Jump to content

LooseGoose

Want to buy some fetal body parts? Planned Parenthood's got ya covered!!

Recommended Posts

I don't know whether abortion should be legal at nine months, but I do think abortion should be legal until that point that an abortion would harm the health of the mother. My impression is that the later an abortion is, the riskier to the woman it becomes; that abortions after 20 weeks carry a similar risk of death from abortion as death from childbirth; and that abortions performed after the 24th week typically are done only when the mother is in grave jeopardy.

So I guess in strictly legal terms, it should be legal for a woman to get an abortion right up until the day of birth, since in practical terms, abortions at anything approaching nine months occur only when something gravely goes wrong, and as it is, only about 1% of all abortions take place beyond 20 weeks.

So it's just about the mother? You don't have any concern for the baby at all? There may be many fewer abortions late in pregnancy, but they are mostly NOT occurring because something "gravely goes wrong." Here are the most common reasons for an abortion after 16 weeks:

71% -- Woman didn't recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation

48% -- Woman found it hard to make arrangements for abortion

33% -- Woman was afraid to tell her partner or parents

24% -- Woman took time to decide to have an abortion

8% -- Woman waited for her relationship to change

8% -- Someone pressured woman not to have abortion

6% -- Something changed after woman became pregnant

6% -- Woman didn't know timing is important

5% -- Woman didn't know she could get an abortion

2% -- A fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy

11% -- Other

The Inconvenient Truths (For Both Sides) About Late Term Abortions

I agree that most abortions are done for the convenience of not imposing a significant hardship on the mother. In the most cited credible poll I found, 73% cited financial hardships, 74% cited interference her education, work or other responsibilities; and 48% said they did not have the support of or contact with the father, or were having relationship problems with the father.

In a abortion-is-outlawed world, through the years, millions of girls and women, many of whom are young teen and preteen girls coerced into having sex in the first place by adult men, would be compelled to carry the child to term and raise it themselves, as the father takes himself out of the picture, the girl gives up schooling that might better her life to take whatever low paying no-health-care-giving job she can get, trying to raise the child in impoverished circumstances, all while being criticized for becoming a single mother, and ultimately resenting having to bear her child and the damage that did to her life while taking out her frustrations on that kid throughout his childhood as he ends up drifting who knows where, all while putting billions of dollars in additional strain on the state welfare system. And beyond that, hundreds of thousands of girls and women taking their chances and get illegal abortions, frequently unsafe, and resulting in many multiples more deaths on abortion tables than the single digit number per year that occurs today.

Do you believe this state of affairs would be preferable to having safe, legal abortion available to girls and women who simply are not equipped to raise children?

Your argument is with the Republican pro-life view, not mine. Outlawing abortion is one piece of the puzzle. The rest of it is equally essential - ending poverty, supporting single mothers, affordable health care, sex ed, more contraception, longer paid maternity leave. We need to work to prevent abortions from being necessary, and take care of women who have unplanned pregnancies. But none of this makes abortion acceptable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it's just about the mother? You don't have any concern for the baby at all? There may be many fewer abortions late in pregnancy, but they are mostly NOT occurring because something "gravely goes wrong." Here are the most common reasons for an abortion after 16 weeks:

71% -- Woman didn't recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation

48% -- Woman found it hard to make arrangements for abortion

33% -- Woman was afraid to tell her partner or parents

24% -- Woman took time to decide to have an abortion

8% -- Woman waited for her relationship to change

8% -- Someone pressured woman not to have abortion

6% -- Something changed after woman became pregnant

6% -- Woman didn't know timing is important

5% -- Woman didn't know she could get an abortion

2% -- A fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy

11% -- Other

The Inconvenient Truths (For Both Sides) About Late Term Abortions

Your argument is with the Republican pro-life view, not mine. Outlawing abortion is one piece of the puzzle. The rest of it is equally essential - ending poverty, supporting single mothers, affordable health care, sex ed, more contraception, longer paid maternity leave. We need to work to prevent abortions from being necessary, and take care of women who have unplanned pregnancies. But none of this makes abortion acceptable.

So, you are saying that most abortions after 16 weeks could be avoided with better access to health care for women, more accessibility to abortions and lessening the perceived negative stigma that comes with an abortion. Problem solved, write it up and set it to your congressmen, I will send it to mine.:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, you are saying that most abortions after 16 weeks could be avoided with better access to health care for women, more accessibility to abortions and lessening the perceived negative stigma that comes with an abortion. Problem solved, write it up and set it to your congressmen, I will send it to mine.:)

How do you get any of that from what I said? Abortion is not health care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How do you get any of that from what I said? Abortion is not health care.

Do you consider pregnancy tests, or determining gestation healthcare? The three things I stated correlated to the top 3 things on your list btw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you consider pregnancy tests, or determining gestation healthcare? The three things I stated correlated to the top 3 things on your list btw.

I wasn't saying that early abortions are good because they prevent late abortions, obviously. I posted the list to show what a small percentage of late abortions are because of horrible fetal abnormalities or risk to the mother's life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Only one of these things deliberately ends the life of a defenseless human being against its will.

Honestly, I don't know how you know a fetus's will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So it's just about the mother? You don't have any concern for the baby at all? There may be many fewer abortions late in pregnancy, but they are mostly NOT occurring because something "gravely goes wrong." Here are the most common reasons for an abortion after 16 weeks:

71% -- Woman didn't recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation

48% -- Woman found it hard to make arrangements for abortion

33% -- Woman was afraid to tell her partner or parents

24% -- Woman took time to decide to have an abortion

8% -- Woman waited for her relationship to change

8% -- Someone pressured woman not to have abortion

6% -- Something changed after woman became pregnant

6% -- Woman didn't know timing is important

5% -- Woman didn't know she could get an abortion

2% -- A fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy

11% -- Other

The Inconvenient Truths (For Both Sides) About Late Term Abortions

I addressed this from the viewpoint of the mother. Am I a bad guy?

I think it's more than only a matter of "just about the mother" versus "just about the baby", because they are obviously intertwined. The baby is in a bad spot either way. If the baby is born, there is a high likelihood it is born into an unwanted situation, resented by the mother, absent the father, impoverished circumstances, high likelihood of abuse and neglect, terrible prospects, a lifetime on welfare or homelessness, all those things I had mentioned. But if it is more about the baby than about the mother—is this the case for you?—than of course, that would make a strong case that abortion should always be illegal in all circumstances. But remember: once the baby is born, it's not as simple as life wins and the job is complete. God help that baby afterwards, because in most cases, it is going to be a very bad ride for him or her.

As for the other thing: we're really far apart on the numbers. I was talking about 24 weeks; you're talking about 16. That's a lot of time, so much that we're talking about two completely different circumstances, because there is such a huge gestational difference between the two. But again, FWIW, over 91% of all abortions occur at 13 weeks or less, so neither of what we're talking about even applies in the vast majority of cases.

Your argument is with the Republican pro-life view, not mine. Outlawing abortion is one piece of the puzzle. The rest of it is equally essential - ending poverty, supporting single mothers, affordable health care, sex ed, more contraception, longer paid maternity leave. We need to work to prevent abortions from being necessary, and take care of women who have unplanned pregnancies. But none of this makes abortion acceptable.

You didn't answer my question on preference, so I'm going to presume that you would prefer the social chaos I described versus safe, legal abortion. Please tell me if I'm wrong and elaborate if you would.

Beyond that, you're talking about a lot of things that aren't happening now, and probably won't even in our lifetime (or at least mine). I agree that it would be nice to end poverty, support single mothers, bring down healthcare costs and all those other things, but we would need a strong progressive government acting in the interests of the people to do those things, and the trend since 1980 has gone in the other direction, particularly on the state level. That's a separate discussion to have, but in the meantime, we have a clear and present question of public health to consider, and if abortion is outlawed in the absence of all those things you listed, then a whole parade of social and public health horribles is going to occur as a result. I don't know about you, but that's not OK with me.

Edited by chasfh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the other thing: we're really far apart on the numbers. I was talking about 24 weeks; you're talking about 16.

My stats were "after 16 weeks," so that includes all the abortions from 24 weeks or later. More to the point, I'd love to hear your reasoning why abortion at 16 weeks is better than 24. A simple google search of 16-week fetuses shows pictures of awfully human-looking babies. Definitely not the so-called "clump of cells."

You didn't answer my question on preference, so I'm going to presume that you would prefer the social chaos I described versus safe, legal abortion. Please tell me if I'm wrong and elaborate if you would.

You are framing the question in a way that presumes that abortion is morally defensible. If abortion kills a human, that means over 50 million babies have been legally killed since 1973. Talk about social chaos...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm simply going to repeat what I'd written about this in another thread.

This is a difficult issue to contemplate, since allowing legal abortion feels tantamount to denying that a fetus is a human being.

But as we know, it's not the case that the choice is only "abortions for everybody" versus "abortions for nobody", because if abortion were outlawed, the abortions wouldn't just stop. Millions of girls and women would subject themselves to "back alley" abortions or, even worse, self-induced abortions. Wishing that girls and women wouldn't seek abortions because it's illegal is not a practical strategy, because we know that wishing it away won't work. They still will seek abortions, for all kinds of reasons. So, that being the case, then what?

A lot of people are of the opinion, tough titties, let these evil women and girls kill themselves, they deserve to die anyway. They should be punished by having to bear the child and be sentenced to 16 or so years trying to be a mother to them. But the people who subscribe to this line of thinking are simply not reasonable people, and furthermore, it's not reasonable public health policy to promote an environment in which girls and women choose to put their lives at risk by the hundreds of thousands every year. In the end, all our wishes and all our prayers won't make these girls and women stop having sex, stop getting raped, stop getting pregnant by accident or stop seeking abortions, because they know they can't be even a minimally effective parent to the child.

There are other reasons it makes sense to keep abortion safe and legal, but I think this is the biggest one. It's a hard choice to have to make, but given the dilemma at hand, it's probably the lesser of two evils.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More of the "good" done by Planned Parenthood:

Abortion extremists ensure Baby Aurora gets no justice

An important story will go unmentioned in the squalid trial of a woman named Dynel Lane. It is a story critical to understanding what took place in Longmont, Colo., on March 18, 2015.

That was the day when Lane allegedly used Craigslist to lure a seven-months-pregnant Michelle Wilkins to her home using the false promise of free maternity clothes. She stabbed Wilkins and knocked her out by choking her. Lane then allegedly cut open Wilkins' abdomen and ripped her little girl, Aurora, from her womb. The baby, at 34 weeks' gestation, probably survived for a short time, and Lane's husband told police he saw the baby breathing when he came home to find this appalling scene. Wilkins did survive, and called 911 from Lane's basement.

Lane now stands accused of the attempted murder of Wilkins and "wrongful termination of a pregnancy." But she has not and will not be charged with the murder of the baby. Nor will jurors even be permitted to hear testimony about Aurora's autopsy.

Lane's attorney put the brutal legal position thus: Aurora "is not a victim in this case." Testimony about the baby that was healthy and living but is now dead would be "prejudicial" to her client.

From the perspective of Colorado law, the attorney is, unfortunately, correct. For this, residents can thank Colorado's branches of Planned Parenthood and NARAL, and the Democratic legislators they have in their pockets.

In 2013, Democrats in the state legislature blocked a bill that would have criminalized fetal homicide. Many other states have such laws, but Colorado Democrats blocked this one out of ideological concerns about what sort of statement it might send about abortion rights, which have become virtually sacramental on the political Left.

In May 2015, Colorado Democrats doubled down with a revolting vote just two months after the hideous death of baby Aurora. After the Republican-controlled state Senate passed a bill criminalizing fetal homicide, with the support of some pro-abortion-choice Republican legislators, NARAL and Planned Parenthood cheered as Democrats in the state House killed it in committee along party lines.

According to one neonatologist interviewed at the time by the Denver Post, a baby at 34 weeks' gestation has nearly a 100 percent chance of surviving a horrific incident of the sort Aurora went through, if given proper medical care. Her killer will never be forced to confront the evidence against her, or be sentenced for the death of an innocent child.

This case involves a wrong that cries out to heaven, and it exposes the grotesque calculus of the no-compromise abortion lobby. It is a stain on our civilization. There was a living breathing baby, which died because of an act of gross barbarity, and the law will do nothing about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The final line of that block quote is ridiculous. First, the fetus was not living and breathing. Second, the law does plenty about it. This woman is being charged with unlawful termination of a pregnancy, a felony that carries a penalty of 10-32 years. That's far more nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The final line of that block quote is ridiculous. First, the fetus was not living and breathing. Second, the law does plenty about it. This woman is being charged with unlawful termination of a pregnancy, a felony that carries a penalty of 10-32 years. That's far more nothing.

You obviously didn't read the story, the baby WAS living and breathing.

She stabbed Wilkins and knocked her out by choking her. Lane then allegedly cut open Wilkins' abdomen and ripped her little girl, Aurora, from her womb. The baby, at 34 weeks' gestation, probably survived for a short time, and Lane's husband told police he saw the baby breathing when he came home to find this appalling scene. Wilkins did survive, and called 911 from Lane's basement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You obviously didn't read the story, the baby WAS living and breathing.

You obviously didn't make any attempt to look into the facts beyond what was posted in the single article you referenced.

The coroner's report said the lungs never inflated, meaning the fetus did not draw a breath. Further, the report by the witness that the fetus had been breathing was clarified to be that the fetus's mouth was open, and not that it was breathing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Furthermore, had there been any signs that the fetus had been "living and breathing," then they could have pursued a full murder charge.

You have two different scenarios. Either the baby was "living and breathing" and therefore you can pursue a traditional murder charge for the baby's death, or the fetus did not live outside the womb, and you can pursue the unlawful termination of pregnancy charge.

In this case, the investigation determined that the fetus never lived or breathed. In any event, there is still a serious criminal charge that can be brought.

The fetal death isn't just being ignored as that last line is suggesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why let the facts get in the way of a good argument?

Yeah, that's a lot worse than letting politics prohibit a murder charge for slashing a baby from the womb. Some nice people that support that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm shocked TS just ignored what Shelton said. So typical.

The husband saw the fetus breathe. TS doesn't believe in science like the coroner would use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The husband saw the fetus breathe. TS doesn't believe in science like the coroner would use.

He prolly didn't have time to research that part of the argument he made

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, that's a lot worse than letting politics prohibit a murder charge for slashing a baby from the womb. Some nice people that support that.

But you gave life to a new baby strawman, again. Congratulations!

I really admire people that decide what the facts are based on what they believe is right rather than reality.

Edited by Walt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

House panel: Abortion provider, broker profited from sales of fetal tissue

 

Quote

Has a Congressional panel corroborated the findings of David Daleiden and the Center for Medical Progress? A new report from a House committee formed to investigate allegations of federal laws prohibiting abortionists from profiting off the sale of aborted babies claims that at least one abortion provider and one fetal tissue broker broke the law. The Free Beacon’s Bill McMorris reports that the committee essentially reinforces what Daleiden’s undercover investigation exposed:

Quote

 

The preview of the report makes it clear that the original intent of the 1993 law was to ensure that no one would be profiting off the sale of aborted babies. Even staunch Democrat Henry Waxman said at the time when offering the prohibition in an amendment to the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993, “It would be abhorrent to allow for a sale of fetal tissue and a market to be created for that sale.”

And yet, that’s exactly what has emerged in the two decades that followed. The report refers to a broker with the generic title “Procurement Business” to explain exactly how they have partnered with abortion clinics to generate a profit-model business in both directions:

 

Quote

In other words, the House panel found exactly what Daleiden’s videos exposed. And yet the only player facing legal trouble in this case is Daleiden, the man who actually exposed the kind of wrongdoing that Rep. Waxman once called “abhorrent.”

 

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.


×
×
  • Create New...