Abortion

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Balbus, Oct 13, 2011.

  1. Thedawg

    Thedawg Member

    Can you imagine a nutjob like this as president? Insane...this country scares me because of this field of goofy people all being takes seriously, at least by some. I am embarrassed to be American sometimes...
     
  2. O.W.L

    O.W.L Member

    I love you ;)
     
  3. Thedawg

    Thedawg Member

    As I love you.
     
  4. scratcho

    scratcho Lifetime Supporter Lifetime Supporter

    What I see as a point to be made about the process of getting pregnant, is that at no point in the process is there "material" -egg-sperm-giver-receiver-that could be considered inert or non living material. If during the process the zygote, fetus or baby expires,then the process has obviously ceased to progress and could then be called inert or non-living. So to abort,in effect,rids one either of living or non living material. Probably mostly living material as commonly practiced. Since I'm not in the game,as it were,it becomes none of my business what people do with their bodies,however late term seems a tad overboard to me ,unless something very bad has been discovered and would preclude any semblance of normality if brought to term. Zygotes and fetuses are not babies--but neither are they non-living material.
     
  5. RooRshack

    RooRshack On Sabbatical

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrDzWmIcJuI&feature=fvst"]David Bowie-Trent Reznor-I'm afraid of Americans - YouTube
     
  6. Karen_J

    Karen_J Visitor

    A proposed Virginia law may meet the federal legal definition of rape, as it requires women seeking abortions to have (and pay for) ultrasound scans, which are done during the first three months of pregnancy using a probe that is inserted vaginally. The admitted purpose of the scan is to discourage the woman from proceeding with the abortion.

    The standard legal definition of rape is any unwanted penetration, regardless of the object used, or the motivation of the other person.

    Seven other states already have a similar ultrasound requirement. I can't find any detailed online information on how their requirements differ, or why the public reaction to this particular law has been more intense. It may have to do with Virginia's former reputation as one of the most progressive Southern states, which is apparently no longer the case.

    Together, these new state laws constitute the first time that any state legislature in America (all of which are more than 50% male) has ordered the insertion of any object into a woman's vagina, against her will, since the old involuntary sterilization laws were struck down (decades ago). Could the Republican conservatives possibly show any less respect for women than this?
     
  7. zombiewolf

    zombiewolf Senior Member

    Really? I was under the impression that ultrasound was performed as follows;

    "A clear water-based gel is applied to the area of the body being studied to help the transducer make secure contact with the body and eliminate air pockets between the transducer and the skin that can block the sound waves from passing into your body. The sonographer (ultrasound technologist) or radiologist then presses the transducer firmly against the skin in various locations, sweeping over the area of interest or angling the sound beam from a farther location to better see an area of concern."
    http://www.radiologyinfo.org/en/info.cfm?pg=genus

    If what you're saying is true, then I agree... forced rape as the law is written. WTF :confused:

    ZW
     
  8. This is one reason(among a whole basket case of them) that the law is so controversial. It requires a trans-vaginal ultrasound. It doesn't matter what the doctor thinks, or if the doctor can perform an ultrasound the more traditional way with the same results. The bill requires said woman to go into the stirups and have a wand inserted into her for no medical reason to obtain a legal procedure.

    On the subject of being raped by ultrasound wands, this bill also applies to women seeking abortions due to rape.

    *edit*
    They've backed down apparently
     
  9. Karen_J

    Karen_J Visitor

    What you posted is standard procedure for a second or third trimester ultrasound. In this case, they specifically want to pick up the heartbeat, which is too faint to be heard through the uterine wall during the first trimester. Something like 80% of all abortions are performed in the first trimester.

    Good point. The law, as written, would require doctors to violate their code of medical ethics by doing something that serves no medical purpose.

    If we do somehow manage to win this round, I guarantee we haven't heard the last of this. It has never been easier to see the win at any cost mentality of the other side, and they won't decide this week to give up their fight to extend the reach of the law into a woman's body, making a sick joke of personal freedom.
     
  10. So, what the Virginia assembly did here was decide to say "Well, after massive uproar, we've deiced that women trying to seek a legal medical procedure will not be subject to what federal law literally defines as rape"
     
  11. zombiewolf

    zombiewolf Senior Member

    It really does seem these evangelicals would like nothing better than
    Fascist Theocracy, not so very much different than Sharia...
    ...Zappa warned

    ZW
     
  12. Karen_J

    Karen_J Visitor

    When you fight with any group, such as Islamic fundamentalists, take care that they don't drag you down to their level. :( We're getting close.

    That situation has gotten so much worse in my lifetime. For a few years when I was young, I went to an ultra-conservative Southern church; I mean, like, racist conservative. I was taught there that I would someday stand before God on Judgment Day and be held to account for my sins, but never for the sins of others that I failed to prevent through political intervention. That idea never seemed to cross anybody's mind. That "moderate" viewpoint has been left in the dust.

    Various people have different definitions of the term "invasive government", but I'm confident that most draw the line short of the government having the right to insert a piece of equipment into your body, for the sole purpose of changing your mind about a decision you have already made. :mad:
     
  13. Lynnbrown

    Lynnbrown Firecracker

    I think what makes me grind my teeth most of all the politicals, their rhertoric, and damned official laws...

    There will ALWAYS be abortions...only they'll be done in unsterile, basically unsafe conditions - especially according to each case. That is just the way it is.

    Prohibition did not stop drinking (just ask the Kennedys - lol j.k), and all these political debates and any legal changes will not stop abortion. That is just the way it is. A woman (in in some cases a girl) should have the right in that first trimester to do as she wants. fucking period.

    ALL MEN SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED A SAY IN THIS.

    Thank y'all very much for this chance to vent. :D
     
  14. Meliai

    Meliai Banned

    I think abortions should be legal.

    With that said, I don't personally agree with them.. I couldn't get one. I'm 8 weeks pregnant right now and I just have the hardest time comprehending how a woman can dehumanize that life that is growing inside her body. And it IS life. It meets every definition of life: it grows, responds to stimuli, maintains homeostasis...how is that NOT life?

    I understand that many women do not dehumanize this life. Most women who have abortions suffer mental repercussions. I feel compassion for these women, and I don't fault or judge them for their choice.

    What I DO have trouble understanding is people who, when speaking of abortion theoretically, talk of the fetus like its nothing but a tiny bundle of cells and talk of abortion like its a simple procedure...as simple, as say, a pap smear, removing a few pesky cells from the body.

    Most women don't find out they're pregnant until they're 6 or so weeks into pregnancy. By that point, the baby has a heartbeat. Its forming ears, a nose, eyes, cheeks, chin, kidneys, lungs, a liver. Its producing hundreds of brain cells a day. By the time they make a decision to have an abortion, which could be weeks or months later, the baby is much more developed than this.

    The abortion debate should at least be honest. Its a major procedure. It could potentially cause pain to the baby because the nervous system is already starting to develop or is pretty well developed, depending on what point you have the abortion. It definitely causes mental anguish in the woman. It should not be taken lightly and should not be treated as a simple routine surgery.

    Just my two cents.
     
  15. It has never been born and has not developed enough to ever be born or survive outside the womb. It may be a living organism, but it's not an animal life of any regard. At this point it is potential life at best.

    *edit*
    Case in point. Say a woman was pregnant, and she miscarried at say 6 months or so, a point where it's still unlikely, but the fetus does have a small chance of survival outside the womb. But it doesn't survive outside the womb, never even takes a breath. Do we ever consider it to have been alive? Now apply to that to ones that have absolutely no chance of surviving outside of utero. As it stands that's how most abortion laws are currently restricted, under 22 weeks the fetus has 0% of surviving based on everything we know from hundreds of years of medicine
    http://www.spensershope.org/chances_for_survival.htm
     
  16. Lynnbrown

    Lynnbrown Firecracker

    Congratulations, Mel! That is great...and I know you'll make a great mom.

    But about this topic, I don't agree with late-term abortions whatsoever. Only BEFORE the baby is considered "viable" is how the medical community considers it, should a woman should be able to basically do as she pleases. Beyond that, a child could live, and go to other parents (be adopted) if the birth mother either couldn't care for the baby or wouldn't be able to raise it for many various/assorted reasons.

    Abortions needed because of rape or incest should not EVER be even debated, IMO...not among anybody but the woman involved and a counselor. Never should the government be allowed it's fingers into this.
     
  17. tuesdaystar

    tuesdaystar Interneter

    I'm pro-choice for the basic reasons. The first one, the one that I realized at a young age that's had me convinced ever since is that girls are GOING to terminate pregnancies and they need doctors. I also agree with the feminist perspective for the most part

    I would not want to live in the place where abortions are ILLEGAL. So many children born unwanted, resented, in poverty, in unsafe situations. So many women in fear of pregnancy because they have no safe way out of it

    I don't really support the argument that the fetus is not a person because we were all a cluster of cells at one point so I certainly question the morality of having an abortion (because you are killing your unborn child)

    I couldn't do it. I went the adoption road.

    Still the world is a better place because of women's right to CHOOSE
     
  18. Meliai

    Meliai Banned

    A tree has no viable chance of life if you unroot it from the earth. A fetus is rooted to its mother much in the same way. A tree is still alive as long as its roots are connected.

    thank you :)

    I agree and like I said, I absolutely think first trimester abortions should be legal. I just don't really buy into the whole "its just some cells, the fetus doesn't feel pain because its not alive" thing.

    I don't think the government should be involved in this issue at all, but I also think abortion's legal status does not negate its moral and emotional implications.
     
  19. You can't compare a tree, or any plant life for that matter, to a human, or any animal life, like at all, they're completely different forms of life.

    On that note though late term abortions when gestial age is past 23 weeks or so should be illegal unless the mother's life is in danger because at that point the fetus has developed sufficiently enough to have at least a small chance of actually being alive.
     
  20. noela

    noela Members

    I really dislike how people preach other's personal choices. If I were to have an abortion, would it affect you personally, in any way? Would the fact that me having a month old fetus being removed scar you?

    Freedom means choice in life. If one claims they live in a country of the "free", don't you think they should have freedom to choose? I do. I really do. Everyone is different, and the problem with American society is everything is so damn radical. Why can't there be a middle ground?

    For example, instead of abolishing abortion completely, why not work with scientists to pick a specific amount of days in which you are allowed to have an abortion. Say 1 month. After one month of finding out you are with child, you can have the choice to keep or it or not. After the month is done, you can't go back.

    There is such a thing as options. A middle ground. It's always one way or the highway, which is the very reason why nothing in American government can be agreed on.
     

Share This Page


  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice