Abortion thread

[WDWHound]

Scary!!!

You think thats scary, try this
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/health/092302_hs_artificialwomb.html

An artifical womb for a 4 baby who was 4 months premature, and we are doing it NOW.

I stand by my statement that tech is changing the nature of the discussion.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

We've been talking about this calmly for over a dozen pages, thank you very much! (and patting ourselves on the back for it all the way!)

 

[auntpolly]

Gee whiz! Is that dinner I smell burning? -- the little woman is cooking for her husband's business associates tonight so gotta go (I feel like Donna Reed - where are my pearls?????? See ya tomorrow, all.)

 

[WDWHound]

I have to say I don't agree with you wdwhound....I am always open to listening to others views and think this has been a very civilized discussion....I think this is always going to be a touchy subject.... I am pro-choice with limitations in my mind... but i completely respect those who belive in unlimited free choice and those who are pro life. I respect the merit in all arguments....that being said... If someone mandated that you donate your lung or kidney to another so that a life be spared how would you feel? If you were forced into an operation so that another could live... I'm not sure how I would feel given that situation, but certainly not in control. I think that is why this argument is often more cut and dried for men...many don't understand all of the physical and emotional demands placed on a woman during this time....Pregnancy by nature is a dangerous undertaking...with all the things that can potentially go wrong it is truly amazing there are so many of us......

Good point. I would never be for mandiory organ donation, but then again I would have to give up an organ. Now, if someone madated you give blood to save a life, how would you feel. The case we are discussing is somewhere in between, more intrusive than giving blood, less intrusive than surrendering an organ forever (at least i most cases).

As for the danger, I would say the pregnacy could be terminated if the life of the mother was ever in danger, as then you are faced with the unhapppy choice of choice of being forced to pick one life over another.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

You think thats scary, try this
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/health/092302_hs_artificialwomb.html

An artifical womb for a 4 baby who was 4 months premature, and we are doing it NOW.

I stand by my statement that tech is changing the nature of the discussion.

It sounds like treatment in NICU as opposed to a true artificial womb. They already cover babies eyes, keep htem in an incubator, and other things that help simulate as best as possible the womb environment. Simulating conditions is not the same as creating an artificial organ.

Regaridng your statement--I think we have played the technology card several times. Technology has not changed in the past 24 hours--and this is a discussion on abortion for right now with what we know.

 

[WDWHound]

Yes, and I appologixze for my poor choice of words. What I should have said is that many people are talking in absolutes. I would be that most people who beleive that this is a religious issue are not willing to consider any other point, even if they do discuss it calmly and politely. I would also be that those who feel that this is a woman;s right issues are not really open to modifying there point of views, even if they discuss it calmly and rationally. Its got nothing to do with the current law. Instead it has everything to do with where are views on these issues come from and what basis we use to form them.

The use of absolutes (abortion is always wrong or a woman should always have the right to choose) is hard for em to understand when it seems to me that neitherside can possibly understand the problem in its entirty. I beleive the law works well for what we know now, but shouldn't we be discussing what we don't know so that we cab determine the next paths that need to be explored.

Agaibn, I a VERY sorry that I imlied this thread was uncivil. Please for give my poor choice of wording.

 

[WDWHound]

It sounds like treatment in NICU as opposed to a true artificial womb. They already cover babies eyes, keep htem in an incubator, and other things that help simulate as best as possible the womb environment. Simulating conditions is not the same as creating an artificial organ.

Regaridng your statement--I think we have played the technology card several times. Technology has not changed in the past 24 hours--and this is a discussion on abortion for right now with what we know.

Semantics. We have the tech to keep a four month premature baby alive now, it doesn't matter what you call it, the tech is there. My point is the point where a baby can be viably removed from its mother is getting earlier and earlier, and that is important if people use viablity as their standard in determining when life begins, which is the cornerstone of many poeples opinios on abortion.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Yes, and I appologixze for my poor choice of words. What I should have said is that many people are talking in absolutes. I would be that most people who beleive that this is a religious issue are not willing to consider any other point, even if they do discuss it calmly and politely. I would also be that those who feel that this is a woman;s right issues are not really open to modifying there point of views, even if they discuss it calmly and rationally. Its got nothing to do with the current law. Instead it has everything to do with where are views on these issues come from and what basis we use to form them.

The use of absolutes (abortion is always wrong or a woman should always have the right to choose) is hard for em to understand when it seems to me that neitherside can possibly understand the problem in its entirty. I beleive the law works well for what we know now, but shouldn't we be discussing what we don't know so that we cab determine the next paths that need to be explored.

Agaibn, I a VERY sorry that I imlied this thread was uncivil. Please for give my poor choice of wording.

Those who were very absolute have pretty much posted once and left---the majority of us firmly in our beliefs have been having very educated discussions and putting in facts and scenarios to discuss it.

We have discussed the perhaps the law needs to be further defined--and even some of the pro-choicers agreed....

split along the lines of 1st/2nd/3rd trimester....you'll have to look around to find it as it is dinnertime for us.

As far as 1st trimester--technology may one day become available--but it costs money---and I would hate to see it come to the day that a woman is miscarrying and she is held liable for it.

 

[WDWHound]

As far as 1st trimester--technology may one day become available--but it costs money---and I would hate to see it come to the day that a woman is miscarrying and she is held liable for it.

I agree, the ethical issues that are coming are going to be staggering and the potential for the rights of a woman to be put in danger are real.

 

[Immelman]

Do you ever regret your choice? Do you ever wonder about the child that might have been and does it make you sad?

no, it's a nonfactor to me. my wife and I endured a series of late first term miscarriages before my daughter decided to stick it out and go full term. I would be in an institution if I thought that stuff through. the worst was my wife had one in a catholic hospital. they wanted to know if we wanted a funeral. I almost went to jail that day.

I remember the day she had her abortion vividly, but I don't think about it. I guess I'm a cold person, but I have no feelings about it. we did what we did, and we both went on with our different lives about a year after that. I've never spoken to her since.

 

[Tasha+Scott]

Wow, this thread moves REALLY fast! Anyway, I have already given my views on abortion, but I do have a curiosity question. Nothing to cause an arguement I don't think, but just something I am very curious about.

Earlier in this thread several of you said that you don't believe it is a baby until after it is born. I know several of you have children though. So, my question is to those of you who feel that way and have children...if you don't believe it is an actual baby until after birth, how could you feel any excitement during pregnancy? When your baby kicked, what did you feel? Did you think oh, the fetus is moving? Or did you actually have a bond during pregnancy? I am just curious how pregnancy could have meant anything to you (even during the 3rd trimester) if the thing growing inside of you wasn't yet a baby in your mind. And I think that this question if best left answered by the women on this thread...no offense to our male DISers!

 

[phillybeth]

Wrong. I had embryos growing in a petri dish. It's not a "pregnancy" until implantation.

And how far did those embryos develop in the dish? They won't go past morula stage (after which it becomes an embryo) until they implant. No implantation, no development, no embryo, no pregnancy.

 

[WDWHound]

the worst was my wife had one in a catholic hospital. they wanted to know if we wanted a funeral. I almost went to jail that day.

Immelman: Please ignore the following question if you want to and also please understand that it is not meant to challange you or change your view. The question from the hospital was clearly upsetting, but I don't understand why. What aboiut the question upset you? Was it presented as a "we beleive the fetus is a life so you should too" sort of thing? Again, you don't need to justify your response, I am just trying to understand how you saw the situation. I think it would help me to understand some of the strong emotions the topic of abortion can being up.

Sorry in advance if I am getting to personal.

 

[phillybeth]

The scientific community has never defined when life starts. They dont understand the criteria any more than you or I do.

Well, first we have to figure out what life is. Then we can answer that question. And if you think I'm joking, I'm not. Is a virus alive? How about a prion? What the criteria for life?

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Semantics. We have the tech to keep a four month premature baby alive now, it doesn;t matter what you call it, the tech is there. My point is the point where a baby can be viably removed from its mother is getting earlier and earlier, and that is important if people use viablity as their standard in determining when life begins, which is the cornerstone of many poeples opinios on abortion.

I agree--if delivery is an option--then abortion should definitely be against the law and woman's choice at that point should not be (I'm pro-life btw). As that age gets younger---then the bar should be pushed back even further.

 

[MrsKreamer]

I have to say that this post is extremely interesting! What a great conversation! Good job everyone!

 

[phillybeth]

No, because legally he is not a father until the child is born. Should a man who rapes a woman who then becomes pregnant be able to have a say in whether she has an abortion or not?

With the advent of DNA testing paternity CAN be established legally before birth. And in some states, the husband of a married woman is legally assumed to be the father (with all rights, responsibilities and privleges) even if the child was concieved by someone else.

 

[WDWHound]

Well, first we have to figure out what life is. Then we can answer that question. And if you think I'm joking, I'm not. Is a virus alive? How about a prion? What the criteria for life?

I don;t think you are joking. In fact, you are repeating my point (LOL). The criteria that I was just discussing with someone was viability, but I think we will discover more. Right now the best we can do is admit we dont know, thus the current law protets the onluy thing we understand, the rights of the woman. Still, that doesn;t mean we shouldn;t keep trying to find a better understanding.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

no, it's a nonfactor to me. my wife and I endured a series of late first term miscarriages before my daughter decided to stick it out and go full term. I would be in an institution if I thought that stuff through. the worst was my wife had one in a catholic hospital. they wanted to know if we wanted a funeral. I almost went to jail that day.

Why did you almost go to jail?

If they simply asked--and you didn't want a funeral...you say no thank you.

We can get a life insurance policy that covers unborn babies that are miscarried after a certain # of weeks...but at the moment I forget--but it seemed pretty early.

 

[auntpolly]

Yes, and I appologixze for my poor choice of words. What I should have said is that many people are talking in absolutes. I would be that most people who beleive that this is a religious issue are not willing to consider any other point, even if they do discuss it calmly and politely. I would also be that those who feel that this is a woman;s right issues are not really open to modifying there point of views, even if they discuss it calmly and rationally. Its got nothing to do with the current law. Instead it has everything to do with where are views on these issues come from and what basis we use to form them.

The use of absolutes (abortion is always wrong or a woman should always have the right to choose) is hard for em to understand when it seems to me that neitherside can possibly understand the problem in its entirty. I beleive the law works well for what we know now, but shouldn't we be discussing what we don't know so that we cab determine the next paths that need to be explored.

Agaibn, I a VERY sorry that I imlied this thread was uncivil. Please for give my poor choice of wording.

OK dinner ready, candles lit, pearls on, guests late......

I don't think anyone here as spoken in absolutes, except for a few who posted a few sentences and never came back. Nobody has said it is only a religious issue. Nobody has said it's just a woman's issue.No one has said it is only a legal issues. We've talked about all of these things in concert with a very complicated subject. The only thing I will absolutely say is that I we are confident about our positions -- or we wouldn't have debated them so long. You say what you think - we say what we think. Point - counterpoint. I think it's a little condescending to interpret that as "not being capable of considering other peoples' points." I don't agree with you - you haven't said anything that inspires me to modify my point of view.

You aren't trying to say that we are inflexible and you aren't are you? After all, you've never really answered my question about the ethics of saving very premature babies who will have a very poor quality of life.