What are your thoughts on abortion?

Rebecca - posted on 10/02/2011

Here's an article about the Baby Doe laws:

http://www.pediatricservices.com/prof/pr...

One of the many positive benefits the Right-To-Life movement has had in America. Note sarcasm please.

Rebecca - posted on 10/02/2011

I would also like to point out that doctors have a legal obligation to treat newborns with disabilities or brain damage regardless of the wishes of the parents. (the Baby Doe laws). Basically, if the doctor feels the baby should be treated and kept alive on live support, the parents have no say in the matter. Quality of life issues don't count. So as a parent, if you carry a severely disabled child to term, and the doctor thinks the child "has a chance," the doctor gets veto power over the parents. Personally, I would rather make the choice myself while I’m pregnant rather than be locked into a nightmare situation where I want to take a child off life support and some crazy-ass doctor won’t agree.
Also, in a lot of circumstances, infants who perish in the early days of life are so severely ill and are treated with so many medications that their organs can’t be harvested.
Lastly, on the point of suffering and life support, there is no way of knowing for certain whether a particular person on life support is suffering. However, they likely are suffering. Anyone who has ever been on a ventilator will tell you it is painful, as are catheters, IVs, etc. Having worked in the medical field years ago, I can tell you that most family members support keeping people on life support not because they believe the person isn’t suffering, but because they are hoping that the person will recover and can’t wrap their heads around the concept of letting the person go. As time goes by, most people replace their own thoughts of loss with concern about the person’s suffering and the realization that the situation is hopeless and eventually reach the point where they decide to take someone off life support.

Cathy - posted on 10/02/2011

BUT they had a CHOICE. The choice you would deny another mother.

Jenn - posted on 10/02/2011

OK - my bad Cathy. But I believe this is why they made the choice they did, to take the baby off of life support and to then in turn save 3 other lives. And Jodi, I didn't say it was or wasn't prolonging suffering - I wasn't saying that someone should be on life support.

Jenn - posted on 10/02/2011

But the same could be said of a healthy baby in utero - that it is on "life-support" - so does that mean it's OK to just take them off of life support as well? And as was already pointed out - sometimes Dr's and ultrasounds can be wrong. I would rather the person be given a chance.

Jodi - posted on 10/02/2011

Jenn, I am aware they also can't tell you if they are not. But you were the one trying to claim that it wasn't prolonging suffering of a baby, and I was asking how you know that.....because you don't.

Cathy - posted on 10/02/2011

"Also, there was no mention of said baby being on life support"

You need to reread that post!
"So they deliver, Drs were accurate and baby requires all kinds of life support."

Mary - posted on 10/02/2011

Jenn, whether you realize it or not, in the case of baby who has anomalies that are incompatible with life - the mother's body is, in essence, it's life support system. For many of us, the choice to terminate a pregnancy in this scenario is ethically no different than merely waiting for labor to spontaneously occur; in either situation, the fetus is not going survive independently. It is not, in Heather's words, "murder" - it is merely the mother having an active say in when she is going to withdraw providing "life support".

Jenn - posted on 10/02/2011

OK - not really sure why you're jumping my shit for what I said. Are you saying that you are against anyone being on life support? I'm not sure I get what your problem is. Also, there was no mention of said baby being on life support, just that they were a match for 3 organs. Jodi - they also can't tell you if they are NOT suffering - works both ways. I've known people who had family members on life-support and then were faced with a tough decision, I'm sure they'd love to know that they had "prolonged the suffering" of their loved ones.

Jodi - posted on 10/02/2011

"not all people on life support are "suffering" or we would never have people on life support."

How do you know they are not suffering? They can't tell you......

Cathy - posted on 10/02/2011

When there is ZERO chance of recovery then yes it is prolonging suffering.

If an adult has requested to be an organ donor then and there is zero chance then it is different . If a child has an accident and the parents are told there is zero chance of recovery and then choose to end it with organ donation then that is different.

Implementing laws to tell a pregnant mother that her child is essentially dead on arrival but they are going to are going to force life to continue for spare parts and she has NO choice but to continue with this course of action is IMO cruel, evil...

Jenn - posted on 10/02/2011

Cathy, not all people on life support are "suffering" or we would never have people on life support. Do you really think that when someone is in a massive car accident and they are on life-support, that their family is doing so to prolong their suffering? Come on! *rolls eyes*

Jenn - posted on 10/02/2011

I never said "GODS WILL" - for the love of pete - take the damn word out then. It was already destined that the person is dead but we were keeping them alive artificially (which I'm NOT against), so when we take someone off of life support, we are not killing them or ending their life, we are just no longer artificially supporting it. Does that make you happier? I don't actually believe in "God's will" - I don't believe that there is some big master plan - that goes against free will which I DO believe in.

Cathy - posted on 10/02/2011

Keeping a dying body artificially alive IS prolonging suffering.

Mary - posted on 10/02/2011

Jenn, what's confusing *us* is that you are saying it's "god's will" that this life ends. Therefore, it only follows that using artificial life support is just as equally in defiance of "god's will". As well, the recipients of those organs seemed to be destined to die without them. Therefore, transplanting organs can be viewed as man thwarting the will of god as well.



When you really think about it, arguing about following god's will really makes things a bit tricky, doesn't it?

Jenn - posted on 10/02/2011

I was saying that we were not the ones killing the person - we were the ones keeping them artificially alive. I said nothing of going against his will - just making a point that we aren't "killers" by taking someone off of life support. And where on earth did I say anything about prolonging someone's suffering? I can't find it - oh - because I didn't! The point of her story was that the baby was born unable to survive on their own, but at least there was good that came of it - their organs saved 3 lives. Nowhere was there mention of maintaining that baby's life to prolong any suffering.

Rebecca - posted on 10/02/2011

"God already decided that this person's time was up - we were just trying to go against that." How exactly is that not saying anything about "going against God's will"? You may not have used that exact phrase, but that is exactly what you just said. You can back away from it if you want, but that is what you just said.

Cathy - posted on 10/02/2011

But you are happy to prolong suffering in a baby if it can be used for spare parts?

Jenn - posted on 10/02/2011

Umm...I never said I was against artificial life support. I have no issue with trying to maintain a life for as long as possible. I didn't say anything about "going against God's will". So try again thanks.

Cathy - posted on 10/02/2011

So it's fine to maintain life artificially to destroy for spare parts but wrong to end a life to prevent pain and suffering. Nice!

Rebecca - posted on 10/02/2011

Not a child. Not a person. Not a child. Not a person. Unless that embryo or fetus can support itself, the only body that is relevant is the mother's body.

Rebecca - posted on 10/02/2011

"God already decided that this person's time was up."

So does that mean you are opposed to any type of intervention that extends life? If your five year old has a severe case of meningitus which is easily cured with antibiotics, but would otherwise be fatal, using that logic, shouldn't you let the kid just die? Otherwise, you are interfering with "God's will?"

Jenn - posted on 10/02/2011

But it's not her body that's in question - it's the body of the child. And just because the supreme court says something is OK, doesn't make it morally right. Lots of things have been legal in the past and present that shouldn't be legal from a moral standpoint.

Jenn - posted on 10/02/2011

OK, but the life wasn't artificially ended, it was being artificially supported. They just stopped supporting it, as is the case in any case of someone being on life-support. You aren't killing them or ending their life, you are just no longer supporting it through artificial means. God already decided that this person's time was up - we were just trying to go against that.

Rebecca - posted on 10/02/2011

Heather: I am pro-choice because I don't believe an embryo or fetus is either a "child" or a person. The United States Supreme Court agrees with me. I don't care if the mother's life is at risk or if she's just having an abortion for kicks and giggles (not that any woman would do that - every woman I've ever known who's had an abortion thought long and hard about what to do). It's her body, her choice. So the arguments you are making are pointless. This is a picture of what you are calling a "child":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tubal_...



The actual size is one centimeter. A heart beat does not make something a sentient being. Why should I (or anyone else) be subject to your views about when life begins when I don't agree with your views? Should you be forced to worship the Devil if that's what I believe in? Or to have 20 "sister-wives" and share your husband because that is what I believe in?

Mary - posted on 10/02/2011

Ummm, Jenn, I'm not "twisting the truth". When (viable) organs are going to be harvested for transplant, they do what is often referred to "orchestrated removal of life support". So yes, it is still man, not a god or nature, who is manipulating when death occurs.

Whether you like it or not, in both scenarios, it is the parent, alongside the medical staff, who are manipulating when and how this inevitable death occurs.

I think this question sums it up best:" How can a heart be certified as irreversibly stopped when the plan is to restart it in a new body?"

I want to be clear - I completely support organ donation, and I have no ethical issues about terminating life support for this purpose. I was merely pointing out the flaws in one of Heather's arguments. The others were just too ridiculous to respond to.

Jenn - posted on 10/02/2011

The baby's life was not artificially ended by the hand of man. The baby died of natural causes, and then they used the dead baby's organs to transplant. Don't twist the truth Mary.

Mary - posted on 10/02/2011

So Heather, let me get this straight...you are advocating for continuing a pregnancy for the sole purpose of producing an organ donor? Somehow, you do not find it acceptable to prematurely terminate the pregnancy, but terminating the baby's life after delivery to turn it into an organ farm is "okay"? I don't know if you realize it, but in both scenarios, the baby's existence is dependent upon life support (either the mother's body or that of machines), and "life" is being artificially ended by the hand of man.

Cathy - posted on 10/02/2011

Heather in regards to your point 1 - there are a few circumstances where the choice, when a mothers life hangs in the balance, is not deliver early save mother and baby. The choice becomes save mother OR baby. You CLAIM to be pro life yet you are happy to hand a mother a death sentence to suit your own standard of morality.

I know somebody who went into kidney failure in her last trimester. She could not have a c-section. She had to be induced and deliver vaginally. Fortunately she achieved this and the baby survived. But what would happen if that child had gotten stuck? Would you prefer the mother be cut open knowing it WOULD kill her to save the child?

Does a woman not have a right to choose to live?

Erin - posted on 10/02/2011

* head/desk *

Heather - posted on 10/02/2011

Ok, just read something I hear a lot from pro-choice folks.

1) the life of the mother is at stake- if it is a tubal pregnancy, then it isn't a viable pregnancy, but to say "I have Pre-Eclampsia, I have to abort"! What?? Or, hearing Obama say he supports Late term abortion when the mothers life is at stake! Again, What?? Both would be considered after the baby would have a decent chance OS surviving, or at least have a good chance. Now of course if the Mother is at risk, then Deliver. If the mom dis, baby would too. And, no matter what, that baby has to be delivered. Why, in the world could anyone think this would EVER be ok?

Another, the baby has a deformity. What kind of life would they live?- I'll tell you, a LIFE!! Not to mention sonograms can be wrong! And Drs can be wrong. My Mom's co-worker's Granddaughter was diagnosed w/ only 1/2 a brain while in-utero. The Drs kept trying to convince the Mom 2 be to abort. Thank God she was better than that! The baby, now 7yrs old, can walk talk, and though just slightly delayed, is actually staying on grade.

Worse case scenario- baby truly won't survive for long after normal gestation. Another True story. Parents 2 be was told, do to their unborn baby missing multiple needed organs, that their baby could only survive a few hours, a day at most, and that they should consider abortion (again, this sickens me due to the oath Drs take. They should not even give this as an option unless the parent says it first). Anyhow, they decide to carry the baby to term! They felt strongly that God had a reason. So they deliver, Drs were accurate and baby requires all kinds of life support. Word comes in about a baby just born needed a heart transplant, another child needing a kidney, and yet another needing something else (can't remember). And, fate would have it, this child that Drs wanted to abort, was a PERFECT transplant match to ALL 3 of these other babies! This 1 baby saved the lives of 3 children!!

There is know argument for aborting a viable pregnancy!

Erin - posted on 10/02/2011

Heather have you even read all the previous posts? We have all outlined exactly why we fall in the pro-choice camp.

Heather - posted on 10/02/2011

So, for those that are Pro-Choice, you are basically saying that a Mother has the right to Murder their child!?!? If someone is not able to handle the responsibility of getting pregnant, DON'T have Sex! Or have a hysterectomy!

Heather - posted on 10/02/2011

It is MURDER, plain and simple! Just like a newborn would not live w/o care and love, the same is true in our womb. The heart starts beating at 4-5 weeks which is the earliest (currently) when pregnancies are confirmed. Heartbeat=LIFE! I watched a very informative video comparing abortions to mass Genocide, even worse than the evil Hitler had done. I just can't understand how anyone can argue any different. Even in the case of rape- murdering the child is the same as Executing someone for the sins of his/ her Father. Or saying "I can't give it a good home or care for it!", so your answer is Murder? So, if I become homeless and can no longer care for my children, it's 'okay' to kill them! It's Common Sense! Murder is murder! If you are 'responsible' enough to do the deed, then you BETTER be responsible enough to handle any outcomes! And Adoption is ALWAYS an option!

Sal - posted on 10/01/2011

you're right sharon it is not only young girls and the promisuous who use abortion out of the few women who i personally know who have had abortions 3 of them were married and all fell preg with in months of having had a baby ( no 3 no 4 and no 5) all of these women were heart broken by the choice they made but truely felt that another pregnacy and baby was just more than they could handle, one mum (the mum of 4) just couldn't function she had had such horrid morning sickness and then high blood pressure she just couldn't face the prospect of a new baby (only about under 3 months old) 3 other children, months of vomiting then enforced bed rest followed by a probable emergency ceasar...her hubby had had a vasectomy but she got preg in the time between the op and the all clear.....

Sapphire - posted on 10/01/2011

And what the hell is up with irrational thinking like "If you didn't want a baby, don't have sex, keep your legs closed?" I mentioned pages and pages ago that an unwanted pregnancy is not limited to young poor teens. An unwanted pregnancy can happen to any woman at any age frame. An unwanted pregnancy can be a result of failed birth control. An unwanted pregnancy can happen to an older woman, already past her child raising years and simply does not want any more kids. An unwanted pregnancy can happen to a childless by choice couple; I references 4 couples many pages ago. An unwanted pregnancy can be from a happy-go-lucky financially stable couple like me & hubby, who simply do not want any more children. Plain and simple- an abortion is a legal medical procedure for those who chose to seek one. For those who use abortion as a form of birth control, I find that practice to be disgusting but I cannot see a way for the government to regulate WHO gets to have an abortion. Why? Becasue the GOVERNMENT needs to stay out of a woman's body!

As far as multiple high risk births and the never-ending-clown-uterus, well I don't agree with them either. However, I still support a woman's choice to have as many children as she would like because I have no say in her reproductive system.

Laura Zoey - posted on 10/01/2011

Or maybe with thhe third abortion if shesyoung and doesn't want her tubes tied she can agree to a long working iud. Like some are 10 years right? Maybe that would help.

Laura Zoey - posted on 10/01/2011

I don't think making it illegal is the answer. I think convincing as many women as possible to keep or give up their babies is the answer.
Yes I feel it's murder. But while on one side i totally believe murder should be illegal, I realize that this country is not in a place where making it illegal is going to help any.so I would prefer to see more advertising and info and promotion of real solid adoption facts. I'd like to see more women understanding their options of private adoption. I'd like to see more organizations to assist women who want to keep their baby but aren't able to financially.
More easily accessible birth controls, more education on birth controls!
And maybe just maybe a cap on abortions like if you have had two previously you agree with the third to have your tubes tied. If you really don't want your tubes tied I guess your options are raise the baby, adopt it out,or back alley abortion. Idk if this cap would increase back alley abortions or not but honestly if a lady really doesn't want a baby so badly as to abort three would she really balk at the idea of not having to worry about pregnancy anymore?
I also tend to think that there should be some law to prevent men from being deadbeat dads to 8+ babies all with different moms and not paying child support for any of them.
Like maybe after three babies he still isn't paying child support he can get out of jail quicker if he agrees to a vasectomy?

Jenni - posted on 10/01/2011

So true, how many women out there live in fear of death if they report their assailant. Then they're forced to endure an arduous, painful trial... where the assailant may or may not be found guilty. How many rapists walk free due to lack of evidence that the sexual assault was unwanted?



So after being told that their attacker was found not guilty and the unimaginable pain and defeat of that... watching their abuser walk-free and then being forced to carry his baby to term in addition to the rape itself????



Absolutely repulsive!!!



And then, let's just imagine in some sick and twisted cases that they do keep the baby and their assailant wants rights to that baby! Takes them to court to get visitations and such. So now the woman not only has to face her rape on a daily basis every time she looks into her child's eyes but also has to face her attacker (who was found not-guilty of any crimes against her) for the next 18 years.

~♥Little Miss - posted on 10/01/2011

Also I might add, having propaganda for abortion being legal ONLY for rape victims, or molestation victims could be very dangerous. As it is, women who are raped my want their privacy, and hopefully at least report it. Some, never will. So, by saying they MUST admit to it and jump through all sorts of hoops....well....in turn could lead to more back alley abortions, or child murder. Also, for those that want an abortion so badly, they could report a false rape in order to get what they want. Not exactly win win in my opinion.

Jenni - posted on 10/01/2011

Nesa, I just wanted to say that pro-choice doesn't mean you are pro-abortion. It means you understand everyone has different beliefs on the matter so it's not our right to force another woman to adhere to our beliefs.



There are women who don't believe a fetus is a baby upon conception. There are cases where the mother may die as a result of carrying the baby to term. There are cases the baby won't survive outside the womb and will suffer an unimaginably, painful death upon delivery. There are cases of rape. There is the aftermath of bringing unwanted babies/children into the world. Pro-choice does not equal pro-abortion.



I'd be hard-pressed to find myself in situation where I would abort. BUT... I am still pro choice for every other woman... their body, their beliefs, their choice.

~♥Little Miss - posted on 10/01/2011

Nesa, most of us in here are arguing the pro choice agenda. Many of us feel that abortion is a womens right. I would never condemn a women to keeping her rapists baby, or even carrying it to term in order to put the baby up for adoption. My whole point is that you sound ALSO like you would fall under the pro choice side. Is that so wrong?

Sal - posted on 10/01/2011

i can see that nesa has an opinion based on her personal experience, may be if she was ever faced with the prospect of an unwanted pregnacy or a fetus with a poor life expectancy or a pregnacy that might cause her own death then maybe she can see the benifits in those situations also.....

the thing about saying only raped women can have abortions is that how would it be worked, do the girls have to report the rape to get a abortion pass, what is she doens't want to report the rape for any reason, just telling the clinic isn;t enough, she might lie about it, what happenins if after trial he is found not guilty, is she then charged with murder, you couldn;t wait till after a trial as it takes too long, it really is an unworkable idea that will lead to an increase of faulse rape reports, and if so are they going to keep the dna of the aborted fetus to have as evidence and ulitimatly send men gulity of nothing more than sleeping around to gaol, or send the woman to gaol for faulse accusations ....and ultimatly you are saying it is ok to execute the child for the fathers crime, and that is something that i cannot tollerate.....making it legal and the choice of each woman means that that is never the case.....

Nesa - posted on 09/30/2011

ok well one day god forbid your raped or any body in your family is and become pregnant then have to look at the rapists face everyday of their childs life. Abortion is murder but i would never tell a woman whos been raped she had no choice. Ive been raped and i wouldve killed myself if i had to look at his face everyday of my childs life or even know his child was inside of me. Thankfully that didnt happen to me. Either way you are cruel and inhumane to say a woman shoud have to carry her rapists/abusers baby.

Jaime - posted on 09/30/2011

Here is the biggest thorn in my side about the extremism of the pro-life agenda; Lots of times I read statements like: 'women who sleep around or don't use proper protection should face the consequences of their actions...a baby doesn't deserve to die because the mother is immature and irresponsible'. So with that in mind, there is absolutely ZERO accounting for the struggles that baby will invariably face as a result of the mind-set; 'you made your bed, now lay in it'. Just to clarify, I do not believe that all women who engage in casual sex are irresponsible or immature...this is merely the example I'm using based on the rather asinine assumptions of some people. If a woman is immature and irresponsible, then where is the logic in expecting her to care for and raise a baby from infancy to age 18?

Coming around to my point, I think that there is a trend with many pro-lifers, where the focus is merely on life, the act of being alive...and not the true aftermath of that life....the emotional/mental/physical/financial is not taken into consideration. Bring that child into the world because it's the 'right' thing to do....no matter how much the woman or child struggles thereafter. Somebody in the pro-life camp HAS to at least recognize that this is a very backward stance with regard to abortion.

~♥Little Miss - posted on 09/30/2011

Ashley, there are many people that believe certain circumstances abortion would be allowed, but still consider themselves pro-life...but Nesa's examples go beyond that. It is such a complicated issue, like many have said in here.....it is not black and white.

~♥Little Miss - posted on 09/30/2011

Nesa, by all of your statements, you are DEFINITELY NOT pro life.

Ashley - posted on 09/30/2011

So Nesa... your argument makes NO SENSE!

Not all women who like sex sleep around without protection and I'm offended that you seem to think that... Basically you're saying that women who choose to have sex should be punished if they accidentally end up pregnant.

I'm totally pro-choice but I can understand a pro-lifers argument that they think abortion is murder so it's not okay in any circumstance... However, the opinion that it's bad except when you're raped is what I have a problem with. You're either against it or you're for it, there is no in between. It's either murder or it's not. Either way the mother doesn't want to have the baby... why do you think it's okay for the rape baby to be "murdered?"

Nesa - posted on 09/30/2011

i am pro life. I do believe that Rape victims are the only women who should have a choice though. No one should have to be forced to carry their rapists child and no child needs to be left in foster care all their lives and one day find out why they were given up. I believe however that women who go sleep around and do not protect themselves should be able to kill their baby. They made the baby and it is their resposibility to give it a good home with or without them. People can find a good family who are willing to take care of the child regardless.

Trish - posted on 09/30/2011

It's all about education. A woman that uses Abortion as birth control is seriously lacking. There is so many contraceptives out there...It's about educating women about all typesof birth control and how to use it. It's the new millenium. Our teens should be the first. It's the sad truth that as women we will never agree on this topic of abortion. It would be lovely if some women opened their minds and finally we can be supportive of one another instead of condemning and judging.