Jump to content
DaYooperASBDT

Abortion Initiatives - Latest News

Recommended Posts

BetMGM Michigan $200 Free Offer - Launching Friday (1/22)

BetMGM Michigan Sports Betting
Michigan online sports betting is launching on Friday, January 22, 2021. Pre-register at BetMGM Sportsbook & Casino and get a free $200 bonus at their online sportsbook & casino with no deposit necessary.

Claim $200 at BetMGM Michigan Now

What's even more moronic about this kind of legislation is that 61% of women having abortions ALREADY HAVE ONE OR MORE CHILDREN:

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/US-Abortion-Patients.pdf

Put aside all the paternalistic and puritanical BS for a minute...6 in 10 of these women have most likely already rocked out to a fetal heart beat or been in awe of an electronically generated image of their womb. It's old news. Been there, done that. But the sanctimonious busybodies of the Christian right want to treat them like children and make them take a timeout to think about what they've done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What's even more moronic about this kind of legislation is that 61% of women having abortions ALREADY HAVE ONE OR MORE CHILDREN:

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/US-Abortion-Patients.pdf

Put aside all the paternalistic and puritanical BS for a minute...6 in 10 of these women have most likely already rocked out to a fetal heart beat or been in awe of an electronically generated image of their womb. It's old news. Been there, done that. But the sanctimonious busybodies of the Christian right want to treat them like children and make them take a timeout to think about what they've done.

Even worse, that these women actually enjoy having abortions for kicks, using them merely as birth control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do agree there is an element of hypocrisy in complaining about our "Nanny State" (which it is),

then turning around and attempting to inform a pregnant woman that there is something inside of

them ... Well, no **** there's an embryo/fetus in there.

I oppose nearly all abortions after the first trimester, but an ultrasound should provide enough information

as to whether the fetus has developed a functional brain yet. Personally I don't believe a fetus becomes a

true human until that point - I struggle to envision having a "soul" without having developed some degree of

mental consciousness. Respect the conception viewpoint but I don't deem that murder at such an early stage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What's even more moronic about this kind of legislation is that 61% of women having abortions ALREADY HAVE ONE OR MORE CHILDREN:

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/US-Abortion-Patients.pdf

Put aside all the paternalistic and puritanical BS for a minute...6 in 10 of these women have most likely already rocked out to a fetal heart beat or been in awe of an electronically generated image of their womb. It's old news. Been there, done that. But the sanctimonious busybodies of the Christian right want to treat them like children and make them take a timeout to think about what they've done.

"The Guttmacher Institute in 1968 was founded as the "Center for Family Planning Program Development", a semi-autonomous division of The Planned Parenthood Federation of America."

Psychological Reactions After Abortion - David C. Reardon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I seriously cannot get my head around the idea that someone....anyone thinks abortion is ok. What kid of jacked up society do we live in where this is even a debate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a strong anti-abortion person, I'm struggling with this requirement. I understand the idea is that if the mom-to-be who doesn't want to be sees a picture that looks, vaguely, like a human being she might think twice about killing it. But I don't see it as being terribly effective myself. Further, I don't see it as moving towards a larger goal of protecting unborn babies. It's something that is easy for the opposition to rally around and call BS, because it mostly is. It's designed to 'guilt' the would-be-mom into not killing her baby, which only fuels the opposing view point that those opposed to abortion are trying to impose their own moral views on everyone.

Having said that, I found this line from the linked story particularly interesting:

Some female Democratic senators said the ultrasound bill was demeaning to women and that women would seek back alley abortions rather than endure the procedure.

"Women will die," said Senator L. Louise Lucas.

I think this highlights the fundamental disconnect between pro-abortion and anti-abortion people. I hear all the time: "Stay out of my body!" or "Stay out of my womb!" or "Don't legislate my body!" This is to me in many cases (not all) a willful ignorance on the pro-abortion people's part. Many pro-abortionists know full well that anti-abortion people are NOT trying to legislate a person's body. They are NOT trying to say what you can or can't do, individually, to your body. You wanna hack of a toe? Okay... you're kinda crazy if you ask me, but whatever.

But abortion isn't, to anti-abortionists, hacking off a part of the body or removing a cancerous lump. To anti-abortionists, that's a living human being and killing that living being intentionally is no different than killing a human being outside of the womb. It's, to us, murder. To anti-abortionists saying: "Stay out of my body" is like saying: "Stay out of my right to murder my child if I want too." And most pro-abortionists know this.

To use a poor analogy, if you believe that Delmon Young is a bad baseball player, you don't convince a Delmon Young supporter by just shouting stats that the supporter doesn't understand or believe in. You convince him or her by explaining your stats, and by showing out the number he or she is looking at really aren't that good or trustworthy.

Anti-abortionists aren't anti-abortion because they hate women or because they want to control what a woman can do with their reproductive organs. Rather they are anti-abortion because they feel it's murder. So if you want to convince an anti-abortionist they are wrong, debate the REAL reason, not the phoney made up claim that we want to get government involved in the uterus.

(On a similar note, anti-abortionist need to recognize that *one* of the reasons often cited is religious and that pro-abortionists don't always agree with our religion. We need to argue science, not religion.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I seriously cannot get my head around the idea that someone....anyone thinks abortion is ok. What kid of jacked up society do we live in where this is even a debate?

Sorry JBK... nothing personal... but this is to me another example of something that doesn't further the debate at all. You're convinced that the fetus is human and based on that you're shocked that we would even consider murder okay (I actually agree), but the other side doesn't feel it's a human, and therefore sees no moral probably at all with disposes of some cells.

The debate that you question is: Is it human? To further the debate, answer that question and why you think/feel/believe it's human.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That debate about it being human is kind of the point of the sonogram laws.

Personally, don't favor the laws. But it isn't as intrusive as it's being made out to be either and is, actually, a common procedure when seeking termination of a pregnancy through a private doctor. Since 2% of all pregnancies are ectopic (in the tubes or other places outside the womb) and since about 300K abortions are done every year, the procedure could save about 6000 women a very dangerous situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As a strong anti-abortion person, I'm struggling with this requirement. I understand the idea is that if the mom-to-be who doesn't want to be sees a picture that looks, vaguely, like a human being she might think twice about killing it. But I don't see it as being terribly effective myself. Further, I don't see it as moving towards a larger goal of protecting unborn babies. It's something that is easy for the opposition to rally around and call BS, because it mostly is. It's designed to 'guilt' the would-be-mom into not killing her baby, which only fuels the opposing view point that those opposed to abortion are trying to impose their own moral views on everyone.

Having said that, I found this line from the linked story particularly interesting:

I think this highlights the fundamental disconnect between pro-abortion and anti-abortion people. I hear all the time: "Stay out of my body!" or "Stay out of my womb!" or "Don't legislate my body!" This is to me in many cases (not all) a willful ignorance on the pro-abortion people's part. Many pro-abortionists know full well that anti-abortion people are NOT trying to legislate a person's body. They are NOT trying to say what you can or can't do, individually, to your body. You wanna hack of a toe? Okay... you're kinda crazy if you ask me, but whatever.

But abortion isn't, to anti-abortionists, hacking off a part of the body or removing a cancerous lump. To anti-abortionists, that's a living human being and killing that living being intentionally is no different than killing a human being outside of the womb. It's, to us, murder. To anti-abortionists saying: "Stay out of my body" is like saying: "Stay out of my right to murder my child if I want too." And most pro-abortionists know this.

To use a poor analogy, if you believe that Delmon Young is a bad baseball player, you don't convince a Delmon Young supporter by just shouting stats that the supporter doesn't understand or believe in. You convince him or her by explaining your stats, and by showing out the number he or she is looking at really aren't that good or trustworthy.

Anti-abortionists aren't anti-abortion because they hate women or because they want to control what a woman can do with their reproductive organs. Rather they are anti-abortion because they feel it's murder. So if you want to convince an anti-abortionist they are wrong, debate the REAL reason, not the phoney made up claim that we want to get government involved in the uterus.

(On a similar note, anti-abortionist need to recognize that *one* of the reasons often cited is religious and that pro-abortionists don't always agree with our religion. We need to argue science, not religion.)

I am not religious...at all, and I am about as strongly against abortion as anyone on that side of the fence. In fact, I think I am one of the loudest voices in its opposition when it is discussed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry JBK... nothing personal... but this is to me another example of something that doesn't further the debate at all. You're convinced that the fetus is human and based on that you're shocked that we would even consider murder okay (I actually agree), but the other side doesn't feel it's a human, and therefore sees no moral probably at all with disposes of some cells.

The debate that you question is: Is it human? To further the debate, answer that question and why you think/feel/believe it's human.

This is the crazy part and the part I cannot wrap my head around. That THIS is the question that people are stuck on.

You ask 'Is it human?' I will ask: 'If not human then what?' and the pro abortion people say 'a fetus' or 'a collection of cells' etc. Well I hate to break it to them, but fetus is just another word for undeveloped baby and a collection of cells is what we ALL are. They will also go down the 'crazy left' side and say 'well then when you wear a condom you are killing babies' (and yes I have heard these things) There is all kinds of science out there which talk about 'conception'...once they meet and start creating a human life is the time at which I think it reprehensible to 'abort' the baby.

If you could tell me that 50% of the time it will be a baby and the other 50% it will be a turtle then I can get on board...100% of the time what ends up coming out of the whomb is a baby. A small % of THAT time it may be a deformed baby or a 'special needs baby', but the baby would still be human.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have any moral issues with abortion during the first trimester. It is a decision people should be able to make on their own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"The Guttmacher Institute in 1968 was founded as the "Center for Family Planning Program Development", a semi-autonomous division of The Planned Parenthood Federation of America."

Psychological Reactions After Abortion - David C. Reardon.

Are you suggesting a bias on the part of the Guttmacher Institute? Because Reardon is hardly an unbiased source.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is the crazy part and the part I cannot wrap my head around. That THIS is the question that people are stuck on.

You ask 'Is it human?' I will ask: 'If not human then what?' and the pro abortion people say 'a fetus' or 'a collection of cells' etc. Well I hate to break it to them, but fetus is just another word for undeveloped baby and a collection of cells is what we ALL are. They will also go down the 'crazy left' side and say 'well then when you wear a condom you are killing babies' (and yes I have heard these things) There is all kinds of science out there which talk about 'conception'...once they meet and start creating a human life is the time at which I think it reprehensible to 'abort' the baby.

If you could tell me that 50% of the time it will be a baby and the other 50% it will be a turtle then I can get on board...100% of the time what ends up coming out of the whomb is a baby. A small % of THAT time it may be a deformed baby or a 'special needs baby', but the baby would still be human.

Do you believe a pregnant women has rights? Is it possible that, at times, those rights supercede the rights of the unborn child she is carrying? Or do the rights of the unborn child always come before the rights of the pregnant mother? Even if you believe that an unborn child is a human being with all the rights and responsibilities of a citizen of the United States of America it's still impossible to separate the two beings and treat them as individuals.

I think hard line rules like 'abortion is reprehensible after conception' drastically understate how dangerous and unhealthy being pregnant is. It's a testament to evolution (or whatever you wish to call our desire to breed) that anyone is willing to go through it once, much less more than once. And frankly, given the choice between the short and long term health of my wife and the life of an unborn child I'm going to choose my wife every single time (my wife would not necessarily agree with me).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you believe a pregnant women has rights?

I believe everyone has rights. Of course a woman who is pregnant has rights.

Is it possible that, at times, those rights supercede the rights of the unborn child she is carrying?

Sure. We are talking VERY small %ages though, FTR. You know a baby can live outside the womb after 20 weeks?

'My wife will dies if she carries to full term!' (a VERY rare occurence anyway, but for the sake of argument) Give the baby a chance. C-Section the baby out of the womb after 20 weeks (and if it is safe to do so make it an individuals right to carry longer to give the baby a better chance) and turn the baby over to state care where he/she will get a family that is DYING to adopt because they cannot have a baby themselves. My best fried from childhood cannot have a baby. He adopted twice. They waited awhile to find one.

Or do the rights of the unborn child always come before the rights of the pregnant mother?

Fight for those who cannot fight for themselves. The baby doesn't have a voice. The baby doesn't have a chance.

Even if you believe that an unborn child is a human being with all the rights and responsibilities of a citizen of the United States of America it's still impossible to separate the two beings and treat them as individuals.

Why?

I think hard line rules like 'abortion is reprehensible after conception' drastically understate how dangerous and unhealthy being pregnant is. It's a testament to evolution (or whatever you wish to call our desire to breed) that anyone is willing to go through it once, much less more than once. And frankly, given the choice between the short and long term health of my wife and the life of an unborn child I'm going to choose my wife every single time (my wife would not necessarily agree with me).

I think you are the one overstating something there.

Noone told the couple to have a baby. That second statement is not something that furthers the discussion IMO. There are relatively (in comparrison to raising a child...another argument that will be brought up I am sure) cheap procedures to prevent someone from even having the ability to reproduce if they wish. If they do decide to have a baby then the risk is inherent, but WAAAY less dangerous than driving a car every day FWIW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe everyone has rights. Of course a woman who is pregnant has rights.

Sure. We are talking VERY small %ages though, FTR. You know a baby can live outside the womb after 20 weeks?

'My wife will dies if she carries to full term!' (a VERY rare occurence anyway, but for the sake of argument) Give the baby a chance. C-Section the baby out of the womb after 20 weeks (and if it is safe to do so make it an individuals right to carry longer to give the baby a better chance) and turn the baby over to state care where he/she will get a family that is DYING to adopt because they cannot have a baby themselves. My best fried from childhood cannot have a baby. He adopted twice. They waited awhile to find one.

"Will die" is certainly very rare. "Might die" is not. "Might develop long term health problems due to carrying the baby to term" is also not rare at all (it's possible you and I have a drastically different idea of what rare is though).

C-sections are not particularly safe or healthy. Requiring a C-section strikes me as a terrible idea. And while it is possible for a baby to survive outside the womb after 20 weeks the survival rate is bad and the health implications for both the mother and baby aren't good. You can't treat getting the kid out of the womb as a costless decision because it simply isn't.

Fight for those who cannot fight for themselves. The baby doesn't have a voice. The baby doesn't have a chance.

This doesn't answer my question at all. I'm glad you are fighting for the rights of someone that doesn't have a voice over someone that does. But just because an unborn child doesn't have a voice should not limit the rights of someone who actually does.

Why?

Because in the case of the majority of abortions the child can't survive without the mother and the mother's health is negatively impacted by the very existence of the child.

I think you are the one overstating something there.

Noone told the couple to have a baby. That second statement is not something that furthers the discussion IMO. There are relatively (in comparrison to raising a child...another argument that will be brought up I am sure) cheap procedures to prevent someone from even having the ability to reproduce if they wish. If they do decide to have a baby then the risk is inherent, but WAAAY less dangerous than driving a car every day FWIW.

Actually by saying that abortion is reprehensible you are explicitly telling the couple to have a baby. Presumably you mean that no one told the couple to get pregnant, which is likely true but also doesn't further the discussion much. Neither does comparing abortions to driving a car every day. Neither does saying that "I seriously cannot get my head around the idea that someone....anyone thinks abortion is ok. What kid of jacked up society do we live in where this is even a debate?"

I do agree, if she decides to have the baby then there is inherent risk involved. Hence why some women choose not to have the baby.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That debate about it being human is kind of the point of the sonogram laws.

Personally, don't favor the laws. But it isn't as intrusive as it's being made out to be either and is, actually, a common procedure when seeking termination of a pregnancy through a private doctor. Since 2% of all pregnancies are ectopic (in the tubes or other places outside the womb) and since about 300K abortions are done every year, the procedure could save about 6000 women a very dangerous situation.

Full disclosure: I had assumed that imaging was already standard procedure before performing the abortion, so clearly I have no clue on the current process. Agree that imaging is intuitively a good idea medically - but clearly that was not the intent of the legislation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is going to sound inflammatory, but at many times in our history women have been treated as little more than housekeepers and baby-making machines. They did not have the vote and had similar legal treatment as property. Although I do believe that abortions after the first trimester are homicide - and viewed as such in the eyes of God - I can't bring myself to the conclusion that an embryo is anything more than a "potential" human.

An interesting question I just thought of - suppose someone is born without a brain, except for the brain stem, and somehow survives. Do they have a soul?

Edited by DaYooperASBDT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is going to sound inflammatory, but at many times in our history women have been treated as little more than housekeepers and baby-making machines. They did not have the vote and had similar legal treatment as property. Although I do believe that abortions after the first trimester are homicide - and viewed as such in the eyes of God - I can't bring myself to the conclusion that an embryo is nothing more than a "potential" human.

An interesting question I just thought of - suppose someone is born without a brain, except for the brain stem, and somehow survives. Do they have a soul?

This presupposes the existence of a soul which isn't obvious to me. But why wouldn't someone without a brain have a soul and why does survival matter? It seems like the whole point of a soul is that it is something that doesn't simply cease to exist when someone dies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Full disclosure: I had assumed that imaging was already standard procedure before performing the abortion, so clearly I have no clue on the current process. Agree that imaging is intuitively a good idea medically - but clearly that was not the intent of the legislation.

Right. Not the intent of the law.

But an example of how women with means and/or insurance who use a private doctor get a much higher standard of care than those who visit these abortion clinics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you believe a pregnant women has rights? Is it possible that, at times, those rights supercede the rights of the unborn child she is carrying? Or do the rights of the unborn child always come before the rights of the pregnant mother? Even if you believe that an unborn child is a human being with all the rights and responsibilities of a citizen of the United States of America it's still impossible to separate the two beings and treat them as individuals.

If we're dealing with a rare situation in which it's a mother's life vs. a babies life, then the family has to make the call.

I would state the situations in which is happens are exceedingly rare though and certainly do not account for even 20% of abortions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Will die" is certainly very rare. "Might die" is not. "Might develop long term health problems due to carrying the baby to term" is also not rare at all (it's possible you and I have a drastically different idea of what rare is though).

C-sections are not particularly safe or healthy. Requiring a C-section strikes me as a terrible idea. And while it is possible for a baby to survive outside the womb after 20 weeks the survival rate is bad and the health implications for both the mother and baby aren't good. You can't treat getting the kid out of the womb as a costless decision because it simply isn't.

I 'might die' driving home this afternoon from work. I surely have a greater risk of that than my wife (or any female) does having a baby.

People 'might' develop long term health problems naturally without having a baby.

Why has the USA's cesarean section rate climbed so high? - USATODAY.com

The number of c-sections is on the rise due in large part because they are so safe.

You keep saying the health implications are bad, but you are providing no proof of that. I am trying to read up on 'how bad c-sections' are and how they are 'bad ideas' and all I am getting is cases of how they are on the rise because of how safe they are.

I never said it was 'costless', I said turn the baby over to a state run facility to care for the baby.

Because in the case of the majority of abortions the child can't survive without the mother and the mother's health is negatively impacted by the very existence of the child.

The child cannot survive without the mother out of the womb either and yet one is murder and the other is legal.

Actually by saying that abortion is reprehensible you are explicitly telling the couple to have a baby. Presumably you mean that no one told the couple to get pregnant, which is likely true but also doesn't further the discussion much. Neither does comparing abortions to driving a car every day. Neither does saying that "I seriously cannot get my head around the idea that someone....anyone thinks abortion is ok. What kid of jacked up society do we live in where this is even a debate?"

I do agree, if she decides to have the baby then there is inherent risk involved. Hence why some women choose not to have the baby.

So your contention is that the majority of women have abortions because of health reasons? Feel free to back that up with a link.

You know there are about 50,000 deaths a year related to second hand smoke? I 'choose' not to be around second hand smoke so if you light up around me I will enforce my 'right' to kill you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Will die" is certainly very rare. "Might die" is not. "Might develop long term health problems due to carrying the baby to term" is also not rare at all (it's possible you and I have a drastically different idea of what rare is though).

With regard to "Might develop long term health problems..." Let me ask you this: If you had a choice between making a person suffer long term health problems or killing someone else, which would you choose? To a anti-abortionist, that's the reality of the situation.

This doesn't answer my question at all. I'm glad you are fighting for the rights of someone that doesn't have a voice over someone that does. But just because an unborn child doesn't have a voice should not limit the rights of someone who actually does.

No, the rights of the mother should not be ignored. But in a case where you're talking about the right of one person to live vs. one person to not be pregnant for 9 months, generally speaking I'm going to side on the right to live.

C-sections are not particularly safe or healthy.

I'm not a health professional, but I don't know that I agree with you. Of course, any major surgery is not something to be take lightly, but I think C-sections are become a lot more common and aren't that big of a deal. My sister had two c-sections. My sister-in-law had a c-section. My wife had two c-sections.

None of them have suffered any long term issues because of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


Michigan Sports Betting Offer

Michigan is launching online sports betting and casino apps on Friday, January 22, 2021. These top Michigan sportsbooks have pre-launch bonus offers. No deposit is required. Terms and conditions apply.

BetRivers Michigan - If you sign up at BetRivers Michigan now, you will receive $50 in free bets to use one their online sportsbook & casino

Click Here to claim $50 at BetRivers Michigan For Signing Up Now

FanDuel Michigan - If you register now before FanDuel launches in January, you will receive $100 to use at their sportsbook app & online casino.

Click Here to claim $100 at FanDuel Michigan For Registering Now

BetMGM Michigan - If you sign up early at BetMGM Michigan before launch, you will receive $200 in free bets to use at their online casino & sportsbook

Click Here to claim $200 at BetRivers Michigan For Signing Up Early

   


×
×
  • Create New...