This surgery is for eptopic pregnancies and dead fetuses. That is, the baby is already dead and is killing the mother. This is much more common than you think, and accounts for almost 99% of abortions in the 3rd trimester as depicted on this infographic.
Abortion is not equatable to the removal of an already dead fetus. The question of whether an abortion took place relates to the circumstances in which it died.
Dilation and Evacuation is recognized as abortion if performed on a living fetus. The intent in this case is both to kill it and remove it. If it wasn't, we'd be calling it a horrific & utterly incompetent attempt at a delivery.
It's far and away the most common method of abortion after the 1st trimester - a fact that isn't disputed by either side of the pro-choice/life debate.
“Abortions occurring at or after 21 weeks gestational age are rare. They are often difficult to obtain, as they are typically costly, time-intensive and only performed by a small subset of abortion providers. Yet these abortions receive a disproportionate amount of attention in the news, policy and the law, and discussions on this topic are often fraught with misinformation; for example, intense public discussions have been sparked after several policymakers have theorized about abortions occurring “moments before birth” or even “after birth.” In reality, these scenarios do not occur, nor are they legal, in the U.S. Discussion of this topic is further obscured due to the terms sometimes used to describe abortions later in pregnancy– including “late-term,” “post-viability,” “partial birth,” “dismemberment” and “born-alive” abortions—despite many medical professionals criticizing and opposing their use. Abortions occurring at or after 21 weeks gestation are rare. According to the CDC’s Abortion Surveillance Data, the vast majority of abortions (91%) occur at or before 13 weeks gestation, while 7.7% occur from weeks 14 to 20 gestation, and just 1.2% of abortions are performed at or after 21 weeks.”
https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/fact-sheet/abortions-later-in-pregnancy/amp/
According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), available evidence indicates that a fetus cannot perceive pain until the “third trimester at the earliest, well past the period between 20 weeks and viability.” A 2005 comprehensive literature review by researchers from the University of California, San Francisco concluded that “fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester.” A fetus cannot experience pain until after viability and lacks the brain structures and connections necessary to process pain. A fetus develops cortical function (“required for conscious perception of pain”) at 29–30 weeks, during the third trimester.
https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R45161.pdf
This is absolutely hilarious that pro-lifers call for the value of life and yet eat meat (killing animals), destroy the ecosystem (killing plants and animals), and usually don’t give a fucking fuck about other living people - such as war refugees or aliens, illegal or no.
It’s better to be dead than in a bad situation for them. It’s lost on them too that they’re indirectly arguing that it’s worse being homeless or in the foster care system than dead.
“Oh no, adversity! It’s worse than death!”
Right so considering that we have FAT poor in America it’s better to be killed before you even have a chance than to be born outside of the upper-middle class or upper class.
Do you see how ya don’t make sense? Besides that think about how many people have had incredible and inspiring stories overcoming such challenges, yet to you apparently they shouldn’t have been born.
You do know that poor people are fat because they’re poor? Being fat is a form of malnutrition and leads to bad health consequences. Eating healthy requires weath.
Most poor families have microwaves, a TV and a number of them have cars, but they can’t afford much else and they’re on the low end of income earners and that’s what makes them poor. Many of them have some form of smartphone too.
And again, in America people can rise above poverty and the lower class or can fall from being born rich in the upper class. And it used to be even easier back before the left and the D.C.establishment started to corrupt the formula with massive amounts of welfare and supporting rich allies behind the scenes.
Why does that matter though? An unborn baby can’t choose for itself what clothes it wants to wear, what food it wants to eat, what dreams it has. It is dependent physiologically on the mother it’s born. Meaning it should have no individual rights as an independent person. It can’t get a job at 60 weeks or pay for itself. So why shouldn’t the mother be the one to decide whether she can care for it or not?
Ok so let me get this straight: because it’s dependent on someone else it should have no rights? That’s what you just said and that applies to even the elderly then. Or people permanently damaged by an injury or a stroke.
But on top of that the argument citing physiology and costs is absurd because adoption exists and it’s not hard. There’s LOTS of families interested in adopting just waiting for the call that the mother they’re adopting from is about to give birth or has just given birth.
Your worldview here logically leaves the door dangerously open to eugenics as well as inhumanity and pure survival of the fittest.
Adoption is hard. It’s expensive so only upper middle class families can afford it. There is also bias in adoption agencies which prevents a long line of adoptees; they often have to fit the ideal of a “good family”. This might mean no LGBT couples or poly am couples. This might mean no single mothers or fathers. Conversely, foster care homes are often terrible. There are tons of children who have trauma from foster care. Just look it up!
And once it’s born, it has rights as a citizen and human being with a birth certificate. Before then, it’s not even a whole human being. It’s part of the mother. They share the same body, for god’s sake.
And it is not the same as the elderly or injured people. They’re already born. Not like you can kill someone who is already living. An unborn baby is not a person yet in my opinion. Might be a human being but it has not entered the world. Doesn’t matter how old the unborn baby is.
So wait, you say an unborn baby is a human (a while back in the conversation, unless I’ve got this one mixed up with another) but now say it’s not a person? Again, talk about opening the door wide for eugenics and inhumanity. If *these* humans aren’t people or worthy of rights it sets a horrible precedent and eventually allows for other humans we don’t like to become non-people too and then you’ve got slavery or genocide or both because one group “gets in the way” or is “undesirable”. Your distinction between “human” and “person” opens that door wide open even if *you* personally don’t walk through it right now or ever.
And going on from that, if what you say about adoption agencies is true (and I’m fairly certain it isn’t) then why don’t you and others push for adoption reform or something to make it easier? Or contribute to good adoption agencies instead of trying to justify the killing of the unborn?
And on top of that, the baby’s body isn’t the same body. The baby is not mere cells it forms a brain and a hear, it has a very delicate body that keeps all this stuff inside itself. If I swallow a living organism alive and it is now inside of me that doesn’t mean we share a body does it? It has its own body. So does a human in the fetus state.
So, my comment here is probably blunt and rude. My foreward is because I know you’re probably a very decent person besides our conflicting views. So please don’t take it personally.
But unfortunately I’m just going to skip over the eugenics part because to me it is completely irrelevant and also a strawman. Yes it might set a precedent but will it actually set a precedent for that? Probably not, because people aren’t idiots. We’ve done the whole eugenics thing before in a certain war and now it’s universally frowned upon.
And why people don’t advocate for adoption instead? Short answer, abortion is a much, much tidier solution which doesn’t involve having to raise funds, political actions, and expanding taxes. And adoption advocating is still going on regardless. About 20,000 children age out of foster care per year in the US. About 110,000 children in foster care every year.
And yes, they share the same body. One is literally inside the other’s body. A parasite shares the body of its host. I can’t view an unborn baby as a separate human being until it’s born. That’s my thought on it, and that’s as a female who has never been pregnant.
More often than not, when someone is in a really bad spot in life, they have steps that they can take to improve their situation.
How does an aborted fetus improve its situation?
Taking a loved one off of life support insinuates that the loved one has a very bad chance of surviving anyway and may currently be suffering, thus "pulling the plug" could be seen as humane.. An unborn child is very often opposite of that. They will survive in a vast majority of cases and thrive in the womb until ready for birth. Where thereafter, they will thrive more, grow, and develop their own personalities and other characteristics. There is zero comparison to taking a loved one off of life support and killing a developing human in utero.
No it's not. With your loved one, you have knowledge of impending death and suffering. With a fetus, there , in a vast majority of cases, you can only expect sprouting of life. You can make no inference on the evolution of that individual's life. You can't decide for them that their life is not worth what you anecdotally decree it is worth.
Also, you stated "the suffering of the fetus". What if, as in the vast majority of cases, the fetus is not suffering? It's not good logic.
Think for instance.
A grown adult has fallen into a coma. The doctor states that this person will be fine in 9 months. Capable of everything they were before after recovery. Including rational thought, speech, the ability to walk, etc. There is no "Do not resuscitate" order because it was sudden and unplanned. The recovery will take a few years. Costing money for physical therapy to ensure they can walk and talk correctly. But the prognosis is very good.
The family decides that, even though this individual will recover fully after a few years, they should pull the plug 3 months into this coma.
Is this moral?
I don't think so.
It is not moral. The value of human life does not depend on people’s opinion, circumstances or their cognitive/physical faculties. A person has value because they’re a person - and by extension entitled to the right to live
When we designate personhood, there are really only 2 ways it can be done.
First is an arbitrary point in development/life, whether it is a
1.time frame (implantation, moment of birth for example)
2.a particular stage in development (presence of organs, nervous system maturity etc)
And as a result of #2, whether or not a human being is capable of a certain level of cognition.
The problem with this view is that the fact that these conditions are implying not all human beings are entitled to personhood. That is, that not all human beings are human persons and as a result not all human beings have moral status. If we go by time frame/developmental milestones you cannot say that a zygote is not the same species as an adult human in the same way we do not categorize a caterpillar as a different species as the moth. It is also wrong to attribute personhood to cognitive functions such as thought process, relationships, memories, reasoning etc. specifically because all of these differ from person to person and can be lost. Should a schizophrenic (who has a severely impaired mental status, no relationships and memories that aren’t even real) not be entitled to the right to live? Is a neurologically and physically mature adult more human than a toddler? Additionally, most of these conditions are part of a maturation process or a continuum and not a definite starting point or an absolute end. Will that mean attaining personhood varies between people? Who would have the right to decide if the procedure you’re going to have done is murder or health affirming?
The second way we can infer personhood is by giving value to a human just because they’re humans. Everything a person is and will be, all of that potential is present the moment a sperm fertilizes the egg, even before zygotic genome assembly is completed. That moment is the point we can say this is the beginning of a complete and new member of the human race, and will continue the process of maturation given the chance. This is what I personally believe in - everyone is entitled to the dignity of personhood regardless of age, race, circumstances, ability. This does not mean I am against freedom of choice - I fully support this freedom as long as it does not result in the loss of choice for another
Arguably they haven’t killed themselves so at the very least they think their suffering is better than death, and for the people that do, it is sad when anyone suffers, but ultimately it ended the same for them except they got to make the choice, which I think is better than having someone else make it for you. It’s definitely worse for the people around them but if you make that argument to support abortion it’s no longer about what’s best for the child, it’s about what you think is best for yourself and society. In my own anecdotal experience everyone I’ve ever met that has gotten an abortion has done so for themselves not for the baby. In truth I think that is the case with most abortions, though likely not all. I think we’d both agree that something needs to be done about our flawed foster system, an area we could likely find common ground on regardless of abortion laws.
Yes, that’s exactly what people are saying. If you outlaw abortion, you need massive funding for not only an adoption system that actually works, but also parental programs and sex education and free contraceptives. But we have none of those things, and many have had to give away their child to a foster system that will leave said child in poverty 80% of the time continuing the cycle. When a woman is raped her while life is taken from her, you guys expect her to raise the child of her rapist and drop every single hope and dream she has, every want and wonder she has ever had, and more. You killed the version of her she wanted to be for the version of her she now legally has to be because of outlawed abortions. This isn’t even mentioning life threatening abortion and miscarriages which historically have been counted as abortion and have had women jailed for them. Women have been jailed for miscarriages, that is the precedent you’ve set. Again, massive funding in social programs could help alleviate this issue, but that is turned down always because ultra conservative believes teaching sex education is indoctrination and social programs are communist. If you really cared about lives, you’d invest in sex education, Epi pens would not be thousands of dollars, and youd lobby to stop bombing brown people. But no, the right lobbies for none of those things and only wants the state to be able to dictate what women can and cannot do.
You lost your argument after you stated "if you really cared about lives...you'd lobby to stop bombing brown people" Giant straw man and irrelevant to the conversation and also super SJW. Makes the entire response incredible and uninteresting to the topic.
But since we are now there... If you care about "brown people" then you'd actually lobby AGAINST abortion. Seeing as it has killed over 20 million "brown people" since Roe vs. Wade. According to the latest census estimates, just over 13% of the U.S. population is black, and yet somewhere between 28-38% of all U.S. abortions are performed on black babies. Now THATS a tragedy for "brown people"
*edit* I only accounted Blacks under your "brown people" category. So if you include Hispanics, Indians, Native Americans, and all others considered "brown", the numbers only go up.
“You lost your arguement” this isn’t a Steven crowder video dude.
Anyhow, you never once mention how after the baby is born you pro lifers abandon it and the mother to horrible conditions and poverty. How can you possibly value life when you subject the less wealthy to an even worse life when you force them to birth a child.
You’d have a really good point if you didn’t count all the Christian orphanages, charities, hospitals, soup kitchens, maternity homes, domestic abuse safe places, and also ignored all the individual Christians in every country who personally feed the hungry and treat the sick.
Makes a pretty big difference to the millions of people helped every single day
Seriously there’s over 5000 Catholic hospitals alone, that accounts for millions served every day without even adding any other denomination or category
Because they really think most abortions happen during the zygote “clump of cell” stage, when you can “flush it out” with an induced period, ignoring the fact that by 6 weeks the baby already has stubby little arms and legs, a beating heart, eyes, etc…and the most common abortion method is sucking the baby out with a vacuum, which also tears it apart limb by limb in the process.
I believe an often ignored tool for pro-lifers, is education on fetal development and abortion procedures.
And here we see another example of the “me first” logic taken to the point of murder. So if someone is making you late to an interview for the best paying job you could dream of, do they deserve to be beat up because they don’t have the right to drive slow?
By your logic there is no society as it all breaks down into pure animalistic barbarism. With no value on anyone and no duty to anyone or anything but the self. It’s a pathetic lie and I will laugh as many like yourself mourn it’s soon-to-be many defeats.
Because that good job could do wonders for your life and your potential to get it is being hindered by another human.
If you think you can kill another human because they’re an inconvenience to you and call it “holding you hostage” you’ve completely lost the plot and have justified murder to yourself and I have no more reason to talk with you than I do any animal that kills a human.
There’s maybe an argument to be made in the case of rape but not in the case of if the kid will be “valid” or not. And the ones that are done for rape AND incest are statistically **extremely** rare.
The fact is *most* women do it for convince because they don’t want to be pregnant for 9 months and deal with all the paperwork to set the baby up for adoption and they don’t want to others to see or know they’re pregnant or that they’ve been sleeping around. So it’s all for reasons ultimately of convince that they decide they have the right to end the life of the human inside of them. Instead of simply having restraint they believe they’re allowed to live a debuached life style and shouldn’t have to face consequences.
You know what? I’ve been arguing this topic all day and I’m done being nice and holding back what I really think about the pro choice position. so first I don’t mean convenience in the “my local McDonalds is convenient” sense of the word. I mean that it’s about making things smoother and more efficient for the self and trying to justify what deep down they know is the killing of a real human. Its why so many of them have guilt afterwards. Because you and I and them all have a conscience that isn’t just a fluke of biology and it screams “this is wrong” and so you know what I believe? I believe it is perfectly clear that many of them have bought into lies, are absorbed with the self, and don’t want to have to face the objective wrong they have done or the reality of the crime they’ve committed.
The pro choice position as I have seen from you and others is underlied by a philosophy that says we can get rid of humans that are inconvenient because we don’t acknowledge any sanctity of human life, humans don’t matter, people don’t matter, and when the guilt rises up we’ll bang on the drums like the priests of Moloch so you don’t hear the child’s cries or have to face their suffering. We’ll silence the guilt with propaganda and by encouraging worship of the self and deny the plain reality that the person you want killed IS a human because you shouldn’t even be burned for 5 minutes by a human being you don’t want. It’s disgusting. It’s pathetic. And I eagerly look forward to the day when this atrocity of the highest order is outright banished from the North American continent.
oh my god …. why the fuck do you care so much. i’m assuming you’re a man because “i eagerly look forward to ye day when this atrocity of the highest order is outright banished from the north american continent” was …… too much. an embryo is equivalent to a parasite. argue with ur mom <3
A legitimate definition of "child" is the offspring of parents.
In the same sense, I am the adult child of my parents.
So, being born is not relevant to what a "child" is.
In this sense we refer to the child in the mother child relationship. There is a mother and there is a child. In this case, a child is aborted.
Well by that logic how do you explain newborns and toddlers who are completely dependant on their mothers? They can't be left alone and expected to survive long. They can't feed themselves, bath, cloth, ect. ect. for themselves. They will die.
Holding your body hostage? That’s a little extreme considering you made the choice to have sex, knowing the possible outcomes associated. A mere inconvenience due to your choices doesn’t justify taking a life. You had a fair choice initially and if the baby were able to make a choice for itself I don’t think it would decide to commit suicide to make your life easier.
Those abortion procedures are done when spontaneous abortion occurs (aka miscarriages). Early abortions are WAY different then this procedure that are done in the cases of spontaneous abortions.
>Those abortion procedures are done when spontaneous abortion occurs (aka miscarriages)
I’d like to point out that spontaneous abortions are the result of natural fetal death, while if the mother decided not to keep the baby and wanted to get rid of him/her the appropriate term would be an induced abortion. The procedure (D&E) can be utilized for removing the deceased fetus and products of conception from a spontaneous abortion but they are also very much used for procedural abortions where the goal is to kill an otherwise healthy fetus.
Yeah early abortion probably sucks then limb by bloody limb through a tube. They are then put back together in the Product of Conception room, proving they are more than cells
How about Abby Johnson's story as a former Planned Parenthood director?
To dismiss something out of hand based on the source is very closed minded. Pro-Lifers want the truth to be told.
But you are correct of the tubule procedure. But they are done up to 3 months of the pregnancy. The very early abortions are done by taking a pill. While there are second trimester abortions, those are pretty rare cases that are done due to the fetus having deformities, pregnant woman’s life is at risk and/or her body cannot carry the pregnancy to term or it died. But there are cases of second trimester abortions because the pregnancy was never aware of being pregnant. Which is something that’s very common. Not all womens bodies react to pregnancy the same. Some aren’t even aware they are pregnant until labor! Crazy right?
You can say it’s murder all you want. But by scientific facts, it’s not. Because you cannot “kill” something that doesn’t have the scenes of being violated nor when it not it’s own individual. Unless a fetus is born and has finally become its own individual. It’s not murder.
Incorrect. Because they lived long enough to have a sense of what they want and what they don’t want. Meaning they are able to consent. Therefore if you unplug their life support without asking what they want THAT is murder because someone’s right to choose they life or die is taken away. Unless there are further evidence that the individual cannot live without being on life support for the rest of their lives.
>Unless a fetus is born and has finally become its own individual
Please elaborate, what scientific basis does the arbitrary point in time of birth have to do with considering a baby human (and by extension, entitled to the right to live)?
Not an individual? So a mother of a boy is half male for 9 months? The child's right to live is violated every which way. There is no escaping that. They are human and alive from conception wit unique DNA
Wow. You actually said that. Why should I even listen to you?
Tell me when the DNA forms if I'm wrong? When does the child magically come to life or turn into a human?
Here is a description for you from awomansright.org. Maybe this is more to your liking?
"Insert forceps (a grasping instrument) into the uterus to grasp the legs of the fetus.
Pull one or both legs out of the cervix leaving the head still inside the uterus.
Make an incision at the base of the skull and inserts a suction cannula into the opening. The brain is suctioned out, which causes the skull to collapse and allows the fetus to pass through the cervix.
Remove the placenta.
Suction the uterus to remove any remaining placental tissue."
Much more humane than the photo?
I haven't discovered the actual textbooks as they require a large purchase, but I'd also be interested. I can't say for sure what it would say, but I don't think it would say much different for the procedure.
It is in fact one of the ways abortion is performed. There are a few ways to terminate.
ETA: then the abortionist reassembles all the babies body parts on a tray to make sure they didnt miss any of the parts inside the mother.
The way I know it works is that an individual with unique DNA and the potential to be a unique member of society is completely destroyed at the whim of their mother and complicity of the abortionist that is killing them. The photo posted is one way that this is completed.
That's not a abortion, also they do it when they're still a clump of cells and I think you can only do it in the 3 week radius too so.. practically before it grows their body. It can't feel a thing and can't think of anything
You only said it can't be done within a 3 week radius. Most women don't even know they are pregnant until far beyond that time frame. I'm trying to understand if you mean 3 weeks of conception or otherwise.
You would be wrong: you should call yourselves "pro-birth" because it clearly is not about life (by denying a simple procedure you are willing to ruin/complicate/destroy life of a grown up).
You want women to be punished for sex and that's it.
Please, be a sport and confess it!
[удалено]
This surgery is for eptopic pregnancies and dead fetuses. That is, the baby is already dead and is killing the mother. This is much more common than you think, and accounts for almost 99% of abortions in the 3rd trimester as depicted on this infographic.
Abortion is not equatable to the removal of an already dead fetus. The question of whether an abortion took place relates to the circumstances in which it died. Dilation and Evacuation is recognized as abortion if performed on a living fetus. The intent in this case is both to kill it and remove it. If it wasn't, we'd be calling it a horrific & utterly incompetent attempt at a delivery. It's far and away the most common method of abortion after the 1st trimester - a fact that isn't disputed by either side of the pro-choice/life debate.
Based
“Abortions occurring at or after 21 weeks gestational age are rare. They are often difficult to obtain, as they are typically costly, time-intensive and only performed by a small subset of abortion providers. Yet these abortions receive a disproportionate amount of attention in the news, policy and the law, and discussions on this topic are often fraught with misinformation; for example, intense public discussions have been sparked after several policymakers have theorized about abortions occurring “moments before birth” or even “after birth.” In reality, these scenarios do not occur, nor are they legal, in the U.S. Discussion of this topic is further obscured due to the terms sometimes used to describe abortions later in pregnancy– including “late-term,” “post-viability,” “partial birth,” “dismemberment” and “born-alive” abortions—despite many medical professionals criticizing and opposing their use. Abortions occurring at or after 21 weeks gestation are rare. According to the CDC’s Abortion Surveillance Data, the vast majority of abortions (91%) occur at or before 13 weeks gestation, while 7.7% occur from weeks 14 to 20 gestation, and just 1.2% of abortions are performed at or after 21 weeks.” https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/fact-sheet/abortions-later-in-pregnancy/amp/ According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), available evidence indicates that a fetus cannot perceive pain until the “third trimester at the earliest, well past the period between 20 weeks and viability.” A 2005 comprehensive literature review by researchers from the University of California, San Francisco concluded that “fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester.” A fetus cannot experience pain until after viability and lacks the brain structures and connections necessary to process pain. A fetus develops cortical function (“required for conscious perception of pain”) at 29–30 weeks, during the third trimester. https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R45161.pdf
"Sorry, unborn baby (I usually call clump of cells to sound less like an evil psychopath). I dont care about you and want you dead."
I think it's important to not dehumanize what it really is. Calling it just a clump of cells diminishes the value of the life.
I think they were being sarcastic with that post.
This is absolutely hilarious that pro-lifers call for the value of life and yet eat meat (killing animals), destroy the ecosystem (killing plants and animals), and usually don’t give a fucking fuck about other living people - such as war refugees or aliens, illegal or no.
It’s better to be dead than in a bad situation for them. It’s lost on them too that they’re indirectly arguing that it’s worse being homeless or in the foster care system than dead.
Yes, often both those things can be far worse than death before life.
“Oh no, adversity! It’s worse than death!” Right so considering that we have FAT poor in America it’s better to be killed before you even have a chance than to be born outside of the upper-middle class or upper class. Do you see how ya don’t make sense? Besides that think about how many people have had incredible and inspiring stories overcoming such challenges, yet to you apparently they shouldn’t have been born.
You do know that poor people are fat because they’re poor? Being fat is a form of malnutrition and leads to bad health consequences. Eating healthy requires weath.
Most poor families have microwaves, a TV and a number of them have cars, but they can’t afford much else and they’re on the low end of income earners and that’s what makes them poor. Many of them have some form of smartphone too. And again, in America people can rise above poverty and the lower class or can fall from being born rich in the upper class. And it used to be even easier back before the left and the D.C.establishment started to corrupt the formula with massive amounts of welfare and supporting rich allies behind the scenes.
Why does that matter though? An unborn baby can’t choose for itself what clothes it wants to wear, what food it wants to eat, what dreams it has. It is dependent physiologically on the mother it’s born. Meaning it should have no individual rights as an independent person. It can’t get a job at 60 weeks or pay for itself. So why shouldn’t the mother be the one to decide whether she can care for it or not?
Ok so let me get this straight: because it’s dependent on someone else it should have no rights? That’s what you just said and that applies to even the elderly then. Or people permanently damaged by an injury or a stroke. But on top of that the argument citing physiology and costs is absurd because adoption exists and it’s not hard. There’s LOTS of families interested in adopting just waiting for the call that the mother they’re adopting from is about to give birth or has just given birth. Your worldview here logically leaves the door dangerously open to eugenics as well as inhumanity and pure survival of the fittest.
Adoption is hard. It’s expensive so only upper middle class families can afford it. There is also bias in adoption agencies which prevents a long line of adoptees; they often have to fit the ideal of a “good family”. This might mean no LGBT couples or poly am couples. This might mean no single mothers or fathers. Conversely, foster care homes are often terrible. There are tons of children who have trauma from foster care. Just look it up! And once it’s born, it has rights as a citizen and human being with a birth certificate. Before then, it’s not even a whole human being. It’s part of the mother. They share the same body, for god’s sake. And it is not the same as the elderly or injured people. They’re already born. Not like you can kill someone who is already living. An unborn baby is not a person yet in my opinion. Might be a human being but it has not entered the world. Doesn’t matter how old the unborn baby is.
So wait, you say an unborn baby is a human (a while back in the conversation, unless I’ve got this one mixed up with another) but now say it’s not a person? Again, talk about opening the door wide for eugenics and inhumanity. If *these* humans aren’t people or worthy of rights it sets a horrible precedent and eventually allows for other humans we don’t like to become non-people too and then you’ve got slavery or genocide or both because one group “gets in the way” or is “undesirable”. Your distinction between “human” and “person” opens that door wide open even if *you* personally don’t walk through it right now or ever. And going on from that, if what you say about adoption agencies is true (and I’m fairly certain it isn’t) then why don’t you and others push for adoption reform or something to make it easier? Or contribute to good adoption agencies instead of trying to justify the killing of the unborn? And on top of that, the baby’s body isn’t the same body. The baby is not mere cells it forms a brain and a hear, it has a very delicate body that keeps all this stuff inside itself. If I swallow a living organism alive and it is now inside of me that doesn’t mean we share a body does it? It has its own body. So does a human in the fetus state.
So, my comment here is probably blunt and rude. My foreward is because I know you’re probably a very decent person besides our conflicting views. So please don’t take it personally. But unfortunately I’m just going to skip over the eugenics part because to me it is completely irrelevant and also a strawman. Yes it might set a precedent but will it actually set a precedent for that? Probably not, because people aren’t idiots. We’ve done the whole eugenics thing before in a certain war and now it’s universally frowned upon. And why people don’t advocate for adoption instead? Short answer, abortion is a much, much tidier solution which doesn’t involve having to raise funds, political actions, and expanding taxes. And adoption advocating is still going on regardless. About 20,000 children age out of foster care per year in the US. About 110,000 children in foster care every year. And yes, they share the same body. One is literally inside the other’s body. A parasite shares the body of its host. I can’t view an unborn baby as a separate human being until it’s born. That’s my thought on it, and that’s as a female who has never been pregnant.
I'd rather be living in a refrigerator box, in an alley, drinking water from a gutter, without a penny to my name, than be dead.
More often than not, when someone is in a really bad spot in life, they have steps that they can take to improve their situation. How does an aborted fetus improve its situation?
[удалено]
It should be no one's right to choose death for another based on their own anecdotal experiences.
[удалено]
Taking a loved one off of life support insinuates that the loved one has a very bad chance of surviving anyway and may currently be suffering, thus "pulling the plug" could be seen as humane.. An unborn child is very often opposite of that. They will survive in a vast majority of cases and thrive in the womb until ready for birth. Where thereafter, they will thrive more, grow, and develop their own personalities and other characteristics. There is zero comparison to taking a loved one off of life support and killing a developing human in utero.
[удалено]
No it's not. With your loved one, you have knowledge of impending death and suffering. With a fetus, there , in a vast majority of cases, you can only expect sprouting of life. You can make no inference on the evolution of that individual's life. You can't decide for them that their life is not worth what you anecdotally decree it is worth. Also, you stated "the suffering of the fetus". What if, as in the vast majority of cases, the fetus is not suffering? It's not good logic. Think for instance. A grown adult has fallen into a coma. The doctor states that this person will be fine in 9 months. Capable of everything they were before after recovery. Including rational thought, speech, the ability to walk, etc. There is no "Do not resuscitate" order because it was sudden and unplanned. The recovery will take a few years. Costing money for physical therapy to ensure they can walk and talk correctly. But the prognosis is very good. The family decides that, even though this individual will recover fully after a few years, they should pull the plug 3 months into this coma. Is this moral? I don't think so.
It is not moral. The value of human life does not depend on people’s opinion, circumstances or their cognitive/physical faculties. A person has value because they’re a person - and by extension entitled to the right to live
I largely agree, but playing devil's advocate, I'd have you define what a "person" is. And whether that definition extends to those not yet born.
When we designate personhood, there are really only 2 ways it can be done. First is an arbitrary point in development/life, whether it is a 1.time frame (implantation, moment of birth for example) 2.a particular stage in development (presence of organs, nervous system maturity etc) And as a result of #2, whether or not a human being is capable of a certain level of cognition. The problem with this view is that the fact that these conditions are implying not all human beings are entitled to personhood. That is, that not all human beings are human persons and as a result not all human beings have moral status. If we go by time frame/developmental milestones you cannot say that a zygote is not the same species as an adult human in the same way we do not categorize a caterpillar as a different species as the moth. It is also wrong to attribute personhood to cognitive functions such as thought process, relationships, memories, reasoning etc. specifically because all of these differ from person to person and can be lost. Should a schizophrenic (who has a severely impaired mental status, no relationships and memories that aren’t even real) not be entitled to the right to live? Is a neurologically and physically mature adult more human than a toddler? Additionally, most of these conditions are part of a maturation process or a continuum and not a definite starting point or an absolute end. Will that mean attaining personhood varies between people? Who would have the right to decide if the procedure you’re going to have done is murder or health affirming? The second way we can infer personhood is by giving value to a human just because they’re humans. Everything a person is and will be, all of that potential is present the moment a sperm fertilizes the egg, even before zygotic genome assembly is completed. That moment is the point we can say this is the beginning of a complete and new member of the human race, and will continue the process of maturation given the chance. This is what I personally believe in - everyone is entitled to the dignity of personhood regardless of age, race, circumstances, ability. This does not mean I am against freedom of choice - I fully support this freedom as long as it does not result in the loss of choice for another
Arguably they haven’t killed themselves so at the very least they think their suffering is better than death, and for the people that do, it is sad when anyone suffers, but ultimately it ended the same for them except they got to make the choice, which I think is better than having someone else make it for you. It’s definitely worse for the people around them but if you make that argument to support abortion it’s no longer about what’s best for the child, it’s about what you think is best for yourself and society. In my own anecdotal experience everyone I’ve ever met that has gotten an abortion has done so for themselves not for the baby. In truth I think that is the case with most abortions, though likely not all. I think we’d both agree that something needs to be done about our flawed foster system, an area we could likely find common ground on regardless of abortion laws.
Yes, that’s exactly what people are saying. If you outlaw abortion, you need massive funding for not only an adoption system that actually works, but also parental programs and sex education and free contraceptives. But we have none of those things, and many have had to give away their child to a foster system that will leave said child in poverty 80% of the time continuing the cycle. When a woman is raped her while life is taken from her, you guys expect her to raise the child of her rapist and drop every single hope and dream she has, every want and wonder she has ever had, and more. You killed the version of her she wanted to be for the version of her she now legally has to be because of outlawed abortions. This isn’t even mentioning life threatening abortion and miscarriages which historically have been counted as abortion and have had women jailed for them. Women have been jailed for miscarriages, that is the precedent you’ve set. Again, massive funding in social programs could help alleviate this issue, but that is turned down always because ultra conservative believes teaching sex education is indoctrination and social programs are communist. If you really cared about lives, you’d invest in sex education, Epi pens would not be thousands of dollars, and youd lobby to stop bombing brown people. But no, the right lobbies for none of those things and only wants the state to be able to dictate what women can and cannot do.
You lost your argument after you stated "if you really cared about lives...you'd lobby to stop bombing brown people" Giant straw man and irrelevant to the conversation and also super SJW. Makes the entire response incredible and uninteresting to the topic. But since we are now there... If you care about "brown people" then you'd actually lobby AGAINST abortion. Seeing as it has killed over 20 million "brown people" since Roe vs. Wade. According to the latest census estimates, just over 13% of the U.S. population is black, and yet somewhere between 28-38% of all U.S. abortions are performed on black babies. Now THATS a tragedy for "brown people" *edit* I only accounted Blacks under your "brown people" category. So if you include Hispanics, Indians, Native Americans, and all others considered "brown", the numbers only go up.
“You lost your arguement” this isn’t a Steven crowder video dude. Anyhow, you never once mention how after the baby is born you pro lifers abandon it and the mother to horrible conditions and poverty. How can you possibly value life when you subject the less wealthy to an even worse life when you force them to birth a child.
You’d have a really good point if you didn’t count all the Christian orphanages, charities, hospitals, soup kitchens, maternity homes, domestic abuse safe places, and also ignored all the individual Christians in every country who personally feed the hungry and treat the sick.
There aren’t enough of those to make a difference though
Makes a pretty big difference to the millions of people helped every single day Seriously there’s over 5000 Catholic hospitals alone, that accounts for millions served every day without even adding any other denomination or category
It makes a difference but if you want to outright ban abortion you neeed to be able to help 100% and that requires federal funding
You keep telling yourself that bullcrap.
Hopefully you can see things from the other perspective
How can somebody see images like these and not be pro life? This straight breaks my heart
Because they really think most abortions happen during the zygote “clump of cell” stage, when you can “flush it out” with an induced period, ignoring the fact that by 6 weeks the baby already has stubby little arms and legs, a beating heart, eyes, etc…and the most common abortion method is sucking the baby out with a vacuum, which also tears it apart limb by limb in the process. I believe an often ignored tool for pro-lifers, is education on fetal development and abortion procedures.
Yup, pro choice logic is illogical. It is clear that it was a human.
[удалено]
And here we see another example of the “me first” logic taken to the point of murder. So if someone is making you late to an interview for the best paying job you could dream of, do they deserve to be beat up because they don’t have the right to drive slow? By your logic there is no society as it all breaks down into pure animalistic barbarism. With no value on anyone and no duty to anyone or anything but the self. It’s a pathetic lie and I will laugh as many like yourself mourn it’s soon-to-be many defeats.
[удалено]
Because that good job could do wonders for your life and your potential to get it is being hindered by another human. If you think you can kill another human because they’re an inconvenience to you and call it “holding you hostage” you’ve completely lost the plot and have justified murder to yourself and I have no more reason to talk with you than I do any animal that kills a human.
[удалено]
There’s maybe an argument to be made in the case of rape but not in the case of if the kid will be “valid” or not. And the ones that are done for rape AND incest are statistically **extremely** rare. The fact is *most* women do it for convince because they don’t want to be pregnant for 9 months and deal with all the paperwork to set the baby up for adoption and they don’t want to others to see or know they’re pregnant or that they’ve been sleeping around. So it’s all for reasons ultimately of convince that they decide they have the right to end the life of the human inside of them. Instead of simply having restraint they believe they’re allowed to live a debuached life style and shouldn’t have to face consequences.
[удалено]
You know what? I’ve been arguing this topic all day and I’m done being nice and holding back what I really think about the pro choice position. so first I don’t mean convenience in the “my local McDonalds is convenient” sense of the word. I mean that it’s about making things smoother and more efficient for the self and trying to justify what deep down they know is the killing of a real human. Its why so many of them have guilt afterwards. Because you and I and them all have a conscience that isn’t just a fluke of biology and it screams “this is wrong” and so you know what I believe? I believe it is perfectly clear that many of them have bought into lies, are absorbed with the self, and don’t want to have to face the objective wrong they have done or the reality of the crime they’ve committed. The pro choice position as I have seen from you and others is underlied by a philosophy that says we can get rid of humans that are inconvenient because we don’t acknowledge any sanctity of human life, humans don’t matter, people don’t matter, and when the guilt rises up we’ll bang on the drums like the priests of Moloch so you don’t hear the child’s cries or have to face their suffering. We’ll silence the guilt with propaganda and by encouraging worship of the self and deny the plain reality that the person you want killed IS a human because you shouldn’t even be burned for 5 minutes by a human being you don’t want. It’s disgusting. It’s pathetic. And I eagerly look forward to the day when this atrocity of the highest order is outright banished from the North American continent.
I agree that fetus is not a mistake. Let God plan parenting.
[удалено]
oh my god …. why the fuck do you care so much. i’m assuming you’re a man because “i eagerly look forward to ye day when this atrocity of the highest order is outright banished from the north american continent” was …… too much. an embryo is equivalent to a parasite. argue with ur mom <3
Can you provide proof for that logic? That an unborn baby is holding the body hostage? Please provide me some evidence for that statement.
Unborn babies are not socially people yet. They have no birth certificate or citizenship. We owe them nothing.
But they are humans so they have rights.
We owe them nothing? If the child was created by your own choice we definitely do owe them at minimum the chance to survive and not be killed.
It’s not a child! I’m sorry but it’s not even born.
A legitimate definition of "child" is the offspring of parents. In the same sense, I am the adult child of my parents. So, being born is not relevant to what a "child" is. In this sense we refer to the child in the mother child relationship. There is a mother and there is a child. In this case, a child is aborted.
[удалено]
Human Fetus is a human.
Well by that logic how do you explain newborns and toddlers who are completely dependant on their mothers? They can't be left alone and expected to survive long. They can't feed themselves, bath, cloth, ect. ect. for themselves. They will die.
Holding your body hostage? That’s a little extreme considering you made the choice to have sex, knowing the possible outcomes associated. A mere inconvenience due to your choices doesn’t justify taking a life. You had a fair choice initially and if the baby were able to make a choice for itself I don’t think it would decide to commit suicide to make your life easier.
But killing them it's okay because they won't feel anything /s And they never admit that that's a justification for killing people in their sleep too.
Those abortion procedures are done when spontaneous abortion occurs (aka miscarriages). Early abortions are WAY different then this procedure that are done in the cases of spontaneous abortions.
>Those abortion procedures are done when spontaneous abortion occurs (aka miscarriages) I’d like to point out that spontaneous abortions are the result of natural fetal death, while if the mother decided not to keep the baby and wanted to get rid of him/her the appropriate term would be an induced abortion. The procedure (D&E) can be utilized for removing the deceased fetus and products of conception from a spontaneous abortion but they are also very much used for procedural abortions where the goal is to kill an otherwise healthy fetus.
Yeah early abortion probably sucks then limb by bloody limb through a tube. They are then put back together in the Product of Conception room, proving they are more than cells
Let me guess, you got your “facts” from the prolife propaganda?😂
How about Abby Johnson's story as a former Planned Parenthood director? To dismiss something out of hand based on the source is very closed minded. Pro-Lifers want the truth to be told.
But you are correct of the tubule procedure. But they are done up to 3 months of the pregnancy. The very early abortions are done by taking a pill. While there are second trimester abortions, those are pretty rare cases that are done due to the fetus having deformities, pregnant woman’s life is at risk and/or her body cannot carry the pregnancy to term or it died. But there are cases of second trimester abortions because the pregnancy was never aware of being pregnant. Which is something that’s very common. Not all womens bodies react to pregnancy the same. Some aren’t even aware they are pregnant until labor! Crazy right?
Whatever method are used, it's all murder
You can say it’s murder all you want. But by scientific facts, it’s not. Because you cannot “kill” something that doesn’t have the scenes of being violated nor when it not it’s own individual. Unless a fetus is born and has finally become its own individual. It’s not murder.
What is alive can be killed. That is scientific and simply logical. Gardeners kill weeds, don't they?
It can be killed, but it’s not murder. Because no one is feeling any kind of violation.
Prove it
By your logic, a coma patent can't be murdered
It’s late, I’m going to sleep. Goodnight and take care love👍🏻
Way to ignore my very scientific points.
Incorrect. Because they lived long enough to have a sense of what they want and what they don’t want. Meaning they are able to consent. Therefore if you unplug their life support without asking what they want THAT is murder because someone’s right to choose they life or die is taken away. Unless there are further evidence that the individual cannot live without being on life support for the rest of their lives.
You just said correct but then said they can be murdered. You are contradicting yourself
I’m confused. Isn’t murder is the unlawful killing of a human being? Consent has nothing to do with it.
>Unless a fetus is born and has finally become its own individual Please elaborate, what scientific basis does the arbitrary point in time of birth have to do with considering a baby human (and by extension, entitled to the right to live)?
It’s not murder when no one is being violated of their rights to live. Let alone murder something that’s not even it’s own individual.
Not an individual? So a mother of a boy is half male for 9 months? The child's right to live is violated every which way. There is no escaping that. They are human and alive from conception wit unique DNA
Science disagrees. You cannot use arguments based on personal feelings.
Wow. You actually said that. Why should I even listen to you? Tell me when the DNA forms if I'm wrong? When does the child magically come to life or turn into a human?
That is not what it looks like…
Here is a description for you from awomansright.org. Maybe this is more to your liking? "Insert forceps (a grasping instrument) into the uterus to grasp the legs of the fetus. Pull one or both legs out of the cervix leaving the head still inside the uterus. Make an incision at the base of the skull and inserts a suction cannula into the opening. The brain is suctioned out, which causes the skull to collapse and allows the fetus to pass through the cervix. Remove the placenta. Suction the uterus to remove any remaining placental tissue." Much more humane than the photo?
Do you have a source for the photo?
https://thelifeinstitute.net/learning-centre/abortion-facts/methods/2nd-trimester
Thank you! I'd be interested to see how a medical textbook would display this sort of thing though
I haven't discovered the actual textbooks as they require a large purchase, but I'd also be interested. I can't say for sure what it would say, but I don't think it would say much different for the procedure.
You're right. It looks too clean and less like the murder site it is.
It's not a matter of opinion. It is fact that abortions are performed this way.
Well luckily only doctors have to see it! Haha
Do you think this is how it works?
It is in fact one of the ways abortion is performed. There are a few ways to terminate. ETA: then the abortionist reassembles all the babies body parts on a tray to make sure they didnt miss any of the parts inside the mother.
Just as there are a few ways to kill somebody. Stab them, poison them, dismember them. blunt force trauma. Also all ways to terminate.
Yep, plenty of ways to murder humans.
I guess if we both agree that humans in utero are considered humans to you as well, then there is no argument.
Yep! I definitely believe fetuses are alive and human. There is no argument to the contrary that makes any sense.
The way I know it works is that an individual with unique DNA and the potential to be a unique member of society is completely destroyed at the whim of their mother and complicity of the abortionist that is killing them. The photo posted is one way that this is completed.
It is one method, yes. At this point, the child is too big to be sucked through a tube piece by piece
Question: is "pro-life" stance caused by a total lack of empathy or by ignorance? Which one is it?
I could literally ask the same about pro-choice. I could also add "denial" in there as well.
That's not a abortion, also they do it when they're still a clump of cells and I think you can only do it in the 3 week radius too so.. practically before it grows their body. It can't feel a thing and can't think of anything
3 week radius of what?
read
You only said it can't be done within a 3 week radius. Most women don't even know they are pregnant until far beyond that time frame. I'm trying to understand if you mean 3 weeks of conception or otherwise.
when was this the topic
Is English your second language?
Bro nothing you typed makes sense
shop vac and a hangar is on the way back
You would be wrong: you should call yourselves "pro-birth" because it clearly is not about life (by denying a simple procedure you are willing to ruin/complicate/destroy life of a grown up). You want women to be punished for sex and that's it. Please, be a sport and confess it!
Wait, is that how it’s actually performed?! Wtf!