true Love. When they're constantly being told that true Love is abnormal and sick, how in the world do they stay true? I've heard it said that women want love and men want sex. In the past, men weren't allowed to have their sex and run. Their reputations would be ruined, they might be beat up or killed. Now, it's "If you don't go to bed on the first date, there's something wrong with you."

That is an ugly sickness.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


I am serious. I seriously believe a woman should be able to destroy her baby, born or unborn. It is hers to do with as she pleases. She can leave it in the street. She can send it to war. She can do as she pleases.

reply to post by XXX777


You are sick! and mothers do not send people to war.

reply to post by XXX777

People aren't property. Where they are, they are the property of the State, not the mother.