Abortion, and the population explosion, what your veiw.

by frankiespeakin 134 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Rabbit
    Rabbit

    This was an article I saw today (below)...for everyone to really think hard about.

    I would support abortion only to save a girls or woman's life.

    As far as the term "Pro-Choice," I believe that should start before conception and never to be used as a 'convienence' , so "some poor girl will not be saddled with an unwanted child" the father should be saddled as well. People should be responsible...follow thru with the pregnancy, then give up the child for adoption. Trouble...inconvienence...yeah, well..."look before you leap." There are many Americans, for example, that have taken to adopting children from overseas, etc. These people that really WANT to be parents, will be glad to 'take' un-wanted children off their hands.

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Judge Asks Doctor if Fetus Can Feel Pain
    Dr. LeRoy Carhart, the only doctor in Nebraska known to perform abortions after the 16th week of pregnancy, speaks to reporters in his Bellevue, Neb., office, Wednesday, Nov. 5, 2003. At the request of Dr. Carhart and three other Nebraska doctors, U.S. District Judge Richard Kopf of Lincoln, Neb., issued a temporary restraining order on a federal ban on certain late-term abortions that President Bush signed into law Wednesday March 24, 2004. Carhart called judge Kopf's temporary injunctionagainst the ban on certain types of abortions a victory for American women. (AP Photo/Nati Harnik)
    April 1, 2004 02:37 AM EST

    NEW YORK - A doctor who performs abortions found himself quizzed by a federal judge about whether a fetus feels pain during a controversial abortion procedure and if the physician worries about that possibility.

    The inquiry, at times graphic, came in U.S. District Court on Wednesday after lawyers on both sides had finished questioning Dr. Timothy Johnson, a plaintiff in one of three lawsuits brought to try to stop enforcement of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.

    "Does the fetus feel pain?" Judge Richard C. Casey asked Johnson, saying he had been told that studies of a type of abortion usually performed in the second trimester had concluded they do.

    Johnson said he did not know, adding he knew of no scientific research on the subject.

    The judge then pressed Johnson on whether he ever thought about fetal pain while he performs the abortion procedure that involves dismemberment. Another doctor a day earlier had testified that a fetus sometimes does not immediately die after limbs are pulled off.

    "I guess whenever I..." Johnson began before the judge interrupted.

    "Simple question, doctor. Does it cross your mind?" Casey pressed.

    Johnson said it did not.

    "Never crossed your mind?" the judge asked again.

    "No," Johnson answered.

    Abortion-rights supporters are challenging the federal ban, the first substantial limitation on abortion since the Supreme Court's landmark Roe v. Wade decision.

    The law has not been enforced because judges in New York, Lincoln, Neb., and San Francisco agreed to hear evidence in three separate trials without juries before deciding whether it violates the Constitution.

    The simultaneous litigation centers on the ban of what lawmakers defined as "partial-birth" abortion and what doctors call "intact dilation and extraction" - or D&X.

    In the procedure, a fetus is partially delivered and its skull is punctured. An estimated 2,200 to 5,000 such abortions are performed annually in the United States, out of 1.3 million total abortions.

    Government lawyers say the law protects fetuses from pain during the abortion procedures that usually involve crushing the soft skull or draining brain tissue to shrink the fetus to a size in which it can be pulled from the body.

    Doctors say the procedures decrease the frequency of surgical instrument insertions into a woman, eliminate the dangers that parts of a broken fetus might be left behind and give couples an intact fetus to grieve over.

    In the Lincoln court, Dr. Joel Howell, a medical historian at the University of Michigan, testified that the federal ban targets procedures intertwined with the most common methods of terminating pregnancies.

    Lawyers from the Center for Reproductive Rights contend that the ban is vague and could be interpreted as covering more common, less controversial procedures, including "dilatation and evacuation." An estimated 140,000 such procedures take place every year in the United States.

    The San Francisco case was in recess Wednesday and resumes Thursday.

    In the Manhattan courtroom, Casey also questioned Johnson about whether physicians warn women that a fetus is dismembered during an abortion.

    "So you tell her the arms and legs are pulled off? I mean, that's what I want to know. Do you tell her?" Casey asked.

    "We tell her the baby, the fetus, is dismembered as part of the procedure, yes," answered Johnson, a University of Michigan professor and research scientist at the school's Center for Human Growth and Development.

    Casey asked Johnson if doctors tell a woman that the abortion procedure they might use includes "sucking the brain out of the skull."

    "I don't think we would use those terms," Johnson said. "I think we would probably use a term like 'decompression of the skull' or 'reducing the contents of the skull.'"

    The judge responded, "Make it nice and palatable so that they wouldn't understand what it's all about?"

    Johnson, though, said doctors merely want to be sensitive.

    "We try to do it in a way that's not offensive or gruesome or overly graphic for patients," Johnson said.

    ---

    On the Net:

    Planned Parenthood: http://www.plannedparenthood.org

    Justice Department: http://www.usdoj.gov

  • acsot
    acsot
    If you are a Christian who believes abortion is the murder of an innocent baby then let me ask you this: what happens to the aborted baby's soul? Does it go to heaven? Is it spared from the possibility of going to hell or some equivalent place/state of eternal disapproval or torture?

    I was a dub practically all of my life, but the Catholics I'd "preach" to believed unbaptized babies go to limbo or some place like that. Which doesn't really explain anything, I know .....

  • Rabbit
    Rabbit

    My first post 'lost' some of the 1st part of the text for some reason...here is a correction.

    Judge Asks Doctor if Fetus Can Feel Pain

    April 1, 2004 02:37 AM EST

    NEW YORK - A doctor who performs abortions found himself quizzed by a federal judge about whether a fetus feels pain during a controversial abortion procedure and............. if the physician worries about that possibility.

  • FlyingHighNow
    FlyingHighNow
    Flyin: I wish I could put tone of voice into my posts! I'm not offended, really. If you're ever in my neck of the woods I'll take you out for a drink, alcoholic or non-, your choice (choice - get it? hehe ... and I'm not being sarcastic, I'm sort of giggling right now). And some cheesecake that'll knock your socks off .

    Sounds wonderful. I'd love to. Flyin'

  • donkey
    donkey

    Yeru,

    I asked you some questions in this thread...do you want to answer them?

    Thanks

  • Abaddon
    Abaddon

    ThiChi

    I can understand why you would think Yeru argues well. Your comment;

    I believe that the majority of people, if they would have the choice of being aborted or being born, would pick being born. I know I would.

    ...shows you've no real understanding of the discussion. The entire point is that there is a time in pregnancy where there is not any real self-awareness to worry about. What an adult would retrospectively say having NOT been aborted is hardly pertinant; and I doubt if you'd give any retrospective wishes to someone in the electric chair, even if them being allowed another start in life would have meant they would not fry.

    Rabbit

    Thank you for the condescending tone which implied that those that disagreed with you did so because they hadn't thought about it properly. As those on the anti-choice side of the debate are the ones with the fallacious repetitious arguments and portentous or threatening speech, I can't see quite how you get to that assumption, but we will go to our rooms and think very hard....

    As far as the term "Pro-Choice," I believe that should start before conception and never to be used as a 'convienence' , so "some poor girl will not be saddled with an unwanted child" the father should be saddled as well. People should be responsible...follow thru with the pregnancy, then give up the child for adoption. Trouble...inconvienence...yeah, well..."look before you leap." There are many Americans, for example, that have taken to adopting children from overseas, etc. These people that really WANT to be parents, will be glad to 'take' un-wanted children off their hands.

    Could you refer me to the organsiations set up by anti-choicers who wish to encourage pregnant women to give up children for adoption rather than abort them, and tell me about how they support these women when they can no longer work? I assume there are care facilities for new-borns who haven't been placed with foster parents as well. And obviously, some of the children will be disabled in some way; many parents wouldn't adopt such a child, so tell me what facitlites for life-long care are in place for these children?

    As I've commented earlier, if anti-choicers are that concerned about the unborn, then I don't understand why they don't take comprehensive action to reduce abortions whilst the law allows them. Although it would cost them time and money, if they truely believe that human lives (of the same order as a babies) are being destroyed, it would seem they have a moral obligation to make the best of a bad situation whilst the law allows abortions.

    You ignore any argument about whether it is wrong to abort early term fetuses (which is what I've certainly been addressing) and makes do with the assumption that it is wrong.

    From this asumption you make all your other assumptions, and characterise one of the most serious choices many women take as an issue of convenience - like whether to shop at Dillons or Walmart, not as entering a twenty-year + long commitment. Having seen this process I can only laugh at the characterisation.

    You also ignore that in a soceity with decent sex education, abortion levels would be far lower as in such a situation most abortions would be to correct contraceptive errors and take place early, possibly even before implantation by means of the morning-after pill.

    Are you arguing the a blastocyst or a zygote is the same as a new born baby?

    You centre your argument on a case involving a late-term abortion procedure. The article conveniently fails to mention that many D&X's are not 'convenience' abortions, but are terminations of severely disabled fetuses or abortions to save the mother's life or health. Most 'convenience' abortions take place at early second term at the latest, and those that don't are normally delayed due to poor health education or poor health care. The article shows a judge who has apparently already made up his mind; you must be so proud of your legal system!

    Here are the facts. Many anti-chice campaigners don't quote facts like these, as it suits their argument to present abortion as usually involving the dismemberment of a late-term fetus - even if such 'partial-birth' procedures make up 1 in a thousand of abortions.

    http://www.healthatoz.com/healthatoz/Atoz/ency/abortion_therapeutic.html

    About 90% of women who have abortions do so before 13 weeks and experience few complications. Abortions performed between 13-24 weeks have a higher rate of complications. Abortions after 24 weeks are extremely rare and are usually limited to situations where the life of the mother is in danger.

  • FlyingHighNow
    FlyingHighNow

    Edited to move it down.

  • FlyingHighNow
    FlyingHighNow
    I personally don't think it's something that should be done unless the mother's life is in danger. I'd rather see adoption laws changed to make adoption a more attractive option for women of any age. I am pretty glad my mother chose to continue her pregnancy and allow me to be born. I always think about this when I think of the rightness and wrongness of abortion.
    I still think it would be a dangerous step backward to ban abortion. There is no easy solution to the situation. Until we figure out a way to make every pregnancy a wanted, healthy pregnancy we will have women seeking abortions.

    These are quotes from my first comment on this thread.

    Abaddon, I was reading an earlier comment you made about people not offering up solutions to the unwanted pregnancy problems. I want to say that I have to agree with you that people tend to cry out against abortion, but don't offer enough options & help to women and girls who are considering abortions.

    I believe that there should be more types of adoption available. I am in favor of open types of adoptions that offer protection to the adoptive parents, but allow the mother to see her child grow up. There are so many possibilities here. Even grandparents wouldn't necessarily be banned from seeing the child. There is a program in Kentucky that gives temporary custody of babies of inmates to this couple who run a sort of orphanage. The couple and volunteers take care of the babies and they take them to visit their mothers.The mothers are shown how to care for and nurture their babies. Only two of the mothers participating in the program have not asked for custody of their children upon release.

    There should be places underage mothers can go for real help and protection if they cannot turn to their own families. If they want to keep their babies, they should be expected and helped to get their diplomas, go on to trade school or college. They need good childcare, housing, food and emotional support to do this. Are babies precious to our society? Then our society should be willing to do these things.

    Society tends to turn their backs on women and teens who are pregnant and who need major help.

    I went to visit some Indian Mounds and heard a program on the society who once dwelled there. They were a close knit community. If a mother couldn't care for a child due to illness, depression or other reasons, the extended family and community stepped in to care for the babies and children. The whole village aided in rearing its children. Savages? They make our society look primitive.

    I can think of all kinds of solutions to help mothers and babies and children. The sad thing is that not enough other people think solutions should be a priority. I believe it's easier for society and its policticians if women just quietly seek abortions and don't need real help. Mothers are precious and babies are precious and the real help should be there. Real help as opposed to token help.

    Flyin'

  • funkyderek
    funkyderek

    Yeru,

    By "proabortion", I presume you mean pro-choice. No, I mean Pro Abortion...you're either for it or against it.

    Mostly I'm against it. Abortion is probably the wrong decision in the vast majority of pregnancies. But I recognise the right of a woman to make the choice. Therefore I am pro-choice, not pro-abortion. I'm sure you don't consider yourself "pro-war" but recognise the right of countries to defend themselves.

    I don't know of anybody who holds the opinion that a foetus is not human or not alive. Specifically, who has made those claims? John Kerry for one.

    Then he's wrong. Completely demonstrably absurdly wrong. That's what happens sometimes when politicians talk about science they don't understand (witness G.W. Bush on stem cells). I hadn't heard of Kerry making such a statement though. Do you have a source?

    ask the over 1000 involuntarily euthanized Danes in 1997...oh wait..you can't...they're dead.

    I must have missed that in the news. What exactly are you talking about and how does it relate to this debate?

    I have INDEED established the criteria...but it's not a criteria you accept...

    I don't accept your criteria because you haven't given a reason. You've continually proclaimed that being alive and having distinct DNA entitles an entity to the same rights we give sentient human persons. You have never given a valid reason for choosing these criteria. You have not explained how the rights of identical twins or clones are affected by the criterion of distinctness, or whether a sample of human cells grown in a petri dish have the same rights as a foetus, and whether this is dependent on the continued existence of the original host.

    I don't recall making this arguement on religious grounds at all...there are atheists who are pro-life.

    Then drop the ad hominems, the slippery slopes and the special pleading and present a rational argument.

  • Rabbit
    Rabbit

    Abaddon, Hey guy, it's obvious you have strong feelings about this issue, fine... But, I don't understand how or why you would feel free to un-load on me like you did, for comments I made in 'one' paragraph. I did not intend to address every single point of everything that's been said on abortion. I will not. You may have the time to sit in front of your computer to do that, I don't. You seem to enjoy arguing with just about anyone who disagrees with you...(btw, some of those you had with some of the nut cases here are pretty good) I like to discuss stuff, too, but I normally don't get so mad... Also, I did not have you in mind when I wrote my comments.I wanted to make a point that I had not not seen discussed...I do not have to stay within any 'bounderies' set by posters...the subject was abortion. To me any pain or discomfort by the baby, is an important point to think about. I did not say it in a 'condesending way' like you said, ( it's not what I was thinking anyway...!)
    I did not write the article, nor did I edit it. I don't have to agree or disagree on everything in it. No one does...

    I did not plan on spending this much time on this, but, below are a bunch of your comments to different posters. These are taken out of context, because of space. Your comments are there for verification. I copied these for one reason... there is a real pattern here of running a little 'rough-shod' over people who look at things differently. I also don't need a label like 'Anti-choicer', you don't know me well enough for that.
    shows you've no real understanding of the discussion...
    To: FlyingHighNow - And that's one of the most ludicrous statments made by anyone in this entire thread.
    Have you not paid the SLIGHTEST bit of attention to the fact I wholeheartedly believe...
    I find it insulting you take a cheap shot like that, which shows you've either not read the discussion...
    Yeru, I virtually never think this of anyone as I firmly believe that education is the key, and intelligence is over-rated... but do you even understand this discussion?

    (Yeru said:) It's not ad hominum...the pro-abortion crowd are morally defunct...
    That by definiton is an ad hominum.
    Well, it takes a while for you to be really honest about what you think ...
    So you say. But as you demonstrate you don't understand the argument, what you think is a valid argument doesn't amount to dick.
    Try reading what yopu write - AND what other people write...
    If you'd bothered either reading what you wrote, or reading what I wrote, you'd of made a sentence that made sense.
    Lying is bad Yeru, ignorance ain't much worth more; are you ignorant of the facts or are you lying?


    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Then on to -------> Rabbit
    Thank you for the condescending tone which implied that those that disagreed with you did so because they hadn't thought about it properly. I never said, "they hadn't thought about it properly. " I don't know what they think, I assume most read...

    Could you refer me to the organsiations set up by anti-choicers who wish to encourage pregnant women to give up children for adoption rather than abort them, and tell me about how they support these women when they can no longer work? Sure...in Ft.Worth, TX there' a place called the "Lena Pope Home." it's been around at least 50 years. Originally, I believe it was a huge gift and now a trust...it get private donations, I don't know about govt. support. Another 'organisation' is called the 'family' these people take care of their own (oughta be a law!) support their young un-wed mothers and make sure the father (if they can find him) does his part, too.

    I assume there are care facilities for new-borns who haven't been placed with foster parents as well. And obviously, some of the children will be disabled in some way; many parents wouldn't adopt such a child, so tell me what facitlites for life-long care are in place for these children? In Texas, there is a state law...if any woman bears a baby...then for any reason, she decides she does not or cannot raise or support the child...all she has to do is bring the baby to any Fire Station...give the baby to one of these people, as para-medics they will check the baby over. They are required to identify themselves, but..........they are NOT required to give any reason what-so-ever as to the 'why'.

    These babies are put in Child Welfare custody and then are set up for foster care and adoption. Ever since this started...there has been a vast decrease in the number of babies found dead in trash cans and such.
    You ignore any argument about whether it is wrong to abort early term fetuses...
    No, I did not 'ignore'... I did not address it.
    From this asumption you make all your other assumptions, ... Having seen this process I can only laugh at the characterisation...
    You assume a lot -- go ahead and laugh, it's good for ya'.
    You also ignore that in a soceity with decent sex education, abortion levels would be far lower ...
    No, I did not 'ignore'... I did not address it.
    Are you arguing the a blastocyst or a zygote is the same as a new born baby?
    Are you? Abortion is clearly...before birth. I don't think anyone has a problem with seeing the killing of a new born baby is murder.
    You centre your argument on a case involving a late-term abortion procedure. The article conveniently fails to mention ...
    As I said, I did not write nor edit the article. I threw it out there for consideration. It obviously caused pain for people to just read the article...it did me.
    The article shows a judge who has apparently already made up his mind; you must be so proud of your legal system!
    me.That's the judge...opinions are like assholes -- everybody's got one ! ( Ihave a large opinion) It's not my legal system...thats a very general statement. I don't think you would 'claim' your legal system either.
    About 90% of women who have abortions do so before 13 weeks and experience few complications. Abortions performed between 13-24 weeks have a higher rate of complications. Abortions after 24 weeks are extremely rare and are usually limited to situations where the life of the mother is in danger. I'm concerned about the complications to the baby, too, those can be terminal.
    The last thing I wanted to say is there is another human cost, I don't think it's been brought up. It's not the baby...it's the mother. The psychological damage done to ?? % of women takes a terrible toll on them. You can argue it's because of culture and religion and be correct, yet I have talked to a few close friends that had abortions and believed it to be OK, then years go by and they become haunted by the act. I know one woman very close to me, who did have to give up her child, she was under-age. She's haunted, too wandering about her son, what he thinks of her. At least tho' she says, "He's alive...he's with someone who loves him." That's a comfort for her. I really don't want to fight about this, I was just giving my opinion. I like ya', and look forward to reading stuff by you.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit