Religion Discussion

[Mayhem]

It gives you a new perspective. One you wont realize till you become a parent.

I am a parent, you muppet. Hasn't changed my position on abortion one iota. I suspect the same is true for many others, even those posting here.

[White Warlock]

No sweetheart, I'm telling you that abortion..... is not....... necessary....... to save a woman's life.

That, my friend..... is what's f*cked up.

Oh, that's interesting. I didn't realize you had a doctorates degree in medicine ... Vaelahr.

You're internet savvy. Show me wrong. You can't. And you're unwilling to do honest homework on the subject. I realise it's an uncomfortable topic for you and again, I'm sorry to hear of your losses.

In other words, no, you are not a doctor. Why do you want me to subject you to ridicule? There are a few reports out there, from AMA and otherwise, that have been distorted by pro-life advocates (bloggers, mostly) to argue this claim you hold. These reports refer to "breech" abortions not being required, which is only one type of abortion procedure. Modern medicine allows doctors to know whether a woman's life is in danger before a breech occurs. And, as breech abortions are significantly more dangerous, a caesarian (or another type of abortion) can be performed. A few of these reports fail to indicate 'other' abortive procedures would be used instead, and those people who are "not" doctors that are also holding to an agenda, fail to realize that omission does not mean "all" abortions.

But rather than continue with this tangential argument, i'm going to go straight to the more important facts:

The legalization of abortion has improved the lives and health of women throughout the United States. Data from Planned Parenthood show that in 1965, 17% of women’s deaths due to pregnancy and childbirth were the result of illegal abortions. Today, legal abortion procedures are 11 times safer than giving childbirth.

Continuing with this line, do you think it is unacceptable to obtain an abortion if the woman was impregnated due to rape or incest? How about if she's a minor? Under 16? Under 12?

You're lying and/or have been lied to. You describe an Rh incompatibility scenario (often caused by previous abortions/miscarriages).

You're stupid or just plain insulting. You are wrong in your layman "guess" as to what the circumstances were. Your failure to know all the details has caused you to jump to a "googled" conclusion. Simply stated Vael, you don't know what you're talking about, and your continued insensitivity is hypocritical. Earlier on you accused me of being insensitive in regards to women experiencing post abortion syndrome, and despite my mentioning of the abortions, you failed to recognize my ex-fiancee' and I having underwent PAS. You then turn around and repeatedly display insensitivity.

It was my "best" friend's wife who died. I was their "best man" at the wedding. You sit there and call me a liar, my best friend a liar, her doctor a liar, the coronor a liar. It is you that is the insensitive one and you have amply demonstrated such. Your Christian extremism be damned. You're a fraud.

[Vaelahr]

No sweetheart, I'm telling you that abortion..... is not....... necessary....... to save a woman's life.

That, my friend..... is what's f*cked up.

Oh, that's interesting. I didn't realize you had a doctorates degree in medicine ... Vaelahr.

You're internet savvy. Show me wrong. You can't. And you're unwilling to do honest homework on the subject. I realise it's an uncomfortable topic for you and again, I'm sorry to hear of your losses.

In other words, no, you are not a doctor. Why do you want me to subject you to ridicule? There are a few reports out there, from AMA and otherwise, that have been distorted by pro-life advocates (bloggers, mostly) to argue this claim you hold. These reports refer to "breech" abortions not being required, which is only one type of abortion procedure.

"Breech" abortion = partial-birth abortion. Never medically necessary to save the life of the mother. That's not a blogospheric distortion, that's a fact.

Modern medicine allows doctors to know whether a woman's life is in danger before a breech occurs.

Before a partial-birth abortion occurs? Again, it's never necessary. A woman's life is never in danger to where an abortion would save her life, particularly the monstrous procedure of a partial-birth abortion; induced breech delivery up to the baby's neck, followed by a brain suctioning and forced skull collapse.

And, as breech abortions are significantly more dangerous, a caesarian (or another type of abortion) can be performed.

You mean a hysterotomy abortion? The abortion type with the greatest risk of complications! Truly monstrous infanticide; a kicking and squirming baby's oxygen is cut off by the cutting of the umbilical cord and then is removed from the mother along with the uterus and left to die.

The legalization of abortion has improved the lives and health of women throughout the United States. Data from Planned Parenthood show that in 1965, 17% of women’s deaths due to pregnancy and childbirth were the result of illegal abortions. Today, legal abortion procedures are 11 times safer than giving childbirth.

That's disgustingly false.

Is Abortion Safer Than Childbirth? (PDF)
New Studies Unmask High Maternal Death Rates From Abortion
Fact Or Fraud: Is Abortion Safer Than Childbirth?
http://www.all.org/article.php?id=10110

You're lying and/or have been lied to. You describe an Rh incompatibility scenario (often caused by previous abortions/miscarriages).

You're stupid or just plain insulting. You are wrong in your layman "guess" as to what the circumstances were. Your failure to know all the details has caused you to jump to a "googled" conclusion....

....It was my "best" friend's wife who died. I was their "best man" at the wedding. You sit there and call me a liar, my best friend a liar, her doctor a liar, the coronor a liar.

I'm very sorry to hear that man. But I'm saying the lie is: that an abortion would have saved her life. It wouldn't have.

I misread earlier and sincerely apologize. Your friend's wife died? Again, I'm very sorry to hear this but if her immune system attacked the fetal blood cells how did the mother expire? We're missing some important parts of the story. As close as this incident is to you, couldn't more medical information be brought to the discussion to prove me wrong as you seem to believe I am?

Earlier on you accused me of being insensitive in regards to women experiencing post abortion syndrome, and despite my mentioning of the abortions, you failed to recognize my ex-fiancee' and I having underwent PAS.

How could I with your championing of abortion?

You have the constitutional right to abort your unborn child if you don't want her. I'm just looking for honesty. I'm not looking to condemn you. Just don't repeat that false mantra of, "it was medically necessary". You and I both know that's horseshit. And if for some far out reason you really are convinced there's a medical neccesity for abortion, then by all means do a bit of honest research and show me where I'm wrong. I don't like being wrong. I like to learn. So please.....work with me here dude.

Your Christian extremism be damned. You're a fraud.

Now just settle down, there's no need for that kind of language. As stated a couple times in other posts, I'm not a Christian. I'm pro-life on the basis of science and common sense. Concerning religion, I'm some kind of theist. And concerning politics, I'm a registered Independent who votes for candidates with a conservative worldview, like Gov. Palin.

[Kest]

That's disgustingly false.

Is Abortion Safer Than Childbirth? (PDF)
New Studies Unmask High Maternal Death Rates From Abortion
Fact Or Fraud: Is Abortion Safer Than Childbirth?
http://www.all.org/article.php?id=10110

None of those articles seem particularly reputable. One even mentions Hitler.

[Mulu]

A woman's life is never in danger to where an abortion would save her life,

You've apparently never heard of a molar pregnancy. That's just off the top of my head. The last time we had this debate here in ALFA I wrote up a couple pages of health issues. I'm too lazy to do it a second time, but it's still here... somewhere. (Then again it may have been pruned, as a search here came up blank).

The fact is that women who abort fare better than women who have unwanted children. They get more education, earn more money, have better relationships, have happier lives, and ultimately are better parents when they *choose* to have children.

Of course all of that is irrelevant if your sole reasoning is OMG Zygotes have souls!!!

[Vaelahr]

A woman's life is never in danger to where an abortion would save her life,

You've apparently never heard of a molar pregnancy. That's just off the top of my head.

I have. Question is, do you understand what one is? Apparently not. They're not true pregnancies. A molar "pregnancy" is a mass of tissue that forms an abnormal placenta inside the uterus. It starts from two or three sets of the father's chromosomes, with none from the mother. This occurs when the nucleus of an egg is either lost or inactivated. The sperm then duplicates itself because the egg was lacking genetic information. There's no fetus, no placenta, no amniotic membranes. The uterus is rather filled with the mole; fluid-filled vesicles that resemble a bunch of grapes. Even though it's not an embryo, a mole triggers symptoms of pregnancy. The treatment for the woman is the clearing out of all molar growth from her uterus. That is not an abortion because it was never a true pregnancy. It's a type of gestational trophoblastic disease and the treatment is the removal of a tissue mass. Disgustingly, Planned Parenthood would have you believe that all abortions are just that: the removal of cumbersome, inconvenient tissue.

....your sole reasoning is OMG Zygotes have souls!!!

I've never mentioned the non-medical term of "soul". Such a word is worthless and inappropriate in this discussion.

None of those articles seem particularly reputable.

To the pro-abortion crowd? No, I guess not. Slave owners didn't think all those essays going on about human equality and rights were very reputable either. The Nazis also didn't find reputable the worldviews opposing theirs.

[Veilan]

I've never mentioned the non-medical term of "soul". Such a word is worthless and inappropriate in this discussion.

Indeed.

I think in this uncertainty, the first order of the day for "pro-choicers" should be to prove beyond reasonable doubt that an embryo, at the stage they are suggesting abortion is still okay, is not a living being. Philosophical games don't really help much here, at least not to allay my own consciousness should it ever come to such a decision.

Don't get me wrong, as I said before I find the issue too difficult to find an opinion I'm willing to defend to the end of days screaming THIS IS THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH EVERYONE CLAIMING DIFFERENT IS WRONG!, however, if someone managed to prove that, the debate would be pretty much over. If we don't... I'm not sure, again, I don't think I'm okay with "maybe, but probably not" killing (just as I'm not really okay with dictating a woman what to do - quite the dilemma).

On a funny sidenote, the issue of "pro-life" among these american christanists (preferable term, I think) highlights once more the recurring theme of the usual GOP electorate: hypocrisy. How can you be pro-gun, "pro-life", and pro-capital-punishment? It boggles my mind. If you are making it a a matter of principle - which I have the highest respect for, even if I may disagree in some cases - at least be consistent? Because else, you're not being principled, but just expediant and making a farce of some values that should not be taken lightly.

[Mayhem]

I've never mentioned the non-medical term of "soul". Such a word is worthless and inappropriate in this discussion.

Indeed.

I think in this uncertainty, the first order of the day for "pro-choicers" should be to prove beyond reasonable doubt that an embryo, at the stage they are suggesting abortion is still okay, is not a living being.

Define "being" in this instance. Merely being alive itsn't sufficient, as chiuckens are alive and we have no compunction about killing them for their delicious, made-of-meat bodies.

So, a feotus would, for this test, presumably have to demonstrate some level of ability way above and beyond that of an adult chicken. Something that can be measured.

What do you suggest?

[Mayhem]

None of those articles seem particularly reputable.

To the pro-abortion crowd? No, I guess not. Slave owners didn't think all those essays going on about human equality and rights were very reputable either. The Nazis also didn't find reputable the worldviews opposing theirs.

Oh please.

"Anyone who disagrees with me is on a par with the Nazis" is generally not only an invalid argument, but it also puts into question whether any argument you make can be taken seriously.

[Veilan]

What do you suggest?

I told you, and freely admit to, this problem being beyond my capability to solve. In fact, I find it a little surprising, and it makes me skeptical, how easily some people can claim "to know the truth / how it is", when this whole issue touches on so many ethical, philosophical and moral problems.

[White Warlock]

A review of the articles/sites provided by Vaelahr ---

Re: the article - Is Abortion Safer Than Childbirth? (PDF)

This is Gateway Pregnancy Centers, Inc., a CPC. CPCs exploit women's vulnerabilities. They are not setup to help women, but to limit a woman's options and dictate their ideologies. Gateway Pregnancy Centers, Inc. is a radical religious organization in the guise of a counseling center.

Regardless, it might actually help if you read that PDF before you post it. I did, and it's not giving a very good argument. In fact, much of the data it presents creates a conflict to their cause (reports from Planned Parenthood, etc). Essentially, they present information that damages their stance, and then they attempt to attack that information. Either that, or they take reports out of context from the circumstances and location. For example, hospitals in Finland reporting a lower mortality rate for women who underwent normal birthing, as opposed to those who had spontaneous or induced abortions. The failure here is in not providing the obvious, which is that spontaneous or induced abortions in a hospital indicate there were medical complications. So, of course mortality rates would be higher for those women dealing with complications.

Last, this report is unsigned. No single person, nor list of persons, take credit for it. Weak on the subject of credibility. Then again, i don't blame them for not signing that conniving little write-up.

Re: the article - New Studies Unmask High Maternal Death Rates From Abortion

This article was written by David C. Reardon, who received a Ph.D in biomedical ethics from Pacific Western University, an unaccredited correspondence school offering no classroom instruction. In other words, "mail order." The website his article is on, is also his website. I.e., it's a cleverly disguised blog from a guy who disingenuously presents himself as a "Doctor."

He's also definitely not above being unethical to the point of being criminal. In 2006, Reardon was accused of hacking the website code and look of a group whose politics he opposed, the Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures (MCLC), which advocates for stem-cell research. Reardon was ordered by a federal district judge in Kansas City, Missouri, to stop operating a website that “illegally uses, mimics and copies the look, feel, graphics, coding and photos” of MCLC. Judge Gary A. Fenner wrote: “(T)he elliotinstitute.org website appears to be an unethical attempt to confuse Missouri voters into thinking that MCLC and the Elliot Institute are somehow affiliated.”

I also find it ironic that a so-called doctor of (bio-)ethics would be so incredibly unethical.

Re: the article - Fact Or Fraud: Is Abortion Safer Than Childbirth?

This article has, as a reference source, David C. Reardon (the mail order Doctor of Ethics). Nonetheless, an article on this site, from the Alabama Physicians for Life, should be given a little more credibility due to it having at least actual ob/gyns in membership. Unfortunately, much of its credibility is undermined due to the very strong undercurrent of Christianity. In fact, quite a few of its members also sponsor efforts to merge what they call Christian Law with that of Constitutional Law (oop, there goes separation of church and state).

Also, what undermines this report is, again, no authorship. Finally, in the end, the "unknown" author determined that, "an accurate picture of the relative safety of abortion vs. childbirth cannot be determined."

Re: all.org's article - Is Abortion Safer Than Childbirth?

Ahh, yes yes... ALL, which stands for American Life League, states as its own precepts, "ALL's mission is to end all forms of abortion without any exceptions for the life and health of the woman, rape, incest, fetal abnormality, viability, or IVF."

Oh yeah, don't you love extremist Catholic groups? Which reminds me, Vael, you never did answer my earlier questions about impregnation via rape or incest.

Oh... right, the article. Okay, hmm... well it goes on and on, doing a good job of losing me quite often, as it caused me to nod off repeatedly. It makes a concerted effort to muddy up the waters, but in the end, it comes to an ambiguous and unprofessional conclusion, which is that, "we may never be able to determine the exact complication and death rates from abortion, lacking precise data as a result, in part, of insufficient follow-up of abortions."

It also is unsigned, which again attacks it's credibility.

Anyway, this same article also concludes that, "while abortion proponents claim abortion is safe for women, their analysis of potential harm is limited to certain physical aspects of female anatomy. No mention is made of the psychological social and moral devastation that can accrue to the whole woman from abortion."

This is actually a blatant lie, and thus seriously undermines the credibility of the entire unsigned article.

Now, for an article from a legitimate source -- http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articl ... id=1298850

The American Psychological Association, as well as other scientists and researchers, state that abortion carries no greater mental-health risk than carrying a fetus to term.

To quote, "under present conditions of legal access to abortion, there is no credible evidence that choosing to terminate an unwanted first pregnancy puts women at higher risk of subsequent depression than does choosing to deliver an unwanted first pregnancy. Delivering a first unwanted pregnancy is, however, associated with lower education and income and larger family size—all risk factors for depression. This suggests that if the goal is to reduce women's risk for depression, research should focus on how to prevent and ameliorate the effect of unwanted childbearing, particularly for younger women."


{edited for clarity}

[Mulu]

I've never mentioned the non-medical term of "soul".

That bioethics site you linked to did, and it's what they are using to justify saying that a zygote is "alive," the core of your argument.

I think in this uncertainty, the first order of the day for "pro-choicers" should be to prove beyond reasonable doubt that an embryo, at the stage they are suggesting abortion is still okay, is not a living being.

I've already stated that the proper measure comes from end of life. At the point where the growing organism is truly self-aware with higher cognition, then it has a "self" that could be protected by the law. Prior to that it lacks the brain functioning to have a self. It's just a potential person, not yet a person.

Remember too that there is a balance with autonomy of the mother. It's easy as a man to say, "well you better be sure" but what if it was your pregnant teenage body? You can make the "better be sure" argument when you can prove to me that you are both pregnant and 14 years old, and with limited options in life.

[White Warlock]

"Breech" abortion = partial-birth abortion. Never medically necessary to save the life of the mother. That's not a blogospheric distortion, that's a fact.

No kidding. Maybe you should actually read what i write, instead of jump to conclusions. That's exactly what i stated, but that the people you were cowtowing to were grabbing these statements to claim "all" abortions are never medically necessary to save the life of the mother, when the reports being paraphrased were in reference to the utilization of only one 'type' of high-risk abortion technique.

Modern medicine allows doctors to know whether a woman's life is in danger before a breech occurs.

Before a partial-birth abortion occurs?

{rolls eyes} No... before a 'breech' occurs. I don't suppose you know what a breech is, do you?

A woman's life is never in danger to where an abortion would save her life, particularly the monstrous procedure of a partial-birth abortion...

See, there you go doing exactly what the other exploitive misrepresenters do. You grab the arguments in opposition to breech abortions and shotgun it as if the experts had stated "all" abortion techniques, and thus abortion as a whole. Maybe if you took a few minutes to read and comprehend what i write, you would be able to realize what it is you're repeatedly doing here with your erroneous arguments.

And, as breech abortions are significantly more dangerous, a caesarian (or another type of abortion) can be performed.

You mean a hysterotomy abortion? The abortion type with the greatest risk of complications!

You're demonstrating your ignorance again. Either that or you're playing the drama card.

A hysterectomy is not a caesarean, although there is a form of caesarean called caesarean hysterectomy, which is a c-section followed by removal of the uterus. This is a drastic surgery combining a c-section abortion with a hysterectomy. It is rarely ever performed for anything other than uncontrolled uterine bleeding, or when the placenta is hopelessly attached to the uterus.

Anyway, moving past your drama games, there are many different types of caesarean, but the one most commonly used today is the lower uterine segment c-section.

The legalization of abortion has improved the lives and health of women throughout the United States. Data from Planned Parenthood show that in 1965, 17% of women’s deaths due to pregnancy and childbirth were the result of illegal abortions. Today, legal abortion procedures are 11 times safer than giving childbirth.

That's disgustingly false.

O Rly, prove it.


Alright, look, i'm doing all the real work here. You're just dancing about acting like you know what you're talking about and instead repeatedly putting on a show. I'm not here to humiliate you Vael. You're doing that all on your own.

Face it Vaelahr, you claim to make informed decisions, but you made a decision long before being informed.

[Veilan]

I've already stated that the proper measure comes from end of life. At the point where the growing organism is truly self-aware with higher cognition, then it has a "self" that could be protected by the law. Prior to that it lacks the brain functioning to have a self. It's just a potential person, not yet a person.

Yes, you've stated. I'm just not sufficiently convinced by it - it could be a reasonable measure, maybe, yeah - it sounds somewhat logical, when can someone feel pain, be self-aware, etc.. I'm just saying it's not convincing me, it's not a hard proof, it's taking one criterion, saying this is the measurement, and voilà, there we are.

Remember too that there is a balance with autonomy of the mother. It's easy as a man to say, "well you better be sure" but what if it was your pregnant teenage body? You can make the "better be sure" argument when you can prove to me that you are both pregnant and 14 years old, and with limited options in life.

(just as I'm not really okay with dictating a woman what to do - quite the dilemma)

Obviously, I'm not a woman so I cannot easily say take away their right of chosing what to do with what may at that time still be a part of their body

I think I did "remember too". For all you slapping it in the face of Danubus and co., you are awfully quick to make the same mistakes about misrepresenting, quite ignorantly, what others have written. Just arguing against what you don't like while ignoring the rest of someone's opinion maybe a fun board tactic, but it's awfully superficial and certainly not helpful to explore the topic and its various, complicated aspects.

Or summed up for you: I acknowledge and understand both sides, but I do not feel I can comfortably come down on either.

[White Warlock]

Or summed up for you: I acknowledge and understand both sides, but I do not feel I can comfortably come down on either.

Veilan, i would like to state, upfront, I'm not on a side. Well, i am in opposition to misinformation, if you can call that a side.