Personhood and Abortion Rights

[Guest]

What makes abortions unhealthy?

Aside from the physically risk, there are emotional implications...if you don't understand that then I don't know what to say.

What is healthy about them? in my opinion one reason it is such a emotional battle for many, is that for many that have undergone a abortion it is a emotional event..that is just a fact. A miscarriage for a wanted child is a very emotioal event, I am not sure how we can exclude a abortion from the same. For many I am sure it is like going to the dentist...but everyone is different I suppose.

Were is your line...when is a human fetus a child and protected, and when is it expendable? Where is that line?

[_Markk]

I think we can agree that abortions are not healthy mentally and physically.

Actually no. Abortions become extremely healthy to mothers whose lives are endangered during the pregnancy.

Kevin, I think we understand that...we are discussing a normal pregnancy. Let down you guard for a moment.

[_Kevin Graham]

Markk, can you explain whether you are for or against the "Morning after pill." If you're against, please explain why.

Yes I am...I think it is lazy, and maybe I am being hypocritical in drawing the line between TMAP and general contraceptives, but it is a easy line for me to draw and stand by, and easy for me to accept and justify with my conscious and my faith. Like I told Themis this is not a easy subject, and it is about choice...we have the freedom to preserve life, or abort life..or blow it off as no life.

Kevin, where do you draw the line, and why?

So you believe that during the five days after conception, there is a literal human being floating around in the uterus?

Have you actually studied the various stages a fetus goes through?

The fertilized egg or zygote, doesn't even enter the uterus for another 5 days. If it makes it through and reaches the blastocyst stage it becomes a hollow ball of dividing cells and floats until it reaches the wall of the uterus, at which point it may or may not "implant." Only if it implants does the woman become "pregnant." And implantation happens only 40% of the time anyway.

So what's really the harm in terminating a process on day one when there is another 5 days that passes by before the woman is in any sense pregnant?

As far as where I draw the line, I agree with most laws and most states from what I understand already prohibit late term abortions. This Christian nightmare that people envision, where lazy sluts are getting pregnant and then decide in the last month that they no longer want a baby and therefore "abort," is really something that never happens.

[_Kevin Graham]

Kevin, I think we understand that...we are discussing a normal pregnancy. Let down you guard for a moment.

So in the cases where birth control fails - doesn't have to be a busted condom - you think the state should force these women to subject themselves to an intrusive surgical procedure after enduring nine months of pregnancy, because other people's religion tells them anything else would be murder?

Have you actually seen the process of a caesarean? My wife has had three of them. They sliced her open from one side to the other, pulled out the baby and then sewed her back up. Recovery took days. Maybe if men were on that end of the reproduction model you'd have a different perspective.

[_Markk]

So you believe that during the five days after conception, there is a literal human being floating around in the uterus?

Have you actually studied the various stages a fetus goes through?

The fertilized egg or zygote, doesn't even enter the uterus for another 5 days. If it makes it through and reaches the blastocyst stage it becomes a hollow ball of dividing cells and floats until it reaches the wall of the uterus, at which point it may or may not "implant." Only if it implants does the woman become "pregnant." And implantation happens only 40% of the time anyway.

So what's really the harm in terminating a process on day one when there is another 5 days that passes by before the woman is in any sense pregnant?

As far as where I draw the line, I agree with most laws and most states from what I understand already prohibit late term abortions. This Christian nightmare that people envision, where lazy sluts are getting pregnant and then decide in the last month that they no longer want a baby and therefore "abort," is really something that never happens.

Now one knows when and if the MAP actually stops a life or not...but we know it does terminate potential lives.

So where is that line Kevin...I answered your question as to where my line is, it is clear, and I understand where it is, and can tell others where it is, and right or wrong that is my belief.

You apparently believe that goverment concedes a fetus in a womb becomes a child at some stage or time...where is that for you...where the line between mid term and late term for you?

[_Markk]

So in the cases where birth control fails - doesn't have to be a busted condom - you think the state should force these women to subject themselves to an intrusive surgical procedure after enduring nine months of pregnancy, because other people's religion tells them anything else would be murder?

Have you actually seen the process of a caesarean? My wife has had three of them. They sliced her open from one side to the other, pulled out the baby and then sewed her back up. Recovery took days. Maybe if men were on that end of the reproduction model you'd have a different perspective.

Kevin I don't have all the answers, life is tough and there are thought decisions to be made. I could counter that by saying should the state allow the termination of a life, and in some cases fund it? That is the question. I chose life, I believe it is life, and I don't think it is a bad view to have.

I sorry you look at your children's birth and medicine making it possible for your beautiful family as "slicing up." I am sorry but I can't equate a typical abortion with the miracle of a successful caesarean that saved mother and child and that brings so much joy to so many folks.

[_Kevin Graham]

Now one knows when and if the MAP actually stops a life or not...but we know it does terminate potential lives.

Morning after pills are 95% effective, and this doesn't answer my question. If no one is technically pregnant until day 5, and she only has a 40% chance of becoming pregnant 5 days after unprotected sex, then what is the harm in terminating the process on day 1? I don't get it.

So where is that line Kevin...I answered your question as to where my line is, it is clear, and I understand where it is, and can tell others where it is, and right or wrong that is my belief.

Actually you didn't answer my question at all. You just said MAPs were ineffective, which is wrong, and then you said it terminates a "potential" life while not stopping a life. Which makes no sense.

As far as my "line" goes, I'd say once the brain and spinal cord has developed enough to allow the fetus to feel pain the woman shouldn't be allowed to abort unless there are abnormalities or her life is in danger. That's a clear line determined by what science tells us. It just happens that the state cares more about what science says than religious groups who choose to believe, based on no evidence whatsoever, that a fertilized egg is synonymous with a "person."

[_Themis]

Aside from the physically risk, there are emotional implications...if you don't understand that then I don't know what to say.

There are physical risks to going through with a pregnancy as well as emotional issues. I suspect women who come from backgrounds where abortions are acceptable and normal will not have these emotional issues.

A miscarriage for a wanted child is a very emotioal event, I am not sure how we can exclude a abortion from the same.

Why not, there are very different? One is where a women does not want to be pregnant. I can be damaging to go through with an unwanted pregnancy.

Were is your line...when is a human fetus a child and protected, and when is it expendable? Where is that line?

The best line is birth. It makes sure the women has proper rights over her body. I am not in favor of late term abortions, but in reality it is not an issue. Few happen and almost all of those are due to health concerns over the mother or fetus. There are also established ethical rules Doctor have to follow.

[_Themis]

Markk, can you explain whether you are for or against the "Morning after pill." If you're against, please explain why.

Yes I am...I think it is lazy, and maybe I am being hypocritical in drawing the line between TMAP and general contraceptives, but it is a easy line for me to draw and stand by, and easy for me to accept and justify with my conscious and my faith.

That is definitely a strange answer. I suspect you don't have a good argument here which is why you go with being lazy. How is it lazy for someone to use this as there preferred way to avoid having to have a baby, and how do you know they have not taken other methods but want to make sure by taking this drug after having sex? It's not lazy to take take the shortest route to the store to buy food, but maybe if you were supposed to go but got someone else to go for you.

Like I told Themis this is not a easy subject, and it is about choice...we have the freedom to preserve life, or abort life..or blow it off as no life.

Are you fine with a women making the choice even if you think abortion is the wrong choice?

[_Markk]

Morning after pills are 95% effective, and this doesn't answer my question. If no one is technically pregnant until day 5, and she only has a 40% chance of becoming pregnant 5 days after unprotected sex, then what is the harm in terminating the process on day 1? I don't get it.

Every time two people have sex, they don't always conceive...far from it, so just taking the MAP after every time a person has sex does not mean the pill terminated the potential for life.

That said, I disagree with your view, I think it leads to another slippery slope. I have read it can be anywhere from a hour or so, to five days...so you numbers are exactly accurate.

I also am a person of faith Kevin, I do believe in God, and I while I do not even pretend to remotely understand how it all works, I do believe life is a special and God given.

I think one thing we have learned from this exchange, its that to a degree I am pro choice, in that it is indeed a choice all women have the right to make, and you believe the state should determine when life is in the womb by science, and enforce that on a woman.

As far as my "line" goes, I'd say once the brain and spinal cord has developed enough to allow the fetus to feel pain the woman shouldn't be allowed to abort unless there are abnormalities or her life is in danger. That's a clear line determined by what science tells us. It just happens that the state cares more about what science says than religious groups who choose to believe, based on no evidence whatsoever, that a fertilized egg is synonymous with a "person."

When is that line? For you it is not about the potential for life, but whether or not the potential child feels the pain...is that fair?

Also you believe the state should be able to take away a woman's right to choose, but at a later time within 280+- days of gestation?

Can you give me a day or month, when your line takes effect?