'This can't be happening in our country.'

[Onkel Neal]

"I have abortion on the front of this building, because I think abortion isn't a four-letter word. It's a part of life."

What?

The abortionist and his No. 1 foe

Discuss!

I have to say, it amazes me that someone can be so cavalier about late term abortions. The two sides will never agree, one side says it's choice, the other side says legalized murder. One thing's for sure, when an abortion occurs, a human life in production ceases to exist.

The legal definition of late-term abortion varies from state to state. Medical professionals generally define it as an abortion performed at 24 weeks or beyond, a time in pregnancy when a fetus can survive outside the womb.

Of the 60,000 abortions he says he's performed, he says about 400 were beyond 24 weeks, so-called late-term abortions. In each case, he says, there was a medical reason for the procedure.

,,,wow.

The latest abortion he's ever performed was at 36 weeks, he says, because the fetus had not developed a brain. His youngest patient was 10, a victim of incest.

In cases like that, I would tend to agree. But 60,000 cases of incest or malformed fetuses?

[Schroeder]

I think abortion should only be legal if the the child is massively challenged. Or maybe during the first 2 weeks but not later.
Idon't count myself to the conservatives but abortion is something that is way to easy to do nowadays (I know a girl who already had two of them.).

[Task Force]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

I think abortion should only be legal if the the child is massively challenged. Or maybe during the first 2 weeks but not later.
Idon't count myself to the conservatives but abortion is something that is way to easy to do nowadays (I know a girl who already had two of them.).

I agree... I also think that if they choose to have an abortion they should be able to... And the woman also should have to not be able to have anouther child for afiew years afterwords...

In the end, the child may be better off depending on the parents...

[August]

I wish abortions didn't happen but with nearly 7 billion people on the planet and the number ever climbing I don't think we really have the luxury of standing on principle when it comes to unwanted pregnancies.

[Shearwater]

Reminds me of a conversation I once had with a friend of mine. He was working together with an American woman, and somehow a chat with her turned onto that topic. He was really amazed (like myself and most of my friends) that abortion seems to be one of the major issues in the US (at least that was the impression that woman gave him). Not that I think it's not important - quite to the contrary. But it seems to be much more on the political agenda than over here.

[Skybird]

I cannot define "human life in production" - what should that be, please? Either it is human life, or it is not. Two states of cellular developement, that cannot clearly be separated from each other by a precise point in the timeline, thus we need to find an agreement on the grey zone where that cellular mass that has nothing, really nothing in common with a human being, actually turns into a human being that shows a cellular order with a sufficiently advanced structure to see it as a human being. And not before then - you can eventually talk of "human life in production". Before that, it is just some cellular grease with genetic information to eventually become a human - but who would think of the genetic information in the hairs and skin cells he/she is loosing all day long as a "human life prevented from developement"? Our reactions to threats to our genetic code are instinct driven survival automatisms - where the survival of our species is meant, not necessarily our individual survival.

Knowing that we are free to leave this genetically enforced automatism behind, if we chose to do so, I see no wrong in doing that during the phase where that cellular grease is just that: cellular grease. no human gets killed there. No future gets prevented, for a future of something has as a precondition that this something already exists in the present. Potentials alone - are no future. They are just fate's hear-say about Whats and Ifs and Maybes. Philosophical finger excercises to please the ego and to saend the intellect on doing that one extra round. I could as well think about what my life would be if I would have had a sister or brother. It makes no sense, and means nothing, and I will never know wanything for sure, and if I could nevertheless, that knowledge would be useless for me in my life. Hirngespinste.

So, disucssion I only understand on the issue of until what time abortion is acceptable. And it could be possible that I fix that time much earlier than is usually the case, but I would need to educate myself much better on the timetable of embryonic developement phases. Before that time, I see abortion as morally perfectly legal, and all upstir about it as an instinct-driven venting of emotional overpressure that results from the genetically encoded law to survive - and like all automatisms, it does not work perfectly and in this case even is counterproductive.

for any further discussion of aboprtion I refer you to this most uncompromised realist I know, Dr. House. Just try to imagine what he would reply to you!

[Shearwater]

Well, I'll say that from the moment of conception, a human being starts to exist. But to me it's something different than a person, since that lump of cells, despite being human and with all the potential it has within itself, does not yet have what most people would call a personality, or an discernible individual identity. If it were otherwise, most people would probably have a much harder time deciding for abortion.
Personally, I think that it is the parents' responsibilty to decide in such a matter (although late abortions do concern me). I think, however, that it's absolutely mandatory to inform the parents thoroughly enough to ensure that the decision they are about to make is well-considered. After all, it's not only of their concern, and they should be made to consider the consequences.
I guess that position would make me pro-choice.

[Skybird]

What worries me is the showing of lacking education that is behind the high number of teenagers getting pregnant, and i think teenagers modern life and world is far too hyper-sexualised by the media and business.

I also would think to always leave a mother in despair the chance to legally give away her child if she wants, is the best option in such a situation. Growing numbers of couples cannot have children of their own nowadays. And a childhood in a family situation where the support is lacking, can be devastating both for the mother, and the child.

That holds the risk of even more irresponsible sexual behaviour - and there you are again at what I said before: lacking education and sexual over-stimulisation by modern culture and the media.

Just for your reminder, there are 7 billion people on Earth. Which is WAY TOO MUCH. Birth control already is one of the utmost priorities of any politics adressing our future. It's just that many people still do not understand that, and that our cultural heritage confronts headon with that statement.

Man will pay a high price for still not seeing that. We possibly already have lost our future over that.

Its the woman's choice nobody else.

[GoldenRivet]

Abortion

If it can be determined beyond the shadow of doubt that the child will live a life of debilitating mental or physical handicap... meaning that the child will have no quality of life... i support abortion.

if it can be determined beyond the shadow of doubt that failure to terminate the pregnancy will result in the death of the mother, or the child, or both... i support abortion.

if the pregnancy was the result of rape... i support abortion if it is the desire of the mother to abort the pregnancy.

however...

i cannot support abortion just because the mother doesn't want to deal with the responsibility of her own sexual activities.

put the child up for adoption.

there are thousands of childless couples who cannot have children of their own who would love to have a child in their lives... and could raise the child and give it a happy home and a wonderful life.

why abort out of what amounts to pure spite???

disgraceful

[Reaves]

Originally Posted by Rilder

Its the woman's choice nobody else.

It takes two to tango.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Skybird

thus we need to find an agreement on the grey zone where that cellular mass that has nothing, really nothing in common with a human being

I agree. Although I would contend about 80% of the world's population is not much more than cellular masses...

And not before then - you can eventually talk of "human life in production". Before that, it is just some cellular grease with genetic information to eventually become a human - but who would think of the genetic information in the hairs and skin cells he/she is loosing all day long as a "human life prevented from developement"?

Yeah, that's pretty much making my point, human in production, cells that will eventually become human. Same thing. And no, a hair or a fingernail is not the same as a human embryo. Remember, one contains the other. A hair can never become a person, a person (and embryo) has the tools to make hair.

for any further discussion of aboprtion I refer you to this most uncompromised realist I know, Dr. House. Just try to imagine what he would reply to you

Pfft! Dr. House. I'd give him a big ol' ass whippin with that cane of his.

Originally Posted by VipertheSniper

He has done around 400 late term abortions for medical reasons.

If the other 59600 abortions were done for personal reasons (of the parents), I don't think that's anyones business but those of the (would be) parents.
I don't think anyone makes this decision light-hearted, because if it's not for medical reasons, you know your baby would live if you didn't abort.

Ok, that's exactly right. It is a baby you are aborting, in the earliest stages. Thank you! So, that's why women don't generally like to talk aboutn their abortions. As you know, a lot of women face internal shame and grieve after an abortion. The reason?

IMO, the main reason why many people can go along with abortion as contraception, is because it's all done without seeing the fetus. It's done behind a curtain. It's like eating a hamburger, as long as most people don't have to see the cow get it in the neck, they're cool.

[Sledgehammer427]

You know, I was always a case-by-case person.
It is mainly the age of the couple, that's where I have to take a closer look.
Hormones.
As far as I can see one of the things they do to a guy is make him want to reproduce fervently as soon as he is able to do so (this is also stated in my blog, Episode 2.)

Of course now, this primitive instinct, since it is no longer needed, has been hidden behind things like "love" and "caring" and "lust." It is still a primitive instinct, mind you, just hidden behind a few coats of intellectual paint, if you will. Therefore, I'm not saying this as a catch-all for these (remember, case by case) It is mainly the woman's responsibility, and choice, whether or not to have the kid. Rape, that's a given, nobody wants a child that is the product of a heinous crime.
But if the mother-to-be is willing to do something that can eventually make a child, she should be willing to accept the responsibility of having one, or not have one. I know a couple teenage mothers who treat their kids like dirt. They should have just had an abortion instead of using their newborn child to suck every dollar out of the father as payback.

Religion has far too much to do with it. I was at a youth group meeting a couple years ago when the youth pastor started reading off a few situations that could have warranted an abortion, and probably would have. After reading all of these situations, we were told that if we agreed with the abortions, that we have killed quite a few prominent members of society. One was Jesus. Beethoven, Stevie wonder I think was there too.
I consider that a "shock tactic" and a truly worthless campaign. I know the Bible says it's wrong. I get it.

Look at our rapidly expanding world population. Is it truly worth bringing another child into this world, with the way it's turning out? Besides, for every one abortion there's bound to be a woman giving birth to sextuplets anyhow. We are getting far too crowded into too many places, in America, in Europe, in Africa. Everywhere. Disease is commonly transferred among children. Get all the shots you want, there's going to be a new epidemic tomorrow. Most abortions are among people who come from low-profit households. You can bet that they are filled with grief over it. The few young women I know who had abortions vowed to be abstinent. All is not lost. But I mentioned low-profit households because the majority of the mothers-to-be will have their entire academic lives ruined because of it. Notice what I'm saying? Human expansion. There's too much of it. And it's not helping our economy.

Yes, there are dead fetuses. The doctors don't like it and the mothers-to-be sure as heck don't. But on a worldwide scale we are merely a speck of dust. Stop touting statistics and look at the big picture. 60,000 abortions don't matter when there's 60,001 kids being born at the exact same time.

Is this making sense to anybody or am I just babbling at this point?

[Aramike]

IMO, the main reason why many people can go along with abortion as contraception, is because it's all done without seeing the fetus. It's done behind a curtain. It's like eating a hamburger, as long as most people don't have to see the cow get it in the neck, they're cool.

Agreed.

Personally, I would like to see abortion cease to exist as a form of casual contraception, meaning, that no more "the condom broke" cases. In cases of rape, etc, I can see early term abortion being acceptable.

[Aramike]

Religion has far too much to do with it. I was at a youth group meeting a couple years ago when the youth pastor started reading off a few situations that could have warranted an abortion, and probably would have. After reading all of these situations, we were told that if we agreed with the abortions, that we have killed quite a few prominent members of society. One was Jesus. Beethoven, Stevie wonder I think was there too.
I consider that a "shock tactic" and a truly worthless campaign. I know the Bible says it's wrong. I get it.

Those are typical religious scare tactics. However, I think you're mistaken to gloss over the point as a whole based solely about the ad hominem aspect of it. I frankly don't completely agree with the point this youth pastor was making (hell, I bet I could find reasons that some of the most brutal figures throughout history would/could have been aborted), but I do think it's worth examination.

Look at our rapidly expanding world population. Is it truly worth bringing another child into this world, with the way it's turning out? Besides, for every one abortion there's bound to be a woman giving birth to sextuplets anyhow. We are getting far too crowded into too many places, in America, in Europe, in Africa. Everywhere. Disease is commonly transferred among children. Get all the shots you want, there's going to be a new epidemic tomorrow. Most abortions are among people who come from low-profit households. You can bet that they are filled with grief over it. The few young women I know who had abortions vowed to be abstinent. All is not lost. But I mentioned low-profit households because the majority of the mothers-to-be will have their entire academic lives ruined because of it. Notice what I'm saying? Human expansion. There's too much of it. And it's not helping our economy.

Yes, there are dead fetuses. The doctors don't like it and the mothers-to-be sure as heck don't. But on a worldwide scale we are merely a speck of dust. Stop touting statistics and look at the big picture. 60,000 abortions don't matter when there's 60,001 kids being born at the exact same time.

Is this making sense to anybody or am I just babbling at this point?

While I understand what you're getting at, I can't buy into any of it. This concept of "human life=so what?" is disturbing to me.

The people who harp repeatedly on overpopulation always gloss over two very important things: First, the Earth can not, by nature, support more human beings that it can support. That's would violate the first fundamental law of logic. Secondly, technology is always increasing the amount of human beings that the earth can support.

We're not going to see disasterous overpopulation because it is impossible. If the earth can't support 10 billion people, for instance, the difference between that number and what the earth CAN support will perish.

But see, my point is simple: ultimately, we fail ourselves as a species (philosophically speaking) when we start attributing a value to any human life due to its perceived burden upon our resources. When we start saying that we don't need these babies, because other babies MAY have to sacrifice something, we open a very nasty door. At one point do we say the same about the handicapped? The unskilled? A culture which we just don't like?