Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I just googled what a baby of 8 weeks old in the womb looks like and it looks nothing like the picture by OP where it looks like some kind of bug. The baby is clearly a child. What else would it be? Women don't give birth to hamsters.
I absolutely agree that it is a societal imperative to provide good homes for children whose parents can't or aren't willing to care for them, but your orphanage scenario is a rabbit trail which has no relationship to the topic of abortion. There have been no orphanages in the US for decades.
The common name for today's "orphanage" is Foster Care, a national shame, and well known for its colossal failures. Back in the fifties I knew of many "Boys Ranches" and places for unwanted girls in so called "group homes." Many of the drug addicted youth on America's streets are past "clients" of the foster care system, they are "emancipated" at age eighteen and are then free to roam. Yeah, it's still here-by a different name, does that constitute a "rabbit trail?"
I went to school with kids who were living in those Orphanages, er, I mean Boys Ranch, and their lives weren't good, a rose by any other name kind of thing. Names can be changed to suit the desire for obfuscation, but any building that houses children, temporary or permanent is an equivalent to the early day orphanage. It's your particular brand of deflection that makes such a debate difficult to have, but I'm keeping it civil so let's just say that you may be confused, ill informed or both..
Is this on topic? Yes of course it is simply for the fact that we are speaking to the issue of unwanted children and the real consequences of having children just because the mother's family wants it that way, or the mother's fear of abortion and the resulting shame brought by pro life influences.
Last edited by jertheber; 05-21-2022 at 08:15 AM..
The op’s original question was concerning abortion and compromises in regards to development. Whether one is opposed to abortion or for abortion rights is there any point in time where you feel abortion on demand should be allowed or not allowed based on what’s going on developmentally in the womb?
I am pro-life with rare and specific exceptions but I am OK with the morning-after pill and would even encourage it. My reasoning is that most of the time, sex does NOT result in pregnancy. Even when it does, conception very often does not occur until some time--days, even--after sex. I know this personally as a former infertility patient.
So I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt that conception has not occurred, and say that the morning-after pill or Plan B should be readily and immediately available to anyone who is raped, forgot to use birth control, etc. etc.
Beyond that, I am personally not in favor of abortion rights based on developmental stage. I just don't find that relevant. I know a complete ban is highly unlikely so if the option was, ban after 8 weeks or ban after 12 weeks or after 20 weeks, of course I would select the earliest date as the least bad option.
The common name for today's "orphanage" is Foster Care, a national shame, and well known for its colossal failures. Back in the fifties I knew of many "Boys Ranches" and places for unwanted girls in so called "group homes." Many of the drug addicted youth on America's streets are past "clients" of the foster care system, they are "emancipated" at age eighteen and are then free to roam. Yeah, it's still here-by a different name, does that constitute a "rabbit trail?"
I went to school with kids who were living in those Orphanages, er, I mean Boys Ranch, and their lives weren't good, a rose by any other name kind of thing. Names can be changed to suit the desire for obfuscation, but any building that houses children, temporary or permanent is an equivalent to the early day orphanage. It's your particular brand of deflection that makes such a debate difficult to have, but I'm keeping it civil so let's just say that you may be confused, ill informed or both..
My dad and his little brother spent five years in Maywood Children's Home in Chicago in the early 1930s. Some of the children there were genuine orphans; others had at least one parent who for one reason or another could not keep them at home. In my dad's case, their father had abandoned the family and his mother had a lot of trouble finding a job that would support them, though she eventually succeeded.
My dad greatly disliked living at the Home and never spoke well of it, but the fact of the matter is that at the time, that was the only real solution to his family's needs. Foster Care did not exist then. The fact that an institution existed to house children who had no family or could not stay with their families does not mean that the children had been unwanted or that they were unloved.
The same can be said of the Foster Care system. Parents may be incompetent, abusive, addicted, and have all kinds of problems that result in their children being temporarily or permanently removed from them, but very few willingly relinquish their parental rights. Since abortion has been legal and readily available for many decades now, they also obviously chose NOT to abort. They wanted their children. Therefore your topic has nothing to do with the present question.
If there is no federal law that sets a time period, each state will set one if not banned outright.
I wouldn't want to see one that doesn't leave enough time to make a well thought out decision. I knew a couple women that really regretted having an abortion. That must be a terrible thing to live with. That's why enough time is necessary, so they don't make a hurried decision.
If there is no federal law that sets a time period, each state will set one if not banned outright.
I wouldn't want to see one that doesn't leave enough time to make a well thought out decision. I knew a couple women that really regretted having an abortion. That must be a terrible thing to live with. That's why enough time is necessary, so they don't make a hurried decision.
That’s getting close to crossing a line people should not cross. First off there are poor and wealthy people in every state, regardless of skin color or ethnic origins. Second, the founder of Planned Parenthood was a racist who wanted to use abortions to control the population of black people. Third, people who don’t want a baby should first take preventative methods to not become pregnant when they have sex. If they’re raped or those preventative methods fail then there’s the morning after pill, adoption, or abortion. I work at a hospital. We have special door signs in the maternity ward with symbols for special circumstances. One of those is adoption. The mother has put her baby up for adoption and after the baby is born is eventually handed over to the adoption parents. Going this route means the baby never enters an orphanage. There are options other than abortion on demand. It makes me sad to hear some celebrities brag about the number of abortions they have had as if it’s a badge of honor. It should be a last resort method. The methods before abortion include condoms, BC medication, BC devices, and morning after pill. If all those methods fail then either abortion or adoption if you still don’t want the baby.
This post is also crossing into a another, related topic, that I think would make a good thread: What can be done to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies to begin with. The bolded sounds so simple to an intelligent person with the basic advantage of access to solid information and knowledge, but it's not simple at all. Despite the fact that we who are posting here all know how easy it is to get birth control and to plan for sex, a 15-year-old gaga over her boyfriend and wanting to please him is going to believe whatever he tells her and give in. Someone in my own family, many years ago, an otherwise intelligent teenager, was pregnant at 17 because her boyfriend told her he was sterile and they didn't need birth control. She believed him because he said he loved her, so why would he lie? Of course, as adults, we know that it's highly unlikely that a 17-year-old boy would know if he was sterile and at that age, he's going to say whatever needs to be said to get sex, whether it's a declaration of love or a supposed inability to get her pregnant. A bright, grinning "just don't have sex, but if you do, use birth control!" isn't going to mean much in such a situation, and those situations happen every day.
And as a side note, your remark about Margaret Sanger is incorrect. She strongly opposed abortion overall except as a last resort, and as a matter of fact her fight for contraception for women came after she witnessed a woman die from a self-induced abortion. As for the racism, that's a spin that seems to have little basis in reality but has become a popular urban legend in recent years, thanks to the Interwebz. (Might make another good thread!)
Anyway, here is an abstract from a paper on Sanger from what appears to be a reputable site:
Just for information. It's always good to ask one's self "is what I read true?" particularly when it comes to information on the Internet, and look further.
I just googled what a baby of 8 weeks old in the womb looks like and it looks nothing like the picture by OP where it looks like some kind of bug. The baby is clearly a child. What else would it be? Women don't give birth to hamsters.
So then the question still is, REGARDLESS of whether the embryo/fetus appears to have human characteristics at any given stage in development, does the woman off of whose body it lives have the right to terminate the life?
I say yes--to the point where the fetus is likely viable outside the womb, but preferable before 12 weeks of gestation, allowing for the unavoidable exceptions. Again, I cannot say it enough times: Woman always have and always will seek ways to terminate pregnancies. We must as an intelligent society provide the means to do it safely. No woman deserves to bleed to death or die of sepsis or poisoning or destroy her reproductive organs preventing future births because she finds herself in a desperate situation with an unwanted pregnancy for whatever reason.
Something that hasn't been mentioned, and it is a bit of a tangent, is that one of several reasons abortion is difficult to access in many areas--such as state laws, etc.--is that there is a genuine dearth of doctors who are willing to perform this procedure, especially after a certain point in pregnancy. You can't force a person to do something which is against their conscience.
Years ago my family knew a well-known doctor who had performed many, many abortions--tens of thousands. He told us that at first he and his co-workers joked about how fast and efficient they were and whose daily tally was highest. Over years, though, those numbers began to weigh on him and he eventually developed such a revulsion to performing abortions that he completely refused to do them any more.
It's one thing to perform a medically indicated abortion; you might say it is like being a vet who performs the sad but necessary service of euthanizing old and sick animals. But to be a vet who works at a kill shelter, euthanizing healthy animals that just are not wanted, is another level. It's psychologically traumatic and the suicide rate is high. I think that's how this doctor felt. He was traumatized by the sheer number of healthy pregnancies that he had ended. In fact, although he had not been religious at all for most of his life, he eventually underwent a conversion because he felt that he needed God's forgiveness for ending all of those lives.
So, it's one thing to say that on-demand abortions should be readily available months into a healthy pregnancy, possibly through the entire duration (although I do think public opinion is generally against that, and no need to point out that the vast majority of women would not request an abortion late in pregnancy--I mention it only because other posters have), and another to task other human beings with having to do them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightyqueen801
I think that's a fair point. No doctor should be forced to perform abortions, either at all, or beyond the first trimester if they object to later-term abortions but are comfortable with performing earlier ones.
I think this point ignores the fact that in most polls ~85% of physicians say they feel abortions should be available and not banned. Abortions are outside the scope of practice for most physicians, and even if you limit the discussion to OB/GYNs, many of them subspecialize in other areas like gynecologic oncology or menopause. Then there are the many, many OB/GYNs who face roadblocks like being unable to obtain affordable malpractice coverage for abortions, or who practice at hospitals where abortions are banned (i.e. every Catholic hospital in America), or whose states have criminalized abortions. Big reasons are the intimidation factor, threat of arrest and loss of one's career, and death threats to the physician and his family.
Conscientious objection is legit, but it's not the driving factor in the declining numbers of physicians available to perform abortions.
You're right, and I wish I had framed my question a little differently, rather than making it sound like I wanted to hear only from prolifers. What I'm really after here, is not so much hearing from prochoicers why abortion should be allowed *later.* (although I have appreciated all well-thought posts.)
I am trying to find out primarily if those who consider abortion to be murder from conception on, might be open to discussing early fetal development, the lack of sentience, and the potential net positive of putting the needs/desires of an indisputably human pregnant woman over what truly is a small cluster of cells in the beginning.
Someone upthread said that it is only religious people who believe a young embryo is a person. I don't know if that is true. I truly am interested to know *why* someone considers a tiny embryo to be fully human (beyond "because my church says so").
As a Buddhist the issue of sentience would be key to me, although I had not thought of it in that light until now. Of course, then we would all have to agree on what sentience is (particularly in a Buddhist sense...for me).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
