On Trivializing Abortion

[Sleepy]

To answer B-Man's question:

First, the mother's life always comes before the child's, to me. If she's in danger and an abortion is necessary to save her, then do it. I don't think there should be any restrictions on that (though if she's nine months pregnant, they'd probably do a c-section). If a c-section wouldn't work for whatever reason, then I'd still support the abortion. The mother has a life, she has people who depend on her. The fetus/baby/whatever (not sure how I'd define it at that point) does not.

Beyond that, the line is kinda fuzzy. I mean, it sounds pretty inhumane for a woman who's nine months pregnant to go in and have an abortion, just because she suddenly didn't feel like dealing with a kid. I'm not sure how you abort a baby that's pretty much fully grown (partial birth?), but it does sound kinda gruesome. However, even if we didn't have restrictions on third trimester abortions, I'm pretty sure such an instance would be extremely rare, because the woman will have likely decided by then. If I were in charge of abortion laws, I'm not sure what I'd do in such cases, since I don't like regulating anyone's body.

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

So out of curiosity (and I'm not completely sure on the actual restrictions), when is it not okay to abort a fetus?  Where's the cutoff?

I would like to point out from a book on the human neocortex (has to do with how it relates to AI and stuff).  The fetus has a fully human brain with a human neocortex by the third trimester, it seems.  There eyes are partially open by week 26 and fully open by week 28.  At that point they can process patterns of light and dark in the womb (although the book does concede that "there's not much to look at in the womb).  The fetus can hear the mother's heartbeat at about the third trimester, when the neocortex is fully human.  It's apparently the reason that all known human societies have music.

So I know the Internet is a bad place to hear about any restrictions reliably, but I wonder what you guys think.  What is the point at when aborting a fetus is no longer OK, in your mind?  When should it be restricted, if at all.  At what point does it stop being merely a "fetus?"  I don't ask this to be inflammatory, but I'm curious about when it becomes "wrong" to abort.  When is the cutoff for it becoming "wrong?"

See, I ask because I think it's a valid, serious question to ask that goes beyond rhetoric. :/

To clarify before I get any more "fuck no" thingies (I assume it's over this stuff).  I'm not trying to move the goalposts.  I'm not trying to give a slippery slope.  Come with me as I do some math...

Pregnancy is 9 months.  There's just over 52 weeks (52 weeks and 1 day) in a year.  So pregnancy lasts for about 39 weeks.

9/12 = 3/4
52/4 = 13
13*3 = 39

Knowing this, weeks 26-28 are about the third trimester.

27/39 = 9/13  (about 9/12, but a bit less or about 3/4 till due)

I'm pretty sure that there's bans and restrictions on late term abortions.  I'm not that naive, although I lack the professional knowledge to say for sure the exact rules from state to state or whatever.

My point is, you could argue there's a fine line between a fetus and a baby (unless you consider a fetus as such until birth or whatever).  So seeing as how this line is arguably fuzzy, what (if any) cutoff date should there be for a woman from the beginning of her pregnancy in which she shouldn't be able to get an abortion?  Should there be a cutoff date at all?  Why or why not?  Like I said, I'd like to hear some details, and not bothersome rhetoric. I mean, I understand that I'll never really be able to understand giving birth as I'm male, but that doesn't mean I can't pose these questions, does it?

Instead of what seem like stock responses, I want to dig deeper.  I've seen some people dig a bit deeper in this thread, and for that I'm grateful.  I know you guys have it in you to make me happy (this thread has gone alright, considering), and by that I mean instead of political rhetoric you have critical thinking that goes beyond the surface of this issue.

Side note:  I don't want to derail this thread, but hypothetically, I have to wonder how adoption could be reformed to be better if we had like...actually kickass congressmen/women and stuff.  I'm not saying that the changes will be easy or possible with the dipshits in congress now (not all of them, but most), but if you could make the system better, how would you do it?

Before I also (inevitably) get Fuck No'd again, I'll say that I support late term abortions. One thing I take into consideration is whether or not the fetus feels pain or has any consciousness of any kind. Studies vary from 24 weeks to 29 weeks in terms of whether or not a fetus has sufficiently developed neural connections that are necessary for feeling pain. So perhaps a termination would be appropriate at any point and for any reason prior to 29 weeks or so. And perhaps after that only when it is necessary for the health of the mother or the health of the child (e.g. a birth defect). But I would also like women (who are actually affected by these policies) to weigh in here. It feels kind of awkward seeing as though I have no dog in this hunt.

[Captain Jack Harkness]

Caerbannog:  I do want to say that if a genetic defect is severe enough, I could see an abortion being necessary.  The thing is, it would be an act of mercy.  I really don't want a baby to be born without skin or whatever and suffer while out of the mom and die or...I dunno.  Whatever really nasty defects there are.

Granted, there are all those inspirational stories about people with birth defects that persevere.  For several reasons I'd like to assume that this is the exception rather than the rule.

1)  Not all circumstances are going to give the kid the chance to grow up with a fighting spirit.
2)  I'm pretty certain that some defects are much more severe than the inspiring stories care to admit.
3)  In cases where the defect is bad enough, I think an abortion would be considered an act of mercy at that point.

[Sleepy]

For every inspirational story you hear, I'm sure there are dozens of others that are completely tragic. If a mother decides to give birth to a child who's been diagnosed with something like Tay–Sachs because she's hoping for one of those inspirational stories, she's a selfish fuck. No one should have to endure such a thing.

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

Caerbannog:  I do want to say that if a genetic defect is severe enough, I could see an abortion being necessary.  The thing is, it would be an act of mercy.  I really don't want a baby to be born without skin or whatever and suffer while out of the mom and die or...I dunno.  Whatever really nasty defects there are.

Granted, there are all those inspirational stories about people with birth defects that persevere.  For several reasons I'd like to assume that this is the exception rather than the rule.

1)  Not all circumstances are going to give the kid the chance to grow up with a fighting spirit.
2)  I'm pretty certain that some defects are much more severe than the inspiring stories care to admit.
3)  In cases where the defect is bad enough, I think an abortion would be considered an act of mercy at that point.

Yes, I was thinking more severe defects when I gave that example but the parents have discretion there...but you get the idea. Here's an interesting article that deals not with abortion but rather euthanasia for live infants. I figure it is close enough to the topic at hand that it isn't a derail.

Oh and your number of Fuck Yeah's was odd so I fixed it because I have Super OCD.

[Osama bin Bambi]

How about we treat sex as a good thing, something intimate and wonderful and special? Don't glorify it, of course. Grade-school kids don't need to know the details— save that for sex education classes as they grow up. I'm a little old-fashioned about sex, honestly. I still think it should mostly be done between people in a committed, loving relationship, and not treated like something small and easy. Now, would I restrict the right to casual sex? Hell no— people can do what they want with their fun parts. But we need to stop treating sex like something that should be shamed. It's part of the human experience, after all.

If we tear down the social stigma around sex, what might happen? I'm not saying encourage everyone to have it, but when people do they shouldn't be made a pariah for it. If a girl gets pregnant by her boyfriend and the society she lives in doesn't treat her like dirt for it, maybe she'd be more comfortable bringing it to term and having it adopted instead of aborting it to escape the shame and the sense that it's going to "ruin her life". We need to make it clear that it won't ruin her life, that allowing that child to be adopted is a real option. We need to make a society that doesn't look down on people who happen to get pregnant out of wedlock.

And, of course, if we really want to see abortion rates drop? Encourage safe sex. Promote the use of condoms, birth control, and intelligent choices. When I've got kids, I know what I'm going to tell them: "Look, I'd rather you wait to have sex. Personally, I hope you wait until marriage. But the choice is yours to make, and if you do it I want you to be safe and smart about it."

IIRC, those nations that teach better sex ed (that is, lessons that actually teach how to use birth control and aren't just abstinence-only slut-shaming) actually have lower rates of unintended pregnancies and abortion.

Personally I am thankful that it's easy to get an abortion in my state because I am absolutely terrified of pregnancy, childbirth, and anything to do with those things. If I were pregnant then I would do whatever it took to become un-pregnant, and I want those means to be legal, regulated, and safe.

[Sleepy]

Personally I am thankful that it's easy to get an abortion in my state because I am absolutely terrified of pregnancy, childbirth, and anything to do with those things. If I were pregnant then I would do whatever it took to become un-pregnant, and I want those means to be legal, regulated, and safe.

I'm the exact same way.

It really irritates me that pro-life folks oftentimes promote abstinence-only education, as well. Do they not realize how much we could curb the number of abortions if we simply taught teens about proper birth control? How they haven't put two and two together, I'll never know.

[Osama bin Bambi]

Personally I am thankful that it's easy to get an abortion in my state because I am absolutely terrified of pregnancy, childbirth, and anything to do with those things. If I were pregnant then I would do whatever it took to become un-pregnant, and I want those means to be legal, regulated, and safe.

I'm the exact same way.

It really irritates me that pro-life folks oftentimes promote abstinence-only education, as well. Do they not realize how much we could curb the number of abortions if we simply taught teens about proper birth control? How they haven't put two and two together, I'll never know.

There are pro-lifers who believe that abortion is morally wrong because it is destroying a person. Then there are anti-abortionists who believe that abortion is morally wrong because it might take away the consequences of sex, and sex outside of marriage for procreative purposes is so, so wrong. There's a difference. For instance, some people think that a person's sex life is no one else's business, but they are against abortion because, in their view, once the fetus has been conceived (or has reached a certain point in development), there is another person whose interests are involved in the decision.

[Sleepy]

There are pro-lifers who believe that abortion is morally wrong because it is destroying a person. Then there are anti-abortionists who believe that abortion is morally wrong because it might take away the consequences of sex, and sex outside of marriage for procreative purposes is so, so wrong. There's a difference. For instance, some people think that a person's sex life is no one else's business, but they are against abortion because, in their view, once the fetus has been conceived (or has reached a certain point in development), there is another person whose interests are involved in the decision.

I understand that, but I've encountered folks who had really silly views on the matter. Basically, that abstinence education is the best way to prevent abortions. They didn't view sex outside of marriage as completely and utterly wrong just because it was morally wrong to do so without the intention of procreation. They viewed it as wrong because it could lead to abortions, hence them promoting abstinence.

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

Personally I am thankful that it's easy to get an abortion in my state because I am absolutely terrified of pregnancy, childbirth, and anything to do with those things. If I were pregnant then I would do whatever it took to become un-pregnant, and I want those means to be legal, regulated, and safe.

I'm the exact same way.

It really irritates me that pro-life folks oftentimes promote abstinence-only education, as well. Do they not realize how much we could curb the number of abortions if we simply taught teens about proper birth control? How they haven't put two and two together, I'll never know.

They want to have their cake and eat it too. Everyone has to abide by their deranged rules and regulations on sexual intercourse and gender roles, abortion must be legally prohibited and they want teen pregnancy and abortion rates to drop. Reality doesn't work that way, but then I suppose reality has never made a lick of difference to people who believe constitutional rights should be afforded to fertilized ova.

[BrandonL337]

I think that calling the fetus "a clump of cells" is more of a backlash to the pro-lifers insistence that the fetus is the equivalent of a born baby or a child, which is intended to make people feel bad about their decision to abort by using more emotionally charged language. I personally prefer to call a fetus a fetus, since that's the scientific term for it. It is not a baby, but it would become one if it were born.

On a slight side note, it pisses me off when pro-lifers say that aborting a child because it has a certain disease or disability is evil. While I am aware that children who have, say, Down's syndrome can have a good quality of life, it is incredibly difficult for some mothers to give them the care they need. If they are given up to the adoption system, they will probably never be adopted (since children with disabilities are often looked over in favor of healthy babies). And then there are other things like Tay-Sachs, which is a horrible death I would never wish on anyone's child. And then there are anencephalic fetuses, which don't have brains - I honestly don't get the moral outrage about killing anencephalic fetuses of all things, since they definitely do not have any capacity to feel pain. It is a very difficult and tragic choice to make when a person manages to get pregnant, only to find out that there is no way they will be able to care for that child's special needs. Making them feel bad about their decision by comparing them to Nazis or whatever is just a dick move.

Yeah, I remember a news story on... Fox? I'm not sure, but it was about a family raising a kid born without a brain.  It was horrible, they kept going on about how it would regularly have seizures and that they had to force feed it dozens of pills just to keep the fucking thing breathing.  Also, if i remember correctly, in that case it could feel pain and it was something like a month or two old.

You wanna know the worst thing about it though?  the family and the news people treated it like it was some kind of fucking miracle, that they were "blessed" that that little ball of pain and misery was brought into their lives.

I think that's the only time i've ever said that someone should have gotten an abortion to my conservative dad and step-mom.  surprisingly they couldn't really muster much argument against it.

[TheUnknown]

I think that calling the fetus "a clump of cells" is more of a backlash to the pro-lifers insistence that the fetus is the equivalent of a born baby or a child, which is intended to make people feel bad about their decision to abort by using more emotionally charged language. I personally prefer to call a fetus a fetus, since that's the scientific term for it. It is not a baby, but it would become one if it were born.

On a slight side note, it pisses me off when pro-lifers say that aborting a child because it has a certain disease or disability is evil. While I am aware that children who have, say, Down's syndrome can have a good quality of life, it is incredibly difficult for some mothers to give them the care they need. If they are given up to the adoption system, they will probably never be adopted (since children with disabilities are often looked over in favor of healthy babies). And then there are other things like Tay-Sachs, which is a horrible death I would never wish on anyone's child. And then there are anencephalic fetuses, which don't have brains - I honestly don't get the moral outrage about killing anencephalic fetuses of all things, since they definitely do not have any capacity to feel pain. It is a very difficult and tragic choice to make when a person manages to get pregnant, only to find out that there is no way they will be able to care for that child's special needs. Making them feel bad about their decision by comparing them to Nazis or whatever is just a dick move.

Yeah, I remember a news story on... Fox? I'm not sure, but it was about a family raising a kid born without a brain.  It was horrible, they kept going on about how it would regularly have seizures and that they had to force feed it dozens of pills just to keep the fucking thing breathing.  Also, if i remember correctly, in that case it could feel pain and it was something like a month or two old.

You wanna know the worst thing about it though?  the family and the news people treated it like it was some kind of fucking miracle, that they were "blessed" that that little ball of pain and misery was brought into their lives.

I think that's the only time i've ever said that someone should have gotten an abortion to my conservative dad and step-mom.  surprisingly they couldn't really muster much argument against it.

I sometimes wonder if this happens because these people can't comprehend something worse than dying (ironic considering, if you're a child, death is supposed to grant access to eternal paradise, unless you subscribe to a particularly assholish brand of your religion).  They can't comprehend a situation where death might be preferable.  Life is such a miracle, the greatest gift, that there couldn't possibly be a situation where it's a curse.  Maybe it's because they're so biased by they're own lives that they couldn't possibly begin to relate.  They can't imagine living life with a condition where they didn't grow most of their brain, but hey, at least they're alive.  They can't imagine living with some debilitating, deteriorating cancer or disease that makes each minute a struggle of agony, but hey, each second of life is a gift, so be thankful.

For every inspirational story you hear, I'm sure there are dozens of others that are completely tragic. If a mother decides to give birth to a child who's been diagnosed with something like Tay–Sachs because she's hoping for one of those inspirational stories, she's a selfish fuck. No one should have to endure such a thing.

It seems to me like most stories dealing with abortion I see have at least on pro-lifer who either has a friend or a relative experience a miracle birth.  There's a reason why they're called "miracle" births.  They don't care how many tragedies occur, so long as there's one case that doesn't end in tragedy, thereby proving that "not all cases end in death, so you can't abort because yours could be one of the lucky ones!"  They basically want you to play lottery with the health of you and the fetus because there's a technical possibility that it could turn out better than expected.

There was one person I remember who argued against abortions even in cases of ectopic or abdominal pregnancies because they had a relative who successfully transferred the fetus to her uterus (or something like that), therefore abortion isn't warranted in these cases.  Now that I think about it, part of me wants to say that the claim was carrying an abdominal pregnancy to term, but I don't want to think that someone would seriously tell a woman to grow a fetus in a part of the body it's not supposed to be in.