On the subject of abortion

KET20 · May 22, 2008

Followers4christ said:
They (the pictures, in the links in my last post) depict the bloody, dismembered remains of human beings after a surgical abortion. While these images are incredibly shocking and gory, they are no more shocking than the act of abortion itself. And so long as this injustice is hidden, it will continue to be ignored.Abortion isn't about choice its about the systematic slaughter of innocent human beings. These photographs are real and untouched, depicting the brutal reality that daily occurs behind sterile clinic doors. Until you see what abortion does, you will never understand what abortion is.In the court of law, there is little testimony more powerful than photographic evidence.Abortion photographs help establish the reality that abortion is a brutal act of violence.God Bless

This is something that just really ticks me off. You should not post pictures of the results of a surgical abortion as if everyone who gets an abortion gets a surgical one, because they don't. Many women nowadays have a medical abortion because it is less invasive, less painful, and can be completed in the comfort of that woman's home instead of in a clinic. A woman can have a medical or surgical abortion up to 7 or 9 weeks into the pregnancy (it depends on the individual clinic and the drugs used). After that and up until the time where she can't legally have an abortion anymore, she may have a surgical abortion. As of 2004 (the most recent I could find) , the CDC reports that 61% of abortions are performed at 8 weeks gestation or before and that 87% are performed at 12 weeks or before. Before 8 weeks, most women will be offered the option to choose between the two procedures. You should be aware when you post pictures like that, that they may not be representative of most women's experience, particularly pictures of fetuses that were 20+ weeks gestation, because an abortion that late rarely happens.

Archer93 · May 22, 2008

KET20 said:
As of 2004 (the most recent I could find) , the CDC reports that 61% of abortions are performed at 8 weeks gestation or before and that 87% are performed at 12 weeks or before. Before 8 weeks, most women will be offered the option to choose between the two procedures. You should be aware when you post pictures like that, that they may not be representative of most women's experience, particularly pictures of fetuses that were 20+ weeks gestation, because an abortion that late rarely happens.

This issue recently hit the headlines in Britain with a parlimentary vote on whether the time limit should be lowered from its current 24 weeks, and if so, to what point.
The result was no change, it's still available up to 24 weeks (with extentions in the case of medical issues).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7412118.stm
There's a very interesting graph at the bottom of the page showing the percentage of abortions being performed at various time windows over the last 25 odd years- the vast majority of abortions taking place at 12 weeks or before.
The number of 9 weeks or before abortions has been steadily climbing, possibly due to improved pregnancy tests.
The number of 20+ week abortions went from 1% to 1.6%. Most of these abortions take place because of problems with the foetus revealed only by a 20 week scan, when it's large enough to be seen properly.
It's not a happy situation to be in, to come to the conclusion that it's best to abort at that stage; but in the vast majority of those cases are due to medical issues, not some vague idea of 'convenience'.

It was argued at one point that since so few abortions took place after 20 weeks, it wouldn't make that much of a difference to those few women- however it was also argued that it would make a lot of difference to those women if the limit was lowered even by a few weeks.
If you're looking to have an abortion at that point, something major must be wrong and you're getting rather desperate.

KET20 · May 22, 2008

Archer93 said:
This issue recently hit the headlines in Britain with a parlimentary vote on whether the time limit should be lowered from its current 24 weeks, and if so, to what point.
The result was no change, it's still available up to 24 weeks (with extentions in the case of medical issues).

It was argued at one point that since so few abortions took place after 20 weeks, it wouldn't make that much of a difference to those few women- however it was also argued that it would make a lot of difference to those women if the limit was lowered even by a few weeks.
If you're looking to have an abortion at that point, something major must be wrong and you're getting rather desperate.

I am glad that abortions are still available there up to 24 weeks for women who need them.

KET20 · May 22, 2008

Archer93 said:
The number of 20+ week abortions went from 1% to 1.6%. Most of these abortions take place because of problems with the foetus revealed only by a 20 week scan, when it's large enough to be seen properly.
It's not a happy situation to be in, to come to the conclusion that it's best to abort at that stage; but in the vast majority of those cases are due to medical issues, not some vague idea of 'convenience'.

Thank you! This is part of what I was trying to get at when I said that abortions at 20+ weeks are not representative of most women's experiences.

Bombila · May 22, 2008

People see pictures like those linked and fail to realize that even at eight weeks, by which time most abortions will have been performed, a human embryo is generally less than two centimetres long - that's about an inch, for those unable to visualize in metric. _________

KET20 · May 22, 2008

You're right, and it makes me sad. At my university, every year the anti-abortion group (whichever one it is) puts up a display in one of the outdoor courtyards. I guess it's supposed to make people believe that abortion is wrong, but a major major part of their campaign is to blow up HUGE photographs of fetuses like the ones linked earlier in this thread and then post them where everyone can see. I've gotten into the habit of just walking around the display... it's there for most of a week. I just think that no matter what your stance on abortion is, it's pretty darn likely that you don't want to see pictures like that. It's in poor taste, in my opinion - at least they were only linked here.

Bombila · May 22, 2008

Just for comparison in terms of appeal to 'it already looks human!', here's an image of a monkey fetus:

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://farm1.static.flickr.com/117/300980027_6aa7db82ba.jpg%3Fv%3D0&imgrefurl=http://www.flickr.com/photos/juliedermansky/300980027/in/set-72157594213465794/&h=500&w=333&sz=90&hl=en&start=3&um=1&tbnid=JKaWX-sMSCMQxM:&tbnh=130&tbnw=87&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmonkey%2Bfetus%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26rls%3Dcom.microsoft:*:IE-SearchBox%26rlz%3D1I7GGLR%26sa%3DG

Randy89 · May 23, 2008

karisma said:
The fetus is violating the woman's body by residing there without her permission. The woman has the right to bodily integrity and has the right to have the intruder removed, as no one has any rights to use another's body against their will.

Actually, there is. "In the United States, more than 84,000 men, women and children are waiting for organ transplants." http://www.organtransplants.org/understanding/unos/

For kidneys? If someone needed a kidney I would assume they would get it from a family member or friend.

LightHorseman · May 23, 2008

KET20 said:
Thank you! This is part of what I was trying to get at when I said that abortions at 20+ weeks are not representative of most women's experiences.

Don't you know anything? EVERY SINGLE abortion performed in the United States for non medical reasons is a 40 week, partial birth abortion of an otherwise happy, healthy, giggling baby.

Further, liberals and atheists want to make it so its illegal for anyone to have a baby, they want everyone to have these 40 week full term abortions of their beautiful, perfectly formed, totally sentient little children.

Don't believe me? Ask any of our resident right-to-lifers, they'll tell ya.

LightHorseman · May 23, 2008

Oh... and lets not forget that public schools and family planning both indoctrinate teenagers to have wanton, promiscuous sex with as many partners as possible, which results in increased demand for abortions, which make millions of dollars for the abortion clinics when they conduct all these 40 week abortions.

Well known fact.

KET20 · May 23, 2008

LightHorseman said:
Oh... and lets not forget that public schools and family planning both indoctrinate teenagers to have wanton, promiscuous sex with as many partners as possible, which results in increased demand for abortions, which make millions of dollars for the abortion clinics when they conduct all these 40 week abortions.

Well known fact.

Yes, it seems I did read that somewhere...

mpok1519 · May 23, 2008

lol I don't remember our schools promoting sex; but a highschooler around here was suspended from school for handing out condoms....

Donkeytron · May 23, 2008

KET20 said:
Yes, it seems I did read that somewhere...

Last issue of Ignorant, Hysterical Christian Monthly?

KET20 · May 23, 2008

Donkeytron said:
Last issue of Ignorant, Hysterical Christian Monthly?

Yes! Now I remember...

RobertByers · May 27, 2008

IZZYPOP
Your isulted because you thought I was calling you a liar but have no problem admitting to consent to kill innocent people?! This is your defence of abortion? This is your foundation? Well then lets leave it to the moral decision of the people.

I must warn you that if you say in the face of God that you consent to kill innocent children by abortion that he will judge you.
Perhaps you don't know your own mind. You don't actually believe in your heart that abortion kills a person but your only making a scenario.

In any case God and man have all settled for all time that the taking of innocent blood save in a error of war or life is prohibited by the great concept of human rights and following law.
Pro-lifers insist abortion kills a person and that therefore it can not be permitted to exist. The vast majority of mankind agrees with no-murder-no-more but simply is not persuaded abortion kills a kid.
Defence of killing children is never made by most, or all, pro-choicers who deal with the public on this matter.

maybe you need more pop and less Izzy

IzzyPop · May 27, 2008

RobertByers said:
IZZYPOP
Your isulted because you thought I was calling you a liar but have no problem admitting to consent to kill innocent people?! This is your defence of abortion? This is your foundation? Well then lets leave it to the moral decision of the people.

You mean like in South Dakota where the people voted against the abortion ban?

RobertByers said:
I must warn you that if you say in the face of God that you consent to kill innocent children by abortion that he will judge you.

Well, good think I don't believe in God.

RobertByers said:
Perhaps you don't know your own mind. You don't actually believe in your heart that abortion kills a person but your only making a scenario.

I do know my own mind, thank you. I understand that it is inconceivable to you for someone to value something over a human life, but I do.

RobertByers said:
In any case God and man have all settled for all time that the taking of innocent blood save in a error of war or life is prohibited by the great concept of human rights and following law.

And guess what usually causes the pregnancy that is being aborted? An error in life. Guess we are good to go on that one now.

RobertByers said:
Pro-lifers insist abortion kills a person and that therefore it can not be permitted to exist. The vast majority of mankind agrees with no-murder-no-more but simply is not persuaded abortion kills a kid.

No. Most are aware that it kills a kid, or a potential kid, but the rights of the actual outweigh the rights of the potential.

RobertByers said:
Defence of killing children is never made by most, or all, pro-choicers who deal with the public on this matter.

Of course not. You are couching the debate in very emotional terms. Your entire defense of the pro-life side is based on emotionalism. It boils down to equating a clump of cells to a newborn baby and the horror of killing that baby. It doesn't fly with me.

RobertByers said:
maybe you need more pop and less Izzy

Nah, considering that my name is based on my daughter's name (Isabella) and the fact that I am her father, I'll take more Izzy, thank you.

TooCurious · May 28, 2008

Randy89 said:
For kidneys? If someone needed a kidney I would assume they would get it from a family member or friend.

Should that family member or friend be forced by law to donate that kidney against their will?

cantata · May 28, 2008

IzzyPop said:
Nah, considering that my name is based on my daughter's name (Isabella) and the fact that I am her father, I'll take more Izzy, thank you.

D'aw, I didn't know that! Supercute.

IzzyPop · May 29, 2008

I'm also a huge fan of old school punk. Iggy Pop, IzzyPop, it's kind of a twofer.

On the subject of abortion

Seeker of Truth

Regular Member

Seeker of Truth

Seeker of Truth

Veteran

Seeker of Truth

Veteran

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Seeker of Truth

Veteran

Veteran

Seeker of Truth

Regular Member

I wear my sunglasses at night...

Kitten with a ball of string

Queer non-theist, with added jam.

I wear my sunglasses at night...

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency