Atheist And Abortion?

[white_raven23]

Yeah...I can be pretty blunt. I know.

 

I happen to BE an adopted kid. My parents have been great.

 

Ironic, in a way. I just had a long talk with them yesterday about a decision I find myself coming to...and one I will probably have to FIGHT LIKE HELL (which is really stupid) to get. Not because of my parents, I have their full support, but I might have a fight on my hands with the medical community.

 

I'm 31. And no matter how many times people who did not know me said "Oh. You-are-young-you-will-change-your-mind."....I never have. I do not want children. I want to remove myself from the gene pool. I want a Tubal Ligation.

 

I've been on BC for 9 years (since the day I became sexually active). I take it religiously, as opposed to using the Medicine Cabinet Method. Which is where you place your pills in the medicine cabinet and then get upset when you become pregnant...because you were ON the PILL! (Nevermind you didn't consume any for a whole week when you were supposed to) I do know someone who did this....I wanted to slap the stupid out of her.

 

But despite being on the pill, I get all anxious whenever I skip a period. It becomes all I can think about, completely swallowing my life. I'm tired of it.

 

And besides, lets say I have a total personality transplant....and later want to have a kid. Hell maybe I'll become a born again christian too....just about as likely. That is what adoption is FOR. I do not have to expell spawn directly through my vagina to make a kid MINE.

 

Thing is...from what I hear, it's easier to get an abortion (or two, or three) than to get sterilized when you don't already have kids!

 

Yeah....someone ELSE wants to dictate my potential contributions to the gene pool. I want out of the water, but even the life guards will probably try to keep me in the goddam pool!

[gradstu09]

life guards

 

I know you didn't mean it exactly this way, but that's a very, mmm, Gileadean turn of phrase, given the context.

 

Good luck with your tubal. I've heard it depends on the doctor how insistent you have to be.

[Legion]

A baby in-utero is a parasite. Period.

No, not “period.” This is your viewpoint. And in my opinion it's a skewed and erroneous viewpoint.

 

If we were to discover that some animal in the wild was pregnant, I would hope that our first impulse was not to exclaim, “Oh my, this poor animal has parasites!”

[Guest Dissident_Daughter]

I am most definitely pro-choice...but what comes to mind whenever the political abortion debate comes around is this: why not make laws requiring better, more easily available options to eliminate the need for most abortions in the first place? No offense, but I think it's true: if men were the ones to have the babies, birth control would be free and effortless. Why? Well, just think about the billions of dollars spent on developing and marketing Viagra, vs. the fact that the last time a new birth control method for women was developed was more than 20 years ago.

 

Coming from a fundie xtian family, I get to hear the whole moral debate constantly. Yet these same people who protest and harrass at Planned Parenthood, are the ones who have succeeded in removing sex ed from schools, banning distribution of free birth control at schools, and wouldn't dream of adopting a mixed-race crack baby for all the money in the world (but have no qualms about going to China to buy a kid for $30 grand).

 

Face it - human beings are going to have sex. Why not spend all the emotional energy and tax $$ on ways to prevent the unintended consequences?

[Legion]

if men were the ones to have the babies, birth control would be free and effortless.

I thought that women could obtain the pill for free in most cities at various clinics. Am I wrong?

 

Edit: By the way, welcome to ex-C Dissident!

[gradstu09]

if men were the ones to have the babies, birth control would be free and effortless.

I thought that women could obtain the pill for free in most cities at various clinics. Am I wrong?

 

Edit: By the way, welcome to ex-C Dissident!

 

 

Dude YES! You thought the pill was free? It's only free if you QUALIFY for freebies, which means you have to be flat broke, and even then the time off work for the appt (if you're that poor you don't have paid time off), whatever travel costs you incur to get to and from the clinic, and the appt itself and follow-ups are additional costs. PP tries, but it can't just give the stuff away.

[Legion]

Dude YES! You thought the pill was free? It's only free if you QUALIFY for freebies, which means you have to be flat broke, and even then the time off work for the appt (if you're that poor you don't have paid time off), whatever travel costs you incur to get to and from the clinic, and the appt itself and follow-ups are additional costs. PP tries, but it can't just give the stuff away.

Relax my man. It was genuine question. It wasn't rhetorical.

 

So the pill is free for those who qualify. Okay. Thanks.

[Dianka]

I think I have a similar idea to what Hans mentioned earlier in this thread. First trimester abortion is a rational choice for some women, second trimester or once viable should be for medical reasons. By viable I mean the child could possibly live outside the womb. I know medical science keeps teeny tiny preemies alive that once would never have made it, and I'm not really talking about them. I'm talking about a child that can live with care outside of the womb.

 

 

Think about the risks vs. benefits for such a child. The second trimester ends at 28 weeks, and the milestone for whether a baby can possibly live outside the womb is fetal lung maturity, which is completed at 26 weeks. Babies have been taken out earlier and given steroids to help their lungs develop, but a large precentage of these kids die . Even at 26 weeks, the child is at risk for major complications from being taken out early. If all it depended on was to hook a kid up to machines and watch it grow, that would be one thing. Here's the list of potential complications:

 

Mayo Clinic

 

For babies

The risks of premature birth vary depending on how soon a baby is born. Although survival is possible for babies born as early as 23 to 26 weeks, the risks are greatest for the youngest babies.

 

Complications of premature birth may include:

 

* Difficulty breathing

* Episodes of stopped breathing (apnea)

* Bleeding in the brain (intracranial hemorrhage)

* Fluid accumulation in the brain (hydrocephalus)

* Cerebral palsy and other neurological problems

* Vision problems

* Intestinal problems

* Developmental delays

* Learning disabilities

 

Less serious complications may include:

 

* Yellowing of the skin and whites of the eyes (jaundice)

* Lack of red blood cells (anemia)

* Low blood pressure

 

For some premature babies, difficulties may not appear until later in childhood or even adulthood. Not performing well in school is often a prime concern. Some studies suggest that premature babies may face an increased risk of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease in adulthood.

 

But not all preemies have medical or developmental problems. By 28 to 30 weeks, the risk of serious complications is much lower. And for babies born between 32 and 36 weeks, most medical problems related to premature birth are short term.

 

Table 1. Infant mortality rates, live births, and infant deaths, by selected characteristics and race of mother: United States, 2004 linked file

 

 

^^ I couldn't find a better way to get that in to post

 

 

My point is that we have a bigger ethical issue on our hands if we take babies out on their own. The child's at a higher risk for health issues early on and development issues down the road.

[godlessgrrl]

Oh wow, this all has turned into quite the shitstorm, since last I looked in...

 

Some thoughts:

 

How exactly can automatic bodily functions be considered to act in accordance with one's will? Last I checked, all the various things my body does naturally (make my heart beat, make my lungs work, digest my food, regulate my hormones, etc.) happen without any consultation of my will whatsoever. Since the womb is the realm under consideration in the abortion discussion: I cannot will my body to ovulate or cease ovulating, I cannot will my body to menstruate or cease menstruation, I cannot will my body to accept or reject a pregnancy. These things will happen independent of whether I want them to or not; my control over them is limited. They happen without my conscious, willful consent, because consent just doesn't enter into the equation when you're talking about the automatic functions of a human body.

 

This is part of the reason why I don't buy the idea that sexual activity equates to consent to pregnancy. It equates to consent for sex, and with sex, pregnancy might or might not happen, depending on a lot of circumstances (health of the partners, use of BC, etc.). The advent of safe, reliable BC - including abortion - adds will or choice into the equation. Women can now prevent pregnancy not only by abstaining, but also by using BC. We can consent to pregnancy by accepting it if it happens, or we can end a pregnancy to which we do not consent.

 

I agree with Asimov and others who have noted that the relationship between a fetus and the woman who carries it is a parasitical one, at least in the sense of having one organism feeding directly off of another. If the woman in question wants to be pregnant, this is great - amazing, even. If it isn't what the woman wants, it can be a nightmare, posing a threat to life, mental health, economic future, what have you. I am curious, incidentally, as to why the labels "inconvenience" and "abortion of convenience" have come up in this discussion. Something about such language seems minimizing to me, honestly. Stubbing one's toe is an "inconvenience." Pregnancy wreaks havoc on a woman's body, and might even kill her. How is that an "inconvenience", exactly?

 

At any rate, I must ask: we do not do things like hijack a person's body against their will and force them to donate blood to another, or hook them up and use them as involuntary organ support for someone else (say with forced organ donation, perhaps). In other words, we do not compel people to donate their bodily resources to another without their explicit consent. Why would pregnancy be any exception to this, in a circumstance in which the woman did not want to be pregnant?

 

Another question, which I asked earlier and have not seen answered: if abortion is indeed murder, should there be a penalty for it? Who should get the penalty and what should it be? If not, then why would you let murder go unpunished? How would you go about discovering and enforcing any penalties? Jenna, these questions are directed at you as the most clear anti-abortion individual in the thread, but I'm open to hearing from anyone who has thoughts on the issue. Seriously.

 

It would make the whole issue so easy if we really could boil it all down to the irresponsibility of women. It really would. But I will, as a reminder, post the link I posted earlier yet again, to the WebMD article on the actual reasons why women have abortions. I suppose I am foolishly optimistic that a dose of reality might be a useful injection into the more theoretical parts of this discussion.

 

I really don't understand how come I keep seeing this idea that abortion is something that irresponsible women do to avoid the "inconvenience" of pregnancy. Somebody tell me why that keeps coming up, because I honestly don't get it. Heck, even if there are irresponsible women out there, why does their lackadaisical behavior end up being taken as typical? Do people really think so poorly of women overall? Somebody educate me, please.

 

Thanks for your post about trying to get snipped, white_raven. I understand that liability can come into play with a lot of docs - they don't want to snip a gal who might later change her mind and then come back and sue them. But ultimately I think it has a lot more to do with social pressure, and the idea that women are supposed to become mothers. Nobody seems to know what to do with a woman who doesn't want to procreate. I hope you're able to get your tubes tied successfully without too much hassle.

 

Thanks for reading.

[white_raven23]

A baby in-utero is a parasite. Period.

No, not “period.” This is your viewpoint. And in my opinion it's a skewed and erroneous viewpoint.

 

If we were to discover that some animal in the wild was pregnant, I would hope that our first impulse was not to exclaim, “Oh my, this poor animal has parasites!”

 

I'm being extremely literal. A baby is LITERALLY a parasite for the fist 9 months of it's existence. Then it's only figuratively a parasite for 18+ years.

[Legion]

I agree with Asimov and others who have noted that the relationship between a fetus and the woman who carries it is a parasitical one,...

Then I think you are gravely mistaken also.

 

In good news the number of abortions seems to have declined.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8011603624.html

 

I want to re-iterate my postion on this.

 

Abortion: legal but stigmatized.

[Legion]

I'm being extremely literal.

In my estimation you are extremely mistaken.

[gradstu09]

Do people really think so poorly of women overall?

 

I think you already know the answer to that.

[Dianka]

Someone was asking for a source for fetal development

 

Mayo Clinic: Fetal Development in the first trimester

[Legion]

Do people really think so poorly of women overall?

I think you already know the answer to that.

Dear Guatama Sidharta, where is my violin?

[white_raven23]

Somebody tell me why that keeps coming up, because I honestly don't get it. Heck, even if there are irresponsible women out there, why does their lackadaisical behavior end up being taken as typical? Do people really think so poorly of women overall? Somebody educate me, please.

 

 

Any why the fuck would anyone want to legally force "irresponsible" women to raise babies? Why do you want irresponsible people having children? Aren't you concerned at all about what their parenting "skills" might be? Having a baby doesn't make or force a person of irresponsible nature to suddenly through the magic of birth, become the Martha Stewart of Motherhood. It doesn't turn an irresponsible person into a responsible one, if anything...now you have an irresponsible person raising an irresponsible-person-in-training. Great. The word is so much better for that.

 

Just goes to show....Gradstu is right. They only give a shit about protecting in-utero life forms. After they are born and the new dumb as a box of rocks parent doesn't know or care which end of the thing you diaper....the smelly end or the screaming end....kids born, pro-life job is done....next.

[gradstu09]

Very funny, Legion. The treatment of actual women in this thread has been insulting and patronizing. Susanetal was brave enough to share a horrific experience only to have you excuse her abortion as okay by you...wow...I'm sure she really needed your approval over what she did with her own body. Her abortion was fine...it's just those other sluts that need punished, right? Shame shame, shoulda kept their legs closed, shoulda been more careful with the pill, shoulda used a backup method...if responsibility for not getting pregnant is put on the woman, then responsibility for how to handle an unintended pregnancy lies completely with the woman as well. Are you going to find the guy who impregnated the woman you're shaming and shame him too? B/c I notice you didn't mention that.

[white_raven23]

I'm being extremely literal.

In my estimation you are extremely mistaken.

 

 

I'm "mistaken" about the biology of reproduction? Did we suddenly evolve and no one told me?

 

Last I checked there this thing called an umbilical cord that originates from the fetus and attaches to the host body through which via the host's blood supply delivers nutrients?

 

Do we hatch from eggs now?

 

 

Or do you just disagree with my willingness to strip all the fluffy moonbeams and emotionalism about human reproduction aside?

[Legion]

Gradstu I like you man, but give me a fuckin break over here. What would you have me say to Susanetal? Hmm? She was raped and was impregnated. I think an abortion was the just and right thing to do. And I said so. What’s wrong with that?

 

And yes, I think men who push their women to get abortions because of their own irresponsibility should be stigmatized also.

 

Abortion: legal but stigmatized

[Vigile]

This whole debate is being distracted by red herrings, aka political issues, bombastic language (parisites), etc...

 

I still say the real debate is about potential for sentience. And, I've yet to see anyone answer what is the difference between stiffling potential sentience via birth control and stiffling potential sentience post conception?

 

I'll ask again, what is so magical about the event of conception that it deserves protection?

[Vigile]

Abortion: legal but stigmatized

 

Great. And my position is Judging personal choices of others: Legal, but stigmatized.

[godlessgrrl]

Then I think you are gravely mistaken also.

 

Hey, fair 'nuff.

 

Why stigmatized, though? Shame as a preventive measure, perhaps? And to what degree? We talking criticism, ostracism, what?

 

Plus how do you distinguish between the truly irresponsible women, vs. the responsible ones, so you know which ones to shame or stigmatize?

 

Thoughts?

[Dianka]

Legion, aside from fulfilling your need to butt in on other people’s lives and wave your finger at a decision women feel they needed to make, what do you propose would be the effect of shaming women for having an abortion? Would the rates of abortions plummet? Or would women keep an eye out for duchebags lurking around clinics waiting to unload their passive aggressive bullshit on them? You’ve given no real reason for why a person should be ashamed, only reasons why abortion makes you mad. They’re being irresponsible (are you sure?) they did it because having a child would be an inconvenience (how would you know). Your black and white proposition is completely irrelevant; you would know this is you spent any real time to understand why women have abortions. Unfortunately I can’t imagine anyone around you would ever tell you they had an abortion after hearing your ignorant ‘solution’ for fear of being turned into a fucking pariah.

[Legion]

I have to go take care of some business guys. I have a yard to mow. But I have enjoyed this heated exchange. I think you guys are a ferocious bunch. Maybe eventually I’ll even be convinced.

 

Abortion: legal and celebrated

 

Yeah, right.

 

And Vigile, please don't try and tell me that you exercise no judgment on the decisions of others. As an elitist I would think you are steeped in the judgment of others.

[white_raven23]

This whole debate is being distracted by red herrings, aka political issues, bombastic language (parisites), etc...

 

 

And that is just what I don't understand really. Why is pointing out that reproduction is a parasitical interaction "bombastic" language?

 

That's what it is. A fetus lives off it's mother's blood supply. That is a parasite.

 

People liking babies and disliking leeches doesn't change the similarity of the relationships they have with their hosts.

 

As for the idea of conception being special? It isn't. The specialness is an invention of egotistical society.