an abortion thread with no personal attacks

[Valka D'Ur]

Would that give them a functional reproductive system? (serious question, since I know nothing about this kind of procedure)

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

Would that give them a functional reproductive system? (serious question, since I know nothing about this kind of procedure)

I know less than you do, buddy.

 

[Traitorfish]

Sex-reassignment surgery only effects the genitalia, it's not (yet? ) possible to construct an artificial reproductive system.

 

[timtofly]

Formy makes it sound so easy to just place a uterus there and every thing will fall into place. I am curious though. At what point is moving the egg/fetus still viable? At what point are we in developing an artificial womb?

 

[Farm Boy]

Let's use the Canadian concept of rural, instead of the American concept. How about a Native girl who lives in some isolated part of the Northwest Territories or Nunavut, where there may or may not be internet, may or may not be phone service, or even electricity or running water? (yes, there are parts of Canada that primitive) And don't even consider "driving" her to a clinic, because there aren't even any damn ROADS, at least for part of the year. Yes, there are areas of Canada so remote that they can't be driven to unless it's during the part of the year when the local lake system has frozen over hard and deep enough to take the weight of vehicles, passengers, and cargo. Otherwise, you use small airplanes, snowmobiles, and your own two feet. Some areas still use dog sleds, as well. Still gonna tell me about the hordes of adoptive parents?

Sounds like getting to a decent abortion clinic is going to be equally as difficult. And yes, if adoptive parents hear about the child, they'll be there. American/Canadian/French adoptive couples regularly adopt from across the world already.

And isn't your position that abortions should be banned? Or is all this just your own personal opinion which you would never want to force on others? Your posts seem rather strident if you are merely expressing your personal preference in this matter.

Maybe this is too much of an assumption considering the length of the thread but I usually do expect people to know who they are addressing and that person's previous posts in a thread. I'll repeat myself ad nauseam rather than multi-quoting myself. No, I do not think they should be banned. Again: cases where the health of the mother and expected child are at risk are good examples of why abortion needs to be legal. Cases of rape, incest, and child pregnancy are more good reasons why it needs to be legal.

I guess you forgot your previous comment after I pointed out that 47,000 women have successfully used this procedure the first time: (referencing embryo transfer)

How much due diligence did you do on this research before you twice implied it was a viable option right now for those considering having an abortion? I think you glossed over(or couldn't be assed to read) that this procedure is typically only effective at ~three days after fertilization occurs. The procedure also requires about two weeks on preparation from the indented recipient. Are you making the assertion that most women who would be in a situation to consider abortion both know a) that they are pregnant within 3 days of fertilization and b) that they have adequate timing to line up two surgical procedures, likely involving a stranger(already prepping hormone treatments for 11 days), within that window? How is this relevant to adoption in its present form given this constraint? Are you still implying that adoptive mothers are choosing that route because they want a child but don't want to go through being pregnant and thus would be unwilling to accept a transfer if their bodies would be able to accept it? The cherry-picking from that article was pretty bad man.

If I appear confrontational, I guess I am a little bit sorry. I get weary of conversations that phrase this discussion along typical brain-dead ideological lines of "raise the child or abort it." As with any issue where reasoning minds can disagree it is complicated, and there are more choices than just those two. People who argue abortion should be illegal when the mother is going to die and the child be lost are --insert epithet here--. On the flip side, perhaps it's just been lack of bothering to read, but it seems that there are also some epithets to be had when somebody says, "Hey guys, I agree with you on abortion's legality but why don't we consider an additional option," and they get tossed in with anti-choicers. As a counter-example and relevant follow-up question -

Does anyone know how much of a difference there is between prospective adopters of white babies and non-white babies?

It does exist, at least in the states, which is mostly what I know about. Most, but not all by any means, adoptive families right now are white. Deciding to adopt and navigating through the legal certifications(varies by state) usually takes a while. A lot of couples start out with pre-formed notions about how adoption was done 40 years ago, namely closed adoptions where the birth mother never met the adoptive parents nor did the child know anything about their biological parents. The idea was that being adopted was somehow shameful. With that assumption most people start out wanting a child that looks like them. As you get farther in the process you realize that, much for the better, very few adoptions are done this way anymore. Open adoption is the norm. The birth mother may have regular contact with the adoptive family, she may only want letters and pictures on a set schedule. It's better all around this way. The birth mother isn't totally shut out of the life she carried for 9 months and birthed, the adoptive parents get at least partial medical records for their child, and the child, when they are old enough to have questions about their biological past, have an avenue to learn more.

As prospective adopters learn more about this system, the race of the child matters less and less in the equation. If you are being open with your child about the fact that they were adopted, you don't need to "sneak in" a kid that looks just like you. The prevalence of adoptive parents in North America that adopt from Eastern Asia and Africa is a good indication of how little this generally matters anymore. We've come a long way in moving past backward and harmful notions about birth mothers and adopted kids. We could still do better, I hope we keep moving forward.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Maybe this is too much of an assumption considering the length of the thread but I usually do expect people to know who they are addressing and that person's previous posts in a thread. I'll repeat myself ad nauseam rather than multi-quoting myself. No, I do not think they should be banned. Again: cases where the health of the mother and expected child are at risk are good examples of why abortion needs to be legal. Cases of rape, incest, and child pregnancy are more good reasons why it needs to be legal.

I certainly haven't memorized your personal opinions in this regard, much less read the entire thread. My apologies for inconveniencing you.

But you still didn't really answer my question. Do you think that abortion should be banned in all the other cases? Or is this just a personal preference on your part? I think that difference is quite important and is frequently glossed over in these discussions. Many, if not most, pro-life advocates don't seem to want to ban abortion at all. They just feel it is personally immoral. I can certainly respect that view even though I disagree with it.

My concern is really confined to those who wish to return us to the sexual dark ages by again banning it.

How much due diligence did you do on this research before you twice implied it was a viable option right now for those considering having an abortion? I think you glossed over(or couldn't be assed to read) that this procedure is typically only effective at ~three days after fertilization occurs. The procedure also requires about two weeks on preparation from the indented recipient. Are you making the assertion that most women who would be in a situation to consider abortion both know a) that they are pregnant within 3 days of fertilization and b) that they have adequate timing to line up two surgical procedures, likely involving a stranger(already prepping hormone treatments for 11 days), within that window? How is this relevant to adoption in its present form given this constraint? Are you still implying that adoptive mothers are choosing that route because they want a child but don't want to go through being pregnant and thus would be unwilling to accept a transfer if their bodies would be able to accept it? The cherry-picking from that article was pretty bad man.

At least you didn't peremptorily dismiss my opinions this time and seem to have read the article to try to find actual holes. But you did appear to do your own "cherry-picking" by taking my comments out of context with my previous posts. Let me refresh your memory about one particular post before addressing your other comments:

Once the technology does exist, I certainly expect all the pro-life women who think abortion is murder, are still fertile, and are not pregnant to line up at the abortion clinics to rescue embryos and fetuses while personally taking on financial responsibility until they are at least 18.

Emphasis added.

While the existing technology apparently only exists for embryos during the first week or so of pregnancy, I see no reason why it couldn't be developed to accommodate all embryos and even early fetus development. The existing techniques were specifically developed to implant infertile women, not to "rescue" embryos and fetuses from pregnant women who wished to have abortions.

The existing methodology, however, would work quite well in the cases where the woman now uses the "morning after pill", which is another reason why I asked you about your specific opinions in this regard.

The fact that the recipient needs to be prepped should cause no problem, since they would ostensibly be lining up to have the next embryo immediately transferred. Given how frequently abortions now occur, it wouldn't take any advanced planning at all to find a suitable "donor" when they were ready for the transfer.

I imagine there likely will be women who will simply decide to have an abortion instead of going through all this. But there are likely many others who are now bringing the fetus to term because they object to abortions who would be overjoyed to have this option. Wouldn't you think?

I think this is a quite viable option that requires the more vehement critics to be pro-active about their own opinions. And again, it doesn't have to solely be those who cannot now produce eggs. I expect many of the women who think abortion is murder to volunteer to "save" these embryos and fetuses if they feel so strongly about it.

 

[Leoreth]

I fully agree with you, except for one point: Some of the loudest and most insistent pro-lifers don't HAVE a uterus, because they are MALE. What would you propose for them to put their money and energies where their mouths are?

Well I think the opinions of the people who don't have uteri (I'm talking about males here of course, not women who lost them due to medical reasons) but want to legislate them have been heard way too much already.

 

[Farm Boy]

Edit: addressing Formaldehyde --

Perhaps it's just a function of me not having inconvenienced you with reading the whole tread.

Choppy itty little bitty statements then?
I do not want Roe vs. Wade overturned.
I do not support the legislative agenda of the pro-life movement.
I am not advocating forcing women out of choice.
I am asking for consideration of an alternative path.

Pick that more finely if you care to, but how many different situations do you want to consider? It seems the "norm" or whatever right now is abortion is legal for about 20ish weeks. Since I'm not advocating changing it, you can go with that as a general guideline. I probably would not be cool with expanding the allowable legal range of abortion to include the 3rd trimester or whatever barring exceptional medical circumstances where an emergency delivery is already much more an option.

I'm really not all that interested in debating what we might be able to do someday. I know you seems to be. I hope that we will be able do everything from Star Trek TNG and more, we'll have to take it as we go and hopefully the options available to us get better.

That said, embryo transplant, as it exists now, is not a viable solution in regards to abortion and adoption as you are framing it. Fertilization for this process is the product of harvesting eggs from a donor and done in a petri dish. It creates and discards more viable embryos than are implanted. Fertilization done the "old fashioned way" is not detectable by standard testing within the transplant window and not really removable in a viable format from the uterus. Only some couples are infertile due to conception issues. Many are infertile because the female is unable to carry the child.

If you want the choppy one sentence sound byte regarding the morning after pill as well - I'm undecided.

 

[Farm Boy]

Well I think the opinions of the people who don't have uteri (I'm talking about males here of course, not women who lost them due to medical reasons) but want to legislate them have been heard way too much already.

I might be willing to consider this logic, but only if you eliminate the legality of forced child support payments from men who have no interest in being fathers who happen to get a woman pregnant. Reproductive freedom should actually be reproductive freedom regardless of gender.

 

[timtofly]

I might be willing to consider this logic, but only if you eliminate the legality of forced child support payments from men who have no interest in being fathers who happen to get a woman pregnant. Reproductive freedom should actually be reproductive freedom regardless of gender.

Only framed in such terms, because those males who cause the problem would also probably not have the ability to defend their views in a logical manner.

 

[Akka]

Well I think the opinions of the people who don't have uteri (I'm talking about males here of course, not women who lost them due to medical reasons) but want to legislate them have been heard way too much already.

As much of a pro-choice as I am, and as much as I find repellent to try to take control over the body of someone - the sanctity of your own body is second only to the sanctity of your own mind - I have to say that I am VERY tired of this "man vs woman" argument.

If an embryo was a real, entire person, abortion would be a MUCH more delicate debate, regardless of who has an uterus.
What makes it okay is not some anti or pro feminist point. What makes it okay is that an embryo is just a small lump of cell without any brain - not a person, and as such no big deal to terminate in itself.

 

[civ_king]

If you're going to argue with me, how about you do on the basis of what I actually SAID, rather than what you SAY I said, 'k?

I think it's downright IMMORAL to spend money on killing people on the other side of the world (or anywhere) for no good reason and then say there isn't enough money to take care of one's OWN people. Yes, a lot of abortions happen because the women can't afford to raise the kid. But did you ever consider that they also can't afford to have the kid in the first place, even though the option to have it adopted also exists? Not all women HAVE access to proper pre-natal care. Not all women have the option to work through a pregnancy up until the time when maternity leave becomes necessary. Not all women can even afford to go to the damn hospital to HAVE the baby. Sometimes pre-natal screenings indicate a problem that means the baby would not survive (or would be born disabled or sick) unless the problem is corrected in utero - which costs money the woman simply doesn't have. Her only other choice then would be abortion.

But hey - gotta go kill somebody in Iraq, so screw the woman and her baby, right? And how many "pro-lifers" would step up and help her? Not too many that I've heard of. Would you?

And WHERE in any of my posts you've quoted have I typed the words "ectopic pregnancy"? Although I must admit that it makes me angrier than I can adequately express when I read about "pro-lifers" who say it's perfectly fine to let a woman in such a situation die (I guess they forgot that this means the baby also dies).

God's will?

BS and other bovine waste. Republicans' and fundamentalists' will, more like. And as I said - hypocrits' will.

I agree that the US should spend more money on maternal education,

One of the most significant findings is that, contrary to widely-held assumptions, making abortion illegal in Chile did not result in an increase in maternal mortality. In fact, after abortion was made illegal in 1989, the MMR continued to decrease from 41.3 to 12.7 per 100,000 live births (69.2% reduction). "Definitively, the legal status of abortion is unrelated to overall maternal mortality rates" emphasized Koch.
The variables affecting this decrease included the predictable factors of delivery by skilled attendants, complementary nutrition for pregnant women and their children in the primary care clinics and schools, clean facilities, and fertility. But the most important factor and the one which increased the effect of all others was the educational level of women. For every additional year of maternal education there was a corresponding decrease in the MMR of 29.3 per 100,000 live births.

Science Daily

Well according to Catholic teaching while flushing the tube with chemicals to fill the embryo/fetus is wrong removing the part of the tube that would rupture is not wrong even if it would result of the embryo/fetus.

 

[Leoreth]

I might be willing to consider this logic, but only if you eliminate the legality of forced child support payments from men who have no interest in being fathers who happen to get a woman pregnant. Reproductive freedom should actually be reproductive freedom regardless of gender.

As much of a pro-choice as I am, and as much as I find repellent to try to take control over the body of someone - the sanctity of your own body is second only to the sanctity of your own mind - I have to say that I am VERY tired of this "man vs woman" argument.

If an embryo was a real, entire person, abortion would be a MUCH more delicate debate, regardless of who has an uterus.
What makes it okay is not some anti or pro feminist point. What makes it okay is that an embryo is just a small lump of cell without any brain - not a person, and as such no big deal to terminate in itself.

I think I'll reply to both of these at once, I hope you don't mind.

I didn't want to imply that men inherently aren't allowed to have an opinion on abortion (I mean, I am a man with an opinion on abortion). It's just that the recent discussion has veered into the question of whether pregnant women should go through pregnancy so adoptive mothers could adopt their children. This is highly hypothetical, of course, but I think the question if adoptive mothers would be willing to carry out the children that would be aborted had some merit.

The following interjection regarding the desires of potentially adoptive fathers was rather inappropriate in this context, which is what I was ultimately reacting to.

Add to that at my dismay about how topics specifically concerning women were handled recently (I just had to think of the all-men theological panel the Congress interviewed on the matter of religion and female contraception).

 

[Valka D'Ur]

While the existing technology apparently only exists for embryos during the first week or so of pregnancy, I see no reason why it couldn't be developed to accommodate all embryos and even early fetus development. The existing techniques were specifically developed to implant infertile women, not to "rescue" embryos and fetuses from pregnant women who wished to have abortions.

...

I imagine there likely will be women who will simply decide to have an abortion instead of going through all this. But there are likely many others who are now bringing the fetus to term because they object to abortions who would be overjoyed to have this option. Wouldn't you think?

I think this is a quite viable option that requires the more vehement critics to be pro-active about their own opinions. And again, it doesn't have to solely be those who cannot now produce eggs. I expect many of the women who think abortion is murder to volunteer to "save" these embryos and fetuses if they feel so strongly about it.

You'd think they would be eager, given how loudly they rant about forcing their views on pregnant women and pro-choicers. But amazingly, whenever I (or anyone else) has asked these women if they'd be willing to step up and adopt a baby that another woman couldn't raise, the response has been DEAD SILENCE.

So they will NOT put their money OR their energies where their mouths are. I simply cannot respect a "pro-lifer" who thinks this stance means caring for a fetus only until it's born, and then shrugging the baby off if it's born into circumstances not conducive to staying alive.

I'm really not all that interested in debating what we might be able to do someday. I know you seems to be. I hope that we will be able do everything from Star Trek TNG and more, we'll have to take it as we go and hopefully the options available to us get better.

That said, embryo transplant, as it exists now, is not a viable solution in regards to abortion and adoption as you are framing it.

Small correction - it was on Deep Space Nine that a fetal transplant was done (when Keiko O'Brien was unable to carry her baby, Dr. Bashir transplanted it into Major Kira's body and she's the one who finished carrying the baby and gave birth).

And sure, this can't be done now (I mean human to human, nevermind human to Bajoran) - but that doesn't mean it can't ever be done.

I might be willing to consider this logic, but only if you eliminate the legality of forced child support payments from men who have no interest in being fathers who happen to get a woman pregnant. Reproductive freedom should actually be reproductive freedom regardless of gender.

Huh? It takes two to tango. If a man has no interest in being a father, he'd best get himself sterilized or use absolutely FOOLPROOF birth control. Otherwise, he takes his chances, and if a kid results from a few minutes of fun, those are the consequences.

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, they're two different things. Abortion is a bodily autonomy question, and so is a right of the women (men already get the full rights, because they never have to worry about being impregnated). Child support is for the child: both parents (ostensibly) have that obligation.

The reason why abortion is solely decided by the woman is because it's her body that's being affected. Once there's an independent citizen (i.e., the baby), then a new set of obligations kick in.

As an aside, has there ever been court-ordered child-support demanded while a woman was pregnant (i.e., to help her carry the pregnancy to term)? I would want to exclude contracted pregnancies, though

 

[civ_king]

You'd think they would be eager, given how loudly they rant about forcing their views on pregnant women and pro-choicers. But amazingly, whenever I (or anyone else) has asked these women if they'd be willing to step up and adopt a baby that another woman couldn't raise, the response has been DEAD SILENCE.

So they will NOT put their money OR their energies where their mouths are. I simply cannot respect a "pro-lifer" who thinks this stance means caring for a fetus only until it's born, and then shrugging the baby off if it's born into circumstances not conducive to staying alive.


Small correction - it was on Deep Space Nine that a fetal transplant was done (when Keiko O'Brien was unable to carry her baby, Dr. Bashir transplanted it into Major Kira's body and she's the one who finished carrying the baby and gave birth).

And sure, this can't be done now (I mean human to human, never mind human to Bajoran) - but that doesn't mean it can't ever be done.


Huh? It takes two to tango. If a man has no interest in being a father, he'd best get himself sterilized or use absolutely FOOLPROOF birth control. Otherwise, he takes his chances, and if a kid results from a few minutes of fun, those are the consequences.

SO only one of them is fully responsible for their actions, one can abort legal responsibility, but one can't.

Query, if a woman says she is on birth control, but she is lying should the man be responsible for a baby that results from that?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

SO only one of them is fully responsible for their actions, one can abort legal responsibility, but one can't.

Query, if a woman says she is on birth control, but she is lying should the man be responsible for a baby that results from that?

Yes. Because:

1. Birth control can fail. So even if the woman tells the truth about being on birth control, a baby can still result.

2. Even if the woman is lying, it's not the BABY's fault. Child support is meant for the CHILD, not the mother. Even if the money were put into a trust or account overseen by the courts, that's still better than nothing at all.


I realize that a lot of lying goes on. But none of this is the kid's fault, and the kid should not suffer from the stupidity or duplicitous behavior of the parents. It's not the fairest solution for the father, but it is for the child.

 

[El_Machinae]

SO only one of them is fully responsible for their actions, one can abort legal responsibility, but one can't.

Query, if a woman says she is on birth control, but she is lying should the man be responsible for a baby that results from that?

Yes, but IMO, her fraud is both tortable and sexual assault. He should be able to sue her for the child-support payments, and should even be able to press criminal charges.

In practice, it's hard to do those things without unreasonably burdening the child.

As an aside, I wish that people wouldn't bemoan that 'men don't have the right to abort'. It's more like 'men don't need the right to avoid debilitation and distended physiology, because it won't happen to them.'.

 

[Farm Boy]

I see. Reproductive freedom for some then. Cut it as you like, but that's still the end result you are interested in keeping codified. As mentioned even responsible birth controls methods can fail. I find this interesting.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Reproductive responsibility, more like. If guys want the fun, they also have to be prepared for the possible consequences. It's not good enough to just whine that they didn't want to be fathers - if a pregnancy occurs and the mother opts to keep and raise the child, the father is morally obligated - for the sake of the CHILD who, after all, did not ASK to be conceived and born - to help.