Abortion

^I was of the general impression that abortions in the third trimester was only if the mother's life was in danger but I could be wrong.

Additionally, pain is a neural process. You cannot feel pain without an adequate nervous system and cranial structure. I do know that pain is not possible during the first trimester within the foetus but as for third trimester ones, I'm not sure. I'm relatively sure that's why they are injected with something to stop the heart. Again, I'm remembering this from an RE class nigh on seven years ago so this could be wrong again.

What I would say is that is third term abortions are very rare and I'm in some doubt about the acceptability of aborting a severely disabled child at that level. I know I disagree with it on some level but I don't know the facts.

^
I agree completely that I don't like it and it's stupid and illogical for a women to use contraception as an abortion. But I'm not for a law that limits it because if she's that stupid and illogical, that law probably won't make her use contraception. If the option of contraception is infinitely easier and she is still opting for abortions as birth control, she will most likely not start using it after the law was passed, which would result in a pregnancy.

I think in the case of abortion, it's kinder to the fetus to let it pass into non-being that to force it to deal with being born to that stupid, irresponsible woman.

kafka.:

-nod- You're right. Medical facilities should not be businesses, and neither should someone be refused treatment because of their political beliefs. The story of the 37 year old does stand out and is problematic, and it would have been heartening to see counsellors offering advice on not-aborting, instead of just trying to persuade women to accept their 'decision' (which, like you said, may only be verbal and may make them feel worse.)

I would probably say Playboy's donations are just an image thing, at best backed up by people who believe in the work Planned Parenthood does, but (probably) only insidious by implication, not intention.

kafka.:

[...] but also, for example, what does it mean that the Playboy Foundation donates so much to organizations like Planned Parenthood? Is this just an image thing, their trying to cast themselves as more pro-women's rights after so many women complained about the objectification etc of their magazine? Is it an ideology thing - this is really what 'sexual freedom' amounts to for a woman - having your abortion paid for by people who exploit you?

Well, that's a different viewpoint than mine as far as Playboy goes. I don't believe it exploits women. Adult females who want to show off their sexuality are not being exploited. They're getting paid for their decision. I find Hugh Hefner to be a feminist. And that's why I think they donate to PP; beause they believe women should have the right to make decisions about their bodies and they want to support the women who don't have medical funding to make those decisions.

(And as to discussing PP donations in the abortion thread, you do realize that on 3% of services rendered by PP are abortions, right? Most donations likely go to help women receive contraception, which is most of what PP does. And those who don't like abortion should be for contraception.)

I've never told anyone other than my wife this before, but my mother had an abortion.
And... I'm glad she had one.
Sounds horrid, I know. But it was back in the 7th grade. So roughly, 8 years ago?
She had her tubes tied after I was born. I had several complications. And with my mother's back problems, me being born took a huge toll on her. It was really hard and her back is only getting worse.
My parents went to Chicago to see a specialist of some sort and they told her that if she continued with the pregnancy that there was a huge chance that both her and the baby wouldn't survive it.
I would have loved to of had a younger sibling but as selfish as it is, I'd rather have my mother around than a child I never met. I understand if you think it's dumb, but entire family would fall apart without my mother. She's my best friend, and my dad's too.

Cyanide-Charlie:

I understand if you think it's dumb, but entire family would fall apart without my mother. She's my best friend, and my dad's too.

It doesn't sound dumb or selfish at all. It's perfectly sensible to value your mother's life over a potential sibling's life. And the operative word there is "potential". And by the sound of it, you may not even have had a sibling at all, if she'd gone through with the pregnancy.

This here, to me, is proof that abortion can be (and is) the right choice for some people. That's why I can't stand it when people argue that abortion is 100% wrong.

Cyanide-Charlie:

I've never told anyone other than my wife this before, but my mother had an abortion.
And... I'm glad she had one.
Sounds horrid, I know. But it was back in the 7th grade. So roughly, 8 years ago?
She had her tubes tied after I was born. I had several complications. And with my mother's back problems, me being born took a huge toll on her. It was really hard and her back is only getting worse.
My parents went to Chicago to see a specialist of some sort and they told her that if she continued with the pregnancy that there was a huge chance that both her and the baby wouldn't survive it.
I would have loved to of had a younger sibling but as selfish as it is, I'd rather have my mother around than a child I never met. I understand if you think it's dumb, but entire family would fall apart without my mother. She's my best friend, and my dad's too.

Statistically speaking, middle aged women who already have a child are the largest single group of people who have abortions in North America.

What happened to your mom sucks, but it's not that far from the norm, even if she did it for health reasons rather than financial or emotional causes.

Surprising no-one, Republicans continue to silence women who make reasonable, intelligent points. But actually I am surprised (or maybe just dismayed) that these people think it so important to legislate over others' body parts, but consider clinical descriptions of those parts to be too disgusting or obscene to be mentioned "in mixed company" (meaning a group involving one or more women. i.e. it's fine for dudes to hang around talking about vaginas.)

Edit: Jezebel piece on what happened warning it may offend/trigger if you've recently had an abortion or miscarriage. (Angry and resultantly flippant language used.)

Personally I don't think abortion should be something put up for wider debate.
It is no one else's decision to make and live with but the people directly involved. Whether you think it is right or wrong, that is your bread and not anyone else's.

@ pravda.
If you aren't mature enough to discuss shit, then you sure as hell aren't mature enough to pass legislature on it.

I am...slightly pro-life over pro-choice. But, only slightly. I don't think abortion is 100% wrong, and when people say that, I just can't stand it, because it's like they have no respect for self-choice. Circumstance is really the issue, and depending on what it is, that's how I determine my opinion. Say, for example, someone was raped and wanted to abort the fetus: me, I wouldn't abort it. But I know that everybody is different, and many would not want the fetus, and I respect that--not only because of the circumstance, but because of self-choice. However, if someone got knocked up and didn't want the fetus (saying that it was their fault), then I would not support abortion.

Some say that adoption is not an alternative to abortion--it's an alternative to parenting. And while it is an alternative to parenting, I believe that in the cases like the latter one, adoption is a favorable alternative. While you're actually giving birth at one point and not at the other, you're also risking a possibility of life. Not risking a life, but the possibility of one, which--in the latter case--is wrong for me.

And then, there are the cases where abortion could harm or disable the mother or the fetus, like a user above stated about their mother. I completely respect self-choice in those situations, because some people don't want to risk any part of their life, or the fetus's life. So, that's my statement. Self-choice can be respected in all situations, but really, I think that circumstance inflicts a lot upon self-choice.

@ itsy bitsy spider.
If the individual was using birth control when they got "knocked up" would it change your mind? If they were a teenager who wasn't ready to be a mother would it change your mind? If they already had two kids and couldn't financially support another would it change your mind?

Or if, it was just a whore who spread her legs and got knocked up, do you really think she's going to be a responsible mom?

@ for dru's sins.

No, it would not change my mind, because obviously, you didn't read my post. To me, adoption would be the best alternative. And you can argue with me about it, but you can't change my opinion. Adoption is not risking a possibility of life, and it's not raising the baby if you can't or don't want to--it's giving to someone who can do the tasks if you can't.

All those situations still can have the outcome of adoption. If the mother just didn't trust anyone else with her flesh and blood, and didn't want to risk the fetus's life as being horrifying and miserable, then sure. At least the mother cares about that possibility of life. But I guess that "knocked up" means different to everybody, apparently.

@ itsy bitsy spider.
I think "knocked up" means nine months of pregnancy that it's really easy for someone else to tell you to go through.

Adoption also doesn't mean the infant will immediately go to a home with parents who will love it. It could get passed from foster home to foster home. It could be in group homes for the rest of it's life. Or, like, my mother, it could be adopted into a home and raped by the person who is supposed to care for it.

I don't like adoption being passed off as this sunshine and rainbows cure-all thing.

@ for dru's sins.

Again, you apparently didn't read my second post. I just said that the mom may not trust the people that would adopt the baby, or the whole adoption in general. And that's when I respect that choice, because it's not so much about her than it is for the fetus's possibility of a horrifying life.

And your first sentence made no sentence to me at all...

I am pro-choice because if I got pregnant and didn't want the kid (especially now at such a young age), I would want to be able to abort it. I wouldn't be able to afford the medical bills or the nutrients pills or bigger clothes.

I used to think it was funny because Christians say God gives us a choice, yet there are those trying to take our choice away.

I get really mad when people say, "Just put it up for adoption if it's a rape baby!" No. I don't think some people realize how emotionally and physically tormenting and exhausting a pregnancy is. Nine months of hell basically. How does a sixteen-year-old know this? My mom just about reminds me every day--she's had seven kids and two miscarriages. Plus, if a woman didn't want the baby but had it and kept it anyway, how do you think that child would be raised? He or she would have a pretty crappy life, knowing the parent didn't want to have them. It takes an emotional toll on everyone evolved.

And you also have to consider this: What if a woman's body isn't physically capable to bare a child? It just can't take it? The woman dies during child birth and all you can say is, "She should of had the choice to not go through with this and die."

I'm sorry if I've offended anyone with anything I've said. I just feel very strongly on this topic. It's a debate that can never be settled, really.

And I also think if women lost the choice to have an abortion in a clinic, some would go to extremes to abort the child themselves. I heard a story of this girl who didn't want anyone to know she was pregnant so she tried having her boyfriend push/step on her stomach to force a miscarriage.

@ itsy bitsy spider.
The first sentence meant 'it's really easy to tell someone not to have an abortion when that person is the one going through nine months of pregnancy and not the individual saying not to have the abortion'.

And i apologize, in my speed reading I did miss that half the sentence about adoption. My apologies.

However, I do always find it odd that people seem to think it's okay to abort in 'certain' circumstances. What makes the fetus outweigh the mother in only certain circumstances?

@ for dru's sins.

It's not so much that the fetus outweighs the mother that details the circumstance. It's the mother's situation and what she plans to do with it, if that makes any sense. Of course, I am pro-choice for all situations, giving the respect of a mother for her choices of what she does with her body. But I guess my opinions come out from my individual feeling, which is pro-life--because I would never abort a baby of mine, ever.

Getting back on topic, I can see where you're coming from, but personally, it reflects on the choice of the mother, for me. If she's doing what she thinks is best for the fetus--which is not always the case--then she's trying to put its life in front of her own in order to protect it. But I understand what you're saying.

This is regarding a particular circumstance. I don't really get it when people say about a mum with children already that adoption would be a good alternative to abortion.

What about the existing child? Say that mum has a nine year old and a 12 year old. Given their cognitive abilities at that age, they would compute what was going on and know that adoption isn't necessarily the norm. They may have seen their friends mums have babies. The older child may remember their sibling during pregnancy and birth. What about them? What impact would it have on them to see their mum go through pregnancy and birth but then have no sibling? And what if the mum is a single-parent? How would they cope caring for themself, a fetus and existing children all at once?