Let's Talk About: Abortion

[FiftyBelow]

Originally Posted by driveway

My 70-year-old, biology-teacher father posted this to Facebook today:

"With all the anti-abortion laws being passed by states south of the border I want to correct a misconception that is prevalent in almost all the arguments both for and against. That is "when does life begin?" The answer is: several billion years ago, and we still don't know how.

Many of my ex students will remember the second part of the modern cell theory: all cells arise from pre-existing cells. Any new individual is the continuation of the lives of its parents (or parent in the case of asexual reproduction). Eggs and sperm are living cells, as is the zygote that their fusion can produce. There is no "gap".

Whether that zygote will go on to produce a healthy baby 9 months later is not guaranteed. Turning one diploid cell into a viable infant made up of about 26,000,000,000 vastly different cells is an amazingly complex process that often goes wrong.

Among women who know they are pregnant, the miscarriage rate is roughly 10% to 20%, while rates among all fertilisation is around 30% to 50%.

Think about that - 30% to 50% of all conceptions end in the death of the baby without any active interventions. For those that believe that babies are a gift from God, your God is the greatest abortionist ever."

The key question is when does a human life begin. Generally, there's a scientific consensus that a new human life begins at conception. At this point the zygote, though possessing the DNA of its mother and father, is genetically distinct as an individual from both of them.

Do miscarriages happen. Absolutely. However, there's a difference between a pregnancy that is ended due to natural causes and one that is ended deliberately.

[fulham]

Being in a very liberal city like Vancouver , Every second person on my IG has posted a story or post about this recent Abortion law in Alabama. The gist of them seem to suggest this is a MEN VS WOMAN thing. Which is annoying as hell.


its not a men vs woman thing.



Its a religious people who want to impose their religion vs everyone else thing.

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by fulham

Being in a very liberal city like Vancouver , Every second person on my IG has posted a story or post about this recent Abortion law in Alabama. The gist of them seem to suggest this is a MEN VS WOMAN thing. Which is annoying as hell.


its not a men vs woman thing.



Its a religious people who want to impose their religion vs everyone else thing.

Actually it's just men trying to use religion to control women even know religion has nothing to do with abortion, in the end it means these religious men are just stupid ass~holes

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by fulham

Being in a very liberal city like Vancouver , Every second person on my IG has posted a story or post about this recent Abortion law in Alabama. The gist of them seem to suggest this is a MEN VS WOMAN thing. Which is annoying as hell.


its not a men vs woman thing.



Its a religious people who want to impose their religion vs everyone else thing.

No. It's pretty much all men...





Old white men if you prefer. But definitely all men.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by FiftyBelow

The key question is when does a human life begin. Generally, there's a scientific consensus that a new human life begins at conception. At this point the zygote, though possessing the DNA of its mother and father, is genetically distinct as an individual from both of them.

Do miscarriages happen. Absolutely. However, there's a difference between a pregnancy that is ended due to natural causes and one that is ended deliberately.

Hahaha no there isn't.

What kind of bull#### is this?

[Maritime Q-Scout]

The question keeps coming up about rights of the fetus. A few people have touched on this but the rights don't kick in at 26 weeks, 37 weeks or even 40 weeks. The rights kick in at birth.

My son's rights kicked in at 38 weeks after conception. He was born 2 weeks early.

My own rights kicked in at 44 weeks, I did not want to leave the womb.

Every fetus is different just as every person is different and why you can't assess an arbitrary number of weeks when dealing with medical information.



Then the question becomes what about a heart beat, or brain development?

What about teratoma tumors? They can grow teeth, limbs and organs. There are reported cases of brain development. Should we be removing those?

Most, but not all, believe there should be an exception if the health of the mother is in jeopardy. But what if the teratoma isn't life threatening?

I have a friend that posted on Facebook that if she ever became pregnant she would need to have an abortion because she's on medication for migraines. Coming off the medication wouldn't threaten her life but it certainly would threaten her health.

If you agree with that she'd get an exception for debilitating migraines, you'd have to make other non-life threatening exceptions.



For the less than 1% of late term abortions, I'd be curious to know how many of those are due to access?

Where I live there isn't a surgical abortion available. If a woman next door wanted an abortion she would have to travel 4.5 hours, find a place to stay, and have the procedure and recovery in Halifax. Within the first 7 weeks a woman can pay the $700-$800 for mifepristone, as most drug formularies don't cover it (any post-secondary students reading this who are covered by The Campus Trust health plan [eg: Medicine Hat College, Grand Prairie Regional College] mifepristone is covered just like birth control, antibiotics or any other regular prescription).
Mifepristone only works in the first 7 weeks and can only be administered by a doctor in a hospital that has emergency surgery available (in case of a complication).

Better access to education, birth control and services would likely reduce later term abortions.

Alas not everyone in the country has the same access, I don't have the same access as you folks in Calgary. I'd be curious to know the breakdown as accessibility of those that get abortions.

[PsYcNeT]

New thread direction: Does a fetus have the right to join a GSA and not tell their parents?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Peanut

If you think abortion is wrong, don’t have one. The end.

I don’t like this argument because it ignores any discussion of ethics and morality. It is a reasonable response in the light of groups trying to create heart beat laws but it misses the moral/ethical question that exists.

If a fetus is a bundle of cells no different from a 6th finger then you are absolutely correct.

If a fetus is alive than society has a duty to protect those that can’t protect themselves.

It certainly fine to argue that bodily autonomy trumps and a parasite has no rights therefore if you think abortion is wrong don’t get one is all that matters.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

No. It's pretty much all men...





Old white men if you prefer. But definitely all men.

No it’s not.

Women are in general marginally more pro-life than men are.

You could look at that and say that 0% of republican women voted against the bill and 100% of democratic men did and only 66% of democrat women did.

The issue being a lack of women being represented in government, not old white men trying to govern women’s bodies. The old white men are doing this to ensure donations from members of pro-life groups continue. These donors have a common religious affiliation rather than a common gender.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by FiftyBelow

From the outset, I'll state that my position is one that is staunchly pro-life. I approach this issue ultimately from a human rights perspective.

This is good. This gives us a starting point for discussion. You wish to approach this from the human rights perspective, so let's look at the human rights perspective and what is considered the most comprehensive statement on human rights in history - The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Article 1 states:

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Two important things there. Humans are born. This entails the action of live birth. Until such time, the embryo is part of the host, or the mother and all rights belong to her. Second part is the component of reason and conscience. Humans do not have these faculties at birth and develop these capacities later on in their cognitive development. So there is some ambiguity here as to when a human being achieves some individual rights. I believe that human being is not a person until they have the faculties to make decisions on their own and are responsible for those actions. But looking at the declaration, human rights are not bestowed until the very earliest point of when an individual is born.

Scientifically speaking, human life begins at conception. At this point, the embryo--while not a fully grown human being--is a unique individual with its own unique DNA.

While this is wrong, it is at least another point of discussion. "Life" begins at conception. What that life is is wide open for discussion. In the early stages of development the zygote is not yet distinguishable from a lot of species at the same point. It is a lump of goo that has some coding in the cells. Yes, the blueprints to a human being are there, but blueprints do not make a pile of lumber of home. There are months of development to go before the components begin to look like something resembling the blueprint, let alone it being a sustainable entity.

Interestingly enough, cancer cells also meet this same standard. They have unique encoding too, so by your standard we should not be allowed to excise those cells and allow them to grow to the point where they kill the patient? Cancer cells are live cells and have the same rights by the standard you have set forth. No?

If undisturbed, the embryo possesses all the genetic material necessary to move through the stages of development and eventually into a fully developed human. However, regardless of the stage of development, after conception, there is a human life that is present in the womb.

Someone didn't pass their Human Sexuality class! Conception does not take place in the "womb" or what is more commonly refereed to as the uterus. Fertilization takes place in the Fallopian tubes and the zygote must then travel to the uterus where implantation takes place. Considering that 66% of embryos do not develop properly and spontaneously abort, it nukes the idea of "if undisturbed."

As such, I see the abortion issue as one that does not only affect the mother but also the life inside the womb. Recognizing that the life in the womb is human, I believe that it deserves full protection. All humans have a right to life. When addressing any human rights issue, I believe this is always the starting point for no other rights can follow if one does not have a right to life.

There is nothing to support your claim though. This is a philosophical argument more so than a pragmatic one. Science does not support your claim. US and Canadian law does not support your claim. International law does not support your claim, and neither does the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I suspect you are making your claims on a theological belief more so than anything else, because it is a based on a "belief" more so than any fact.

Many pro-choicers present a false dichotomy of the rights of the baby vs the rights of the mother. Why can't we value both? I agree with many pro-choicers that our society does not do a good job of supporting women through pregnancies. I sympathize with those who have faced the prospect of their life plans being turned upside down or their honest concerns at the quality of life that the child might face. These are important concerns and ones that nobody takes lightly. However, are they enough to justify the killing of a life? The killing of the life in the womb does not address the direct causes of lack of support, poverty, rape etc, it merely creates another victim. Instead of viewing abortions as solutions to these problems, why not foster a culture that values every life and one that strives to better support women, fights against poverty, fights rape etc?

I think we can agree on this point. Without the appropriate social safety net in place to assist women with being forced to carry a child to term, and then care for it until adulthood, we have no right to tell them what they can or cannot do with their bodies. Not unless you think the Handmaiden's Tale is blueprint for a good and functioning society.

Originally Posted by driveway

My 70-year-old, biology-teacher father posted this to Facebook today:

"With all the anti-abortion laws being passed by states south of the border I want to correct a misconception that is prevalent in almost all the arguments both for and against. That is "when does life begin?" The answer is: several billion years ago, and we still don't know how.

Many of my ex students will remember the second part of the modern cell theory: all cells arise from pre-existing cells. Any new individual is the continuation of the lives of its parents (or parent in the case of asexual reproduction). Eggs and sperm are living cells, as is the zygote that their fusion can produce. There is no "gap".

Whether that zygote will go on to produce a healthy baby 9 months later is not guaranteed. Turning one diploid cell into a viable infant made up of about 26,000,000,000 vastly different cells is an amazingly complex process that often goes wrong.

Among women who know they are pregnant, the miscarriage rate is roughly 10% to 20%, while rates among all fertilisation is around 30% to 50%.

Think about that - 30% to 50% of all conceptions end in the death of the baby without any active interventions. For those that believe that babies are a gift from God, your God is the greatest abortionist ever."

Your father is a wise man. I said something similar in another thread a few months ago, but this was much more concise and articulate. Thank your father for being a voice of reason and allowing science to inform his thinking.

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

It's still arbitrary, though. Why should the moment of birth be the point to draw this bright line? What's the justification for that conclusion? It's always going to be a moral question with an answer that's based on moral principles, whether codified in law or not - you can't escape that.

The moment of birth is that line, because that is when the baby draws its first breath and ultimately becomes an entity unto itself. Prior to that, it is a parasite of the host, requiring that umbilical cord to provide oxygen and nutrients for its survival. Without that link, the fetus dies. Only once the fetus achieves maturity and is born into the work where it is detached from the umbilical is that fetus considered a life living on its own. Prior to that, it is still an extension of the host and reliant on the products of that host in every shape and fashion.

[OMG!WTF!]

Women are in general marginally more pro-life than men are.

You could look at that and say that 0% of republican women voted against the bill and 100% of democratic men did and only 66% of democrat women did.

The issue being a lack of women being represented in government, not old white men trying to govern women’s bodies. The old white men are doing this to ensure donations from members of pro-life groups continue. These donors have a common religious affiliation rather than a common gender.

No. It's very close, almost identical in numbers across a variety of polls, but nearly all of them have more pro life men than women...


https://news.gallup.com/poll/244709/...ic-tables.aspx


And to be even more specific, old, white men. Religion is a big part of it as well. And conservatism. And men being over represented in politics. But the narrative that men are trying to control women's bodies is not at all wrong.



Pro life group funding? I've not seen anything saying this is a big issue in 'bama. I've not seen anything but a bunch of guys whaling on women's rights.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

No. It's very close, almost identical in numbers across a variety of polls, but nearly all of them have more pro life men than women...


https://news.gallup.com/poll/244709/...ic-tables.aspx


And to be even more specific, old, white men. Religion is a big part of it as well. And conservatism. And men being over represented in politics. But the narrative that men are trying to control women's bodies is not at all wrong.



Pro life group funding? I've not seen anything saying this is a big issue in 'bama. I've not seen anything but a bunch of guys whaling on women's rights.

So you post a poll that shows no statistical difference in support of the pro-life movement between men and women and then go on to say it’s a bunch of guys.

You could look at Georgia where you had the ridiculous fetus poem read by Georgia house member Darlene Taylor.

https://legislativenavigator.myajc.com/#bills/HB/481

3 of 6 authors of the bill are women.

[OMG!WTF!]

So you post a poll that shows no statistical difference in support of the pro-life movement between men and women and then go on to say it’s a bunch of guys.

You could look at Georgia where you had the ridiculous fetus poem read by Georgia house member Darlene Taylor.

https://legislativenavigator.myajc.com/#bills/HB/481

3 of 6 authors of the bill are women.

So you posted an opinion that more women are pro life than men. That's incorrect. So it gets the poll!. And if you want to look at Georgia, why not look at Missouri and Ohio as well. According to a WaPo article I can't link to, for every 1 female pro life vote in those states, there were 7 male pro life votes. Anyway, if it's not men trying to control women I guess it's men over represented in politics, or men over representing conservatives, or old people, or idiots or poor people. Maybe a nice mishmash of all the above.

[Ace]

Originally Posted by Peanut

If you think abortion is wrong, don’t have one. The end.

What if you hold the same view about murder. I think it’s wrong so I don’t do it, but the limits don’t stop there.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Peanut

If you think abortion is wrong, don’t have one. The end.

"If you think murder is wrong, don't murder anyone. The end."

This is what a dead dogma looks like. I mean, what an obviously stupid thing to say, and yet it gets a bunch of thanks. It's a damn good thing this debate is utterly closed in Canada, because we'd have a hell of a time winning it again given how little people seem to bother with justifying their own viewpoints to themselves.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

"If you think murder is wrong, don't murder anyone. The end."

This is what a dead dogma looks like. I mean, what an obviously stupid thing to say, and yet it gets a bunch of thanks. It's a damn good thing this debate is utterly closed in Canada, because we'd have a hell of a time winning it again given how little people seem to bother with justifying their own viewpoints to themselves.

Given the remarks out of Ontario, I wouldn't be surprised to see the issue on the table soon.

I wouldn't he surprised if Ford introduces bills about or drastically cuts funding for abortion services. (Ford already is attacking student associations who provide health benefits to students which cover resources for abortion services and in some cases, as I outlined above, cover the oral abortion drug). Eliminate young women's health access and you're eliminating their birth control, and beyond the ability to have autonomy over their health.

First Ontario, then if that's working Alberta will follow suit. The real question is will the move be made before or after the federal election?

Make no mistake, the wheels are in motion to put it on the table here.

[CliffFletcher]

The gender near-parity in pro-life sentiment is easy to explain: Women are more religious than men.

64 per cent of American women say they pray daily, compared with 43 per cent of American men. In Canada, those figures are 30 per cent and 28 per cent (which helps explain why abortion is much less of an issue here).

https://www.pewforum.org/2016/03/22/...r-gap-is-wide/

If this seems surprising, it's because the spokespeople who purport to speak on behalf of women are atypically irreligious, while the most prominent proponents of religious faith are atypically male.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

"If you think murder is wrong, don't murder anyone. The end."

This is what a dead dogma looks like. I mean, what an obviously stupid thing to say, and yet it gets a bunch of thanks. It's a damn good thing this debate is utterly closed in Canada, because we'd have a hell of a time winning it again given how little people seem to bother with justifying their own viewpoints to themselves.

Funny enough I think the pro-life arguments made in this thread are a lot more reasonable and interesting to read than the 'if you don't want to get an abortion than don't' stupidity.

But I agree. I think the debate would be a lot different now because of the way people on both sides approach the issue.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

So you posted an opinion that more women are pro life than men. That's incorrect. So it gets the poll!. And if you want to look at Georgia, why not look at Missouri and Ohio as well. According to a WaPo article I can't link to, for every 1 female pro life vote in those states, there were 7 male pro life votes. Anyway, if it's not men trying to control women I guess it's men over represented in politics, or men over representing conservatives, or old people, or idiots or poor people. Maybe a nice mishmash of all the above.

Im trying to find what polling data I was seeing when I said marginally more women.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/245618/...0by%2520Gender

I suspect it was support some form of the should abortion be illegal in all circumstances question rather than the pro-life or pro-choice question. As looking at the chart 81% of Men believe abortion should be legal in some form compared to 77% of women. But on the general questions the correct statement would have been marginally more men support pro-birth.

What I don’t understand is how you take that data and then say it’s men oppressing women.

I would agree that that the reason you see a gender disparity in in the people voting to ban abortion is that the party voting for it has a large gender disparity among its representatives.

Where republican women have had the opportunity to vote against abortion they have.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Cube Inmate

This is the one event that is unambiguous, not subject to debate, and does not require the consent of the woman to evaluate. That's what makes it a bright line. Is that baby born? Yes/no. Every other qualifier is subject to either subjective judgement or the consent of the woman to determine. They aren't as bright.

To me while all other lines in the sand are not as 'bright' as the one where the baby is not considered human life until it is a born, I don't think that matters.

I still think from a legal / scientific standard there is more than enough evidence or strong arguments to suggest that the fetus can be considered a human life much sooner than when it is a born.

The other issue that comes up is what is more important? Life or liberty? Both are essential rights granted to most people in the world according to our constitutions.

Do we value the freedom of choice (for anything really) over the right to live?

I.E. if we define human life as beginning before the actual birth date, something which I and a lot smarter people than me think is true, then what is more important? The right to live, or freedom of choice, which in this case is the freedom to get an abortion at any point during the pregnancy.