Eiri, are you actually pro-life?

Eiri, remember way back when I first started posting on ehealth, we had those debates about definitions of words? Well, I am curious to know what your definition of pro-life is, especially since you consider yourself to be pro-life now.

Also, what is your definition of pro-choice?

Thanks.

futureshock wrote:

Eiri, remember way back when I first started posting on ehealth, we had those debates about definitions of words? Well, I am curious to know what your definition of pro-life is, especially since you consider yourself to be pro-life now.

Also, what is your definition of pro-choice?

Thanks.

Lol, the good old days!

I am pro-life now according to a multitude of dictionaries. I had to go find proof for Yodavater - which he of course completely disregarded.

Pro-life: Opposed to legalized elective abortion.

Pro-choice: In support of legalized elective abortion.

I have done a lot of soul-searching. I always conflicted with pro-choice about the "no limits" issue that many of them seemed to be able to support. I decided I could no longer say "I support all abortions" yet know in my heart it wasn't true. For a short period I tried calling myself pro-moderation. I was always against multiple elective abortions and late-term elective abortions. Birch was right; I was "pro-my-choice".

What finally changed my mind was a video of an abortion, starting from the girl lying down on the bed. I'd never seen the beginning stages, where her cervix is pulled outside of her body (ow!), clamps are pinched down on it to hold it in place, and the expanders are forced in one by one. They started out easy and I thought "this isn't so bad" but it just became more disturbing the longer it went on. And I had the video on mute even. I'd KNOW about all of the equipment, seen pictures of the equipment and heard about the process. But seeing it... I could not believe the physical abuse this woman was experiencing, that's really the only way I could describe it. Her body lurching away in pain as the larger expanders were shoved in... It was terrible. I know a lot of abortions are performed with only local anesthesia and this woman was clearly conscious.

I know other surgeries are gross; I'm addicted to Discovery channel! But not only was this a procedure the woman was choosing to have done to herself that was clearly physically harmful... but it was killing an unborn child. I'd never been able to totally disregard the unborn like some pro-choicers can. I hated how they called it a "rapist" and a parasite and everything else. I bought into it and repeated it, but it was more to try and convince myself. Seeing the abuse this woman was going through finally allowed me to accept the abuse the unborn was going through. I suddenly realised that there was nothing "ok" about this procedure done for elective reasons.

It wasn't a late-term abortion by any means. The woman didn't even look pregnant. All I saw was blood and globs of tissue... but I knew what they were. I don't think I watched all of it. I'd seen enough; and I've seen plenty of videos that just show a close-up of the cervix and baby-parts coming out. Those never effected me, they were too abstract. To see the entire thing in context to the woman really opened my eyes.

I've seen stats from both sides, and overall the physical and mental risks of both abortion and pregnancy end up about equal. There are a lot of unreported legal abortions because the laws are fuzzy. Deaths are not always attributed to the abortion properly. So overall, for the mother, I feel the risk of birth and abortion cancel each other out. That only leaves the baby. Well, in that case it's clear. It is killed, or it is given the natural chance to survive - and often does.

Something else that struck me was the issue of fetal pain. Although the nerves are not connected to the spine until week 27 it is possible the unborn is still capable experiencing pain as early as week 17, but in a completely uncontrolled way because the brain isn't involved. So an abortion at 17 weeks could actually be more painful than a late-term abortion.

Fetal viability is down to 21 weeks, 6 days. A child survived that young, so I definitely feel AT LEAST that elective abortion should NOT be legal after week 20. Thankfully this is the case in most places, but not all.

I am for the eventual illegalization of all elective abortion. I know it can't happen immediately because society needs to change first. I definitely think there needs to be government regulation of abortion clinics. No political agenda there; just to clean up the bad clinics I hear about even from pro-choice. Regulating and cleaning up the clinics will reduce a number of abortions already.

I then do agree that there needs to be informed consent. Some clinics do this already, and I feel it needs to be enforced. They woman should be shown an image of the child at the week she is in at the time, and a picture of what it will look like when her appointment is scheduled. She needs to be told what the baby will be capable of by that time. Above all, everyone needs to stop spreading the lie that the unborn is just a "blob of flesh" or a "blob of cells". By week 6 (when the most abortions begin happening) the embryo is far from a blob of cells.

As for being shown a video of the procedure, I think about it this way. I can turn on Discovery channel or Health channel any day of the week and see a "gross" operation being performed. Gastric bypass, brain surgery, liposuction, sex change, you name it and you can see it. But abortion is not shown on TV. C-sections are, birth is. So the only place a woman really gets a chance to see a video of abortion is in the clinic, or if she's heavily involved in the debate. I waver on it being required, because maybe she doesn't like to watch other procedures either. But it should be available and offered, and I don't think that is the case right now.

Ultrasounds should be required to be performed, and the screen should be visible to the woman. She doesn't have to look, but it shouldn't be hidden from her. If seeing the image is going to change her mind, she probably shouldn't be getting the abortion in the first place.

All of this, and elective abortion would still be legal. Yet I feel that these procedures would drastically reduce the number of abortions by helping women choose life. Obviously, the clinic should then provide intensive pre-natal care for the woman if she decides to carry and all efforts should be made to help her tell the people she is afraid to tell, such as parents/friends, boyfriends, etc. I think a lot of women abort because they are afraid of society's reaction to pregnant women and because they think they can't make it and won't be able to succeed. The clinic should be there for her to help her adopt the child out.

So, that's how I am pro-life. I don't believe abortion is a choice a woman should ever have to make. I believe every effort short of violence or lying should be done to guide her towards choosing life.

That video sounds awful! i didn't know the cervix is pulled out of the body during an abortion, really?

You said alot of women you think choose abortion cause they are afraid of reactions and stuff like that. i think that's probably true, but what about the women who abort because they don't want to be a mother?

I like informed consent but i don't know how I feel about making efforts to guide someone to choose a certainway. That seems kinda manpulative? what do you think?

Erulissë wrote:

That video sounds awful! i didn't know the cervix is pulled out of the body during an abortion, really?

You said alot of women you think choose abortion cause they are afraid of reactions and stuff like that. i think that's probably true, but what about the women who abort because they don't want to be a mother?

I like informed consent but i don't know how I feel about making efforts to guide someone to choose a certainway. That seems kinda manpulative? what do you think?

It really is. I went and looked at some other videos and photos to confirm it, and I'd never realised it before, but it really is pulled right to the entrance of the vagina and sometimes totally out.

For women who don't want to be a mother, that's what adoption is for. I really think people's view on the mother who gives away the child needs to change. She's a hero for carrying a child she knew she wasn't going to keep, and I think that should be honored, not degraded like it is now. I know a lot of women also abort because they don't want to be pregnant, and my question is of course, do they really consider 9 months of discomfort to be worth the life of a child? There are women who experience much more than just discomfort and they go into the endless list of "exceptions to the rule".

I think abortion needs to be more carefully discussed between a woman and a doctor, and possibly a psychologist. I know a lot of pro-choicers say this is an invasion of the woman's privacy and her right to control her body, but it's not just her body involved. There is a human being inside of her and it deserves rights.

As for the guiding... I wouldn't want the counselor to be manipulative about it. He or she would simply provide the information and discuss it in detail, and answer any questions the woman might have. A lot can be achieved through simple education without any added "emotionalizing" or manipulation. That's one of the main problems with pro-life (and pro-choice in some cases): they try to sell their side with emotions, and I feel most women are smarter than that. They don't need to hear someone cooing about "the little angel inside of you", they need to be told the facts of what the embryo or fetus looks like and what it can do. Sometimes, knowing that in just one more week, the unborn will have fingerprints is all a woman needs to know to change her mind.

I feel sad that pro-choice seems to dehumanize the unborn... and I feel it should be revealed just how human these unborn children are.

I'm pretty prochoice, but I can support education like you've described it. I don'tknow what you meant by guiding someone to choose life though. I guess I would say that I would guide someoneto make the best choice for themself, but since you are prolife you think that means birth and I think it can mean something else sometimes.

I have no thing against adoption if that's what someone wants. I never really thought women were degraded who had chose adoption. I guess the people who degrade women for doing that aren't people I'd want to know!

i'm not being mean or anything but I wow-> the cervix is pulled out during an abortion? It's not that I can't take your word for it but i've had an abortion and that didn't happen to me. Was it an abnormal abortion for some reason?

Erulissë wrote:

I'm pretty prochoice, but I can support education like you've described it. I don'tknow what you meant by guiding someone to choose life though. I guess I would say that I would guide someoneto make the best choice for themself, but since you are prolife you think that means birth and I think it can mean something else sometimes.

I have no thing against adoption if that's what someone wants. I never really thought women were degraded who had chose adoption. I guess the people who degrade women for doing that aren't people I'd want to know!

i'm not being mean or anything but I wow-> the cervix is pulled out during an abortion? It's not that I can't take your word for it but i've had an abortion and that didn't happen to me. Was it an abnormal abortion for some reason?

Yeah

I just hear a lot about women regretting their abortion years later, and I think that might affect abortion surveys. I don't think it's really been researched seriously.

Did you have local anesthesia? You probably didn't feel it occurring; it may have felt like a general tugging/pressure. It might also not happen during all abortions, it may be a doctor's preference or style to do it. I'd suggest taking a look through Google images; I know that's not an amazingly unbiased source for this kind of thing but it's a start.

I think birth is a better choice in many cases simply because the child has a right to life. I do still understand, however, that if there are physical and mental complications for the woman, abortion can be a better choice than birth due to the stress on the body. My biggest comment on it is that I feel it should definitely not be a "no questions asked" procedure. People can't get sex changes without years of therapy; I think the same concern should be given to a similarly life-changing procedure like abortion. It's a very serious surgery with extremely serious consequences: the death of another human being.

I'm almost sure the cervix is dilated, speculum inserted like a Pap, and the cervix isn't moved. I didn't see that on the web. Do youhave a link? Before my abortion I had to watch a drawn video of the procedure. i had local, yeah. Did you have an abortion?
I guess I just find it kinda insulting (that's the best word I can come up with, sorry) that some people think i'd have needed a therapist or really intense education on it to help me make a decision like that.
i'm not saying that some people couldn't use it, but I don't think everyone should be forced to get that.
Alot of people talk about the child having a right to life. Where do you believe that right comes from?

I had to have counseling, and so does everyone else before an abortion in the United States.

I just can't imagine the government having control over my body. It absolutely terrifies me. I'm looking at my own body right now, and I cannot fathom some third party controlling it.

My counseling was asking if this was my own independent decision, was I talked into doing it, was I a victim of domestic violence, and watching that video, signing a release, consent, and so on.
That was fine with me.

I can't imagine it either futureshock-so many people are just terrible and to give control of your body over to them is such a hostile idea to me. if Roe versus wade is overturned, then the states get to decide on abortion laws. the idea of john bob joe next door voting over my autonomy and uterus is awful to me.

EiriForLife wrote:

I am pro-life now according to a multitude of dictionaries. I had to go find proof for Yodavater - which he of course completely disregarded.

I'm going to add to these definitions, to make them more precise.
Pro-life: Opposed to legalized elective abortion. Seeks to overturn Roe vs. Wade
Pro-choice: In support of legalized elective abortion. Seeks to protect Roe vs. Wade

Quote :

I have done a lot of soul-searching. I always conflicted with pro-choice about the "no limits" issue that many of them seemed to be able to support. I decided I could no longer say "I support all abortions" yet know in my heart it wasn't true.

Roe vs. Wade does NOT allow all abortions. The only time frame when a woman can have an abortion without interference from the state (the government) is during the first trimester. That is also when 90% of abortions are performed. In fact, the majority of abortions are performed by 8 weeks.

Quote :

Timing of Abortion

15. When in pregnancy do most women have abortions?

* In the United States, nearly nine in 10 abortions occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy and 56% occur in the first eight weeks. (30)
30. Elam-Evans LD et al., Abortion surveillance—United States, 2000, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 2003, Vol. 52, SS-12.
A majority of nonhospital providers now offer abortion services beginning at five weeks from the last menstrual period (about three weeks after fertilization), and some even earlier. (31) http://www.guttmacher.org/in-the-know/index.html

Quote :

For a short period I tried calling myself pro-moderation. I was always against multiple elective abortions and late-term elective abortions. Birch was right; I was "pro-my-choice".

What finally changed my mind was a video of an abortion, starting from the girl lying down on the bed. I'd never seen the beginning stages, where her cervix is pulled outside of her body (ow!), clamps are pinched down on it to hold it in place, and the expanders are forced in one by one. They started out easy and I thought "this isn't so bad" but it just became more disturbing the longer it went on. And I had the video on mute even. I'd KNOW about all of the equipment, seen pictures of the equipment and heard about the process. But seeing it... I could not believe the physical abuse this woman was experiencing, that's really the only way I could describe it. Her body lurching away in pain as the larger expanders were shoved in... It was terrible. I know a lot of abortions are performed with only local anesthesia and this woman was clearly conscious.

That's not how all or even most abortions are performed. You don't even need any kind of surgery to terminate a pregnancy, you can just take a pill. Here's another non-surgical method:
From a description by a physician trained at Harvard Medical School:

Quote :

Getting an Aspiration Procedure:

You are in a regular doctor's examination room (not an operating room). You can have a friend or family member with you the whole time. We're also there to support you. We do everything to make you as comfortable and relaxed as possible.

* The doctor inserts a speculum (like a Pap smear).
* The doctor numbs the cervix with a local anesthetic.
You usually don't feel this.
* The doctor stretches the opening in your cervix with small plastic dilators and inserts a thin tube (cannula). The doctor then attaches a plastic instrument that applies a gentle pressure for 2-3 minutes.
You may feel mild to moderate cramping.
* The doctor removes the instruments. You lie on the table for another 5-10 minutes.
The cramps die down quickly. In 5-10 minutes you feel completely normal.
http://earlyabortionoptions.com/aspiration.htm

Quote :

I know other surgeries are gross; I'm addicted to Discovery channel! But not only was this a procedure the woman was choosing to have done to herself that was clearly physically harmful...

First trimester abortions are not "physically harmful" to the woman, in any way.

Quote :

but it was killing an unborn child. I'd never been able to totally disregard the unborn like some pro-choicers can. I hated how they called it a "rapist" and a parasite and everything else. I bought into it and repeated it, but it was more to try and convince myself. Seeing the abuse this woman was going through finally allowed me to accept the abuse the unborn was going through.

First of all, women are not abused during an abortion, as I have already pointed out. Second of all, an embryo is not a conscious, thinking, feeling person, and as such cannot feel or experience "abuse" as a woman can.

Quote :

I suddenly realised that there was nothing "ok" about this procedure done for elective reasons.

That's quite a leap right there. Especially considering the procedure you've described is not necessary to abort a pregnancy, so it doesn't follow that dislike of a certain method should lead to the criminalization of all relevant medical procedures.

Quote :

It wasn't a late-term abortion by any means. The woman didn't even look pregnant. All I saw was blood and globs of tissue... but I knew what they were. I don't think I watched all of it. I'd seen enough; and I've seen plenty of videos that just show a close-up of the cervix and baby-parts coming out. Those never effected me, they were too abstract. To see the entire thing in context to the woman really opened my eyes.

This is a description from a doctor who performs abortions:

Quote :

There is no visible embryo until you are between 9-10 weeks pregnant. On ultrasound, the cells that later form the heart begin to beat - long before a heart develops - at about 7 weeks of pregnancy.
Education/Credentials
Harvard Medical School
earlyabortion.com
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Abortion-Pro-Choice-338/Abortion-6.htm

Here are some more references:

Quote :

What does an early abortion look like?
http://www.abortion.org.au/abortionpictures.htm

http://www.visembryo.com/baby/11.html
Note the tiny picture to the uppermost far left corner, which shows the ACTUAL SIZE of the embryo. This particular page is of a little over a 5 week pregnancy. The embryo is always 2 weeks younger than the pregnancy, because pregnancy is counted from the first day of a women's last period. Ovulation doesn't occur for another 2 weeks, so for the first 2 weeks of "pregnancy", there is no fertilized egg yet.

Quote :

What Does an ACTUAL First Trimester Abortion
Look Like
http://www.eileen.250x.com/Main/FET_DEV.PIC/12weeks.htm

Quote :

I've seen stats from both sides, and overall the physical and mental risks of both abortion and pregnancy end up about equal. There are a lot of unreported legal abortions because the laws are fuzzy. Deaths are not always attributed to the abortion properly. So overall, for the mother, I feel the risk of birth and abortion cancel each other out.

This is absolutely, unequivocally untrue.

Quote :

That only leaves the baby. Well, in that case it's clear. It is killed, or it is given the natural chance to survive - and often does.

Something else that struck me was the issue of fetal pain. Although the nerves are not connected to the spine until week 27 it is possible the unborn is still capable experiencing pain as early as week 17, but in a completely uncontrolled way because the brain isn't involved. So an abortion at 17 weeks could actually be more painful than a late-term abortion.

How could it be possible to experience something without the brain involved?

Quote :

Fetal viability is down to 21 weeks, 6 days. A child survived that young, so I definitely feel AT LEAST that elective abortion should NOT be legal after week 20. Thankfully this is the case in most places, but not all.

It is the case that Roe vs. Wade allows each state to make all post-viability abortions ILLEGAL, with exceptions for the life and health of the woman. So, a person who is anti-post-viability abortion is STILL pro-choice.

Quote :

I am for the eventual illegalization of all elective abortion. I know it can't happen immediately because society needs to change first.

Could you expand upon this idea?

Quote :

I definitely think there needs to be government regulation of abortion clinics.

There already is.

Quote :

No political agenda there; just to clean up the bad clinics I hear about even from pro-choice. Regulating and cleaning up the clinics will reduce a number of abortions already.

I then do agree that there needs to be informed consent.

This already is the case.

Quote :

Information for Women Seeking Abortion

Either by statute or judicial precedent, all states require health care providers to obtain consent from patients prior to performing a nonemergency medical procedure, according to R. Alta Charo, professor of law and bioethics at the University of Wisconsin Law School.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/10/4/gpr100406.html

Quote :

Some clinics do this already, and I feel it needs to be enforced. They woman should be shown an image of the child at the week she is in at the time, and a picture of what it will look like when her appointment is scheduled. She needs to be told what the baby will be capable of by that time. Above all, everyone needs to stop spreading the lie that the unborn is just a "blob of flesh" or a "blob of cells". By week 6 (when the most abortions begin happening) the embryo is far from a blob of cells.

As for being shown a video of the procedure, I think about it this way. I can turn on Discovery channel or Health channel any day of the week and see a "gross" operation being performed. Gastric bypass, brain surgery, liposuction, sex change, you name it and you can see it. But abortion is not shown on TV. C-sections are, birth is. So the only place a woman really gets a chance to see a video of abortion is in the clinic, or if she's heavily involved in the debate. I waver on it being required, because maybe she doesn't like to watch other procedures either. But it should be available and offered, and I don't think that is the case right now.
Ultrasounds should be required to be performed, and the screen should be visible to the woman. She doesn't have to look, but it shouldn't be hidden from her. If seeing the image is going to change her mind, she probably shouldn't be getting the abortion in the first place.

It is the case right now. Many clinics allow a patient to watch the procedure on ultrasound

Quote :

We will show you the ultrasound, if you want to see it. During the procedure, you will not see anything, if you choose. If you request, we will show you the tissue that is removed. An embryo cannot be seen until you have missed at least two periods. At that point the pregnancy is about the size of a pea, and the embryo is not formed.
http://earlyabortionoptions.com/questions.htm#howfar

Quote :

All of this, and elective abortion would still be legal.

What do you mean here?

Quote :

Yet I feel that these procedures would drastically reduce the number of abortions by helping women choose life.
Obviously, the clinic should then provide intensive pre-natal care for the woman if she decides to carry and all efforts should be made to help her tell the people she is afraid to tell, such as parents/friends, boyfriends, etc. I think a lot of women abort because they are afraid of society's reaction to pregnant women and because they think they can't make it and won't be able to succeed. The clinic should be there for her to help her adopt the child out.

So, that's how I am pro-life. I don't believe abortion is a choice a woman should ever have to make. I believe every effort short of violence or lying should be done to guide her towards choosing life.

You are still using the term "choosing". You know what that means, don't you?

EiriForLife wrote:

People can't get sex changes without years of therapy; I think the same concern should be given to a similarly life-changing procedure like abortion.

You do realise that 'years of therapy' wouldn't be practical for women seeking abortions, don't you?

Another thing i'd add is that you hear that women regret their abortions more than you hear women not regretting their abortions because people don't talk about stuff that doesn't botherthem. And if your reading alot of prolife information you're going to hear more about women regreting their abortions.

That doesn'tmean that in the future women shouldn't be able to choose abortion, just because someof them think they made the wrong decision. Alot of people choose to get vasectomies and then want the reversal, but we allow men to choose vacesctomies still.

Maz wrote:

EiriForLife wrote:

People can't get sex changes without years of therapy; I think the same concern should be given to a similarly life-changing procedure like abortion.

You do realise that 'years of therapy' wouldn't be practical for women seeking abortions, don't you?

That's why I said "same concern", not "same time period of therapy". I simply mean that it is a very, very serious issue and should not be something a woman can go through with no questions asked. Right now, a woman doesn't have to tell anyone why she's aborting, it's a completely confidential operation. But it kills a human being - whether you consider it a person or not, that's still a very serious issue.

People go through therapy for sex-changes because doctors want to make sure the person is truly intent on being the opposite gender and that it is what they really want - and what they need. A woman who wants an abortion needs to receive the same attention from therapists. There is even more importance in this case because of the sense of urgency associated with pregnancy and abortion. Abortion is a life-changing operation for the woman and the child. She should go through intensive therapy to determine that she is truly intent on getting an abortion, that it is what she really wants, and that it is what she needs.

Quote :

Right now, a woman doesn't have to tell anyone why she's aborting, it's a completely confidential operation.

So who else do you think should be told?

futureshock wrote:

I'm going to add to these definitions, to make them more precise.
Pro-life: Opposed to legalized elective abortion. Seeks to overturn Roe vs. Wade
Pro-choice: In support of legalized elective abortion. Seeks to protect Roe vs. Wade

Understandable additions. Unlike Yoda, who wants to add "now" to the pro-life definition.

Quote :

The only time frame when a woman can have an abortion without interference from the state (the government) is during the first trimester. That is also when 90% of abortions are performed. In fact, the majority of abortions are performed by 8 weeks.

I know that, it's one of the things I talked about extensively as a pro-choicer. The most abortions occur between the weeks of 6 and 12. However, many pro-choicers from eHealth pounded on me and called me hypocritical for not being all gung-ho for late-term elective abortions. I never did support elective late term abortions and apparently that meant I wasn't pro-choice. I got really tired of hearing that...

Quote :

Quote :

For a short period I tried calling myself pro-moderation. I was always against multiple elective abortions and late-term elective abortions. Birch was right; I was "pro-my-choice".

What finally changed my mind was a video of an abortion, [...edited for space...] It was terrible. I know a lot of abortions are performed with only local anesthesia and this woman was clearly conscious.

That's not how all or even most abortions are performed.

That's how I've always heard of early term abortions being done.

Quote :

You don't even need any kind of surgery to terminate a pregnancy, you can just take a pill.

You can, but the risks and complications are even more serious with a medical abortion. Even as a pro-choicer I didn't advise it to any woman thinking of getting an abortion. It fails far more often, and then the woman has to go in for a surgical abortion anyway.

Quote :

Here's another non-surgical method:
From a description by a physician trained at Harvard Medical School:

Quote :

Getting an Aspiration Procedure:

You are in a regular doctor's examination room (not an operating room). You can have a friend or family member with you the whole time. We're also there to support you. We do everything to make you as comfortable and relaxed as possible.

* The doctor inserts a speculum (like a Pap smear).
* The doctor numbs the cervix with a local anesthetic.
You usually don't feel this.
* The doctor stretches the opening in your cervix with small plastic dilators and inserts a thin tube (cannula).

This is so far exactly the same as the abortion I saw, and it most certainly is a surgical procedure. The dialation of the cervix was horrifying, it looked so abusive. Perhaps this particular procedure is done a lot earlier? The abortion I saw wasn't far along either. Like I said, the woman wasn't even showing yet.

Quote :

The doctor then attaches a plastic instrument that applies a gentle pressure for 2-3 minutes.

Which does what, exactly? Sorry; I just don't want any vagueness.

Quote :

You may feel mild to moderate cramping.
* The doctor removes the instruments. You lie on the table for another 5-10 minutes.
The cramps die down quickly. In 5-10 minutes you feel completely normal.
http://earlyabortionoptions.com/aspiration.htm

So how does this cause an abortion? How common is this particular procedure? I could see this being used in cases of young maternal age and rape cases to minimize secondary physical and emotional trauma to an already hurt woman.

Quote :

Quote :

But not only was this a procedure the woman was choosing to have done to herself that was clearly physically harmful...

First trimester abortions are not "physically harmful" to the woman, in any way.

There would not be any complications if it wasn't harmful "in any way". Women can die from this procedure, and complications due to abortion are often undiscovered because the procedure is so confidential that these women don't want to tell anyone that they have had an abortion.

Quote :

Quote :

[...] Seeing the abuse this woman was going through finally allowed me to accept the abuse the unborn was going through.

First of all, women are not abused during an abortion, as I have already pointed out.

I'm going to have to ask for something I don't think you (or anyone) can provide... videos of abortions that don't make me want to lurch from the pain the woman expriences. How about the procedure you linked to? There's hardly any video proof in the first place, and properly documented abortion videos are even rarer.

Quote :

Second of all, an embryo is not a conscious, thinking, feeling person, and as such cannot feel or experience "abuse" as a woman can.

That does not matter to me. It is a person in my opinion, it is certainly a human being, and I just cannot say it is ok to kill it anymore, I just can't.

Quote :

Quote :

I suddenly realised that there was nothing "ok" about this procedure done for elective reasons.

That's quite a leap right there. Especially considering the procedure you've described is not necessary to abort a pregnancy, so it doesn't follow that dislike of a certain method should lead to the criminalization of all relevant medical procedures.

How was the procedure not being done to abort a pregnancy? What were they doing then? It's not a leap; if a picture is worth a thousand words, a video is worth millions. I saw something happening to a woman that should not be elective.

Quote :

This is a description from a doctor who performs abortions:

Quote :

There is no visible embryo until you are between 9-10 weeks pregnant. On ultrasound, the cells that later form the heart begin to beat - long before a heart develops - at about 7 weeks of pregnancy.

7 weeks? A 7 week embryo is far past the stage of having just "cells" that beat for its heart. A 7 week embryo has limbs and a clearly defined body... A 7 week embryo is not a "blob of cells", as pro-choicers sometimes love saying. If you tell a woman "two weeks from now, you will have a visible embryo growing inside of you", do you think it will affect her choice to abort? I think it would. You act like I have no clue what an unborn child looks like. I was the one who spent the time to create the detailed comparison on the pro-choice forums of eHealth between unborn children between the weeks of 6-12 and what they look like aborted. I know what they look like. Being pro-life doesn't make someone forget everything they know about embryology.

Quote :

Quote :

[...] So overall, for the mother, I feel the risk of birth and abortion cancel each other out.

This is absolutely, unequivocally untrue.

Accounting for the fact that abortion risks seem unreported, and because I don't believe all of the pro-choice propaganda about the terrible, horrible experience of pregnancy that happens to every woman, I consider them even. There's pretty much too many lies floating around for me to seriously have a clue where the truth is.

Quote :

Quote :

[...]
Something else that struck me was the issue of fetal pain. Although the nerves are not connected to the spine until week 27 it is possible the unborn is still capable experiencing pain as early as week 17, but in a completely uncontrolled way because the brain isn't involved. So an abortion at 17 weeks could actually be more painful than a late-term abortion.

How could it be possible to experience something without the brain involved?

The nerves still fire. It is entirely possible and not beyond the realm of logic that the fetus may simply sense pain at the site of the nerves. There is research supporting this by doctors who are not pro-life wackos.

Quote :

Quote :

Fetal viability is down to 21 weeks, 6 days. A child survived that young, so I definitely feel AT LEAST that elective abortion should NOT be legal after week 20. Thankfully this is the case in most places, but not all.

It is the case that Roe vs. Wade allows each state to make all post-viability abortions ILLEGAL, with exceptions for the life and health of the woman. So, a person who is anti-post-viability abortion is STILL pro-choice.

Not according to Birch, or Darkmoon, or Kypros... I'm sure the list goes on and on...

Quote :

Quote :

I am for the eventual illegalization of all elective abortion. I know it can't happen immediately because society needs to change first.

Could you expand upon this idea?

The best comparisons are the illegalization of alcohol... which happened suddenly and lead to severe backlash and I think we can all agree it didn't work... versus the slow introduction of say, women's rights like voting. Society had to change first. Gay rights is also happening slowly, and although it's agonizing, I feel that things tend to work better that way. You can make as many laws as you like. But if the people are not behind you, then the law is worse than worthless. People still drank alcohol, in fact it became even more infamous because it was illegal.

I don't want the same thing to happen in regards to abortion. I certainly don't want women killing their children, but I also know that any work done to prevent it will have to be done with care and consideration for the woman FIRST. She is experiencing a lot of emotions, powerful emotions, and she needs to know people care. That's my view on it, anyway.

Quote :

Quote :

I definitely think there needs to be government regulation of abortion clinics.

There already is.

Not enough. I want Dr. Tiller and similar clinics gone. Do YOU like the man? I hated him even as a pro-choicer. He makes me sick. I hear about abortions being performed by people who aren't even doctors. Women being processed through clinics like cattle. It needs to change. Abortion is a serious condition; you wouldn't race people through brain surgery would you? No; you plan, you prepare, and you make sure the patient is fully informed of the risks. Some clinics are good... and some need to close.

I hear about girls being forced into abortions by outside forces... and that's where I feel more attention needs to be paid in regards to pre-abortion therapy. "My mother will disown me" is not a legitimate reason to kill another human being, no matter how young they are. The girl needs taken to a safe home if needed and the mother needs to be brought in to be talked to by the staff and the girl.

I'm definitely not anti-Planned-Parenthood. PP is so important, and provide a lot of non-abortion services. They do however tend to be the clinics most accused of herding women through the abortion process and they definitely need looking into.

Quote :

Quote :

No political agenda there; just to clean up the bad clinics I hear about even from pro-choice. Regulating and cleaning up the clinics will reduce a number of abortions already.

I then do agree that there needs to be informed consent.

This already is the case.

No it's not, not in all clinics. Stringent regulation would make it so.

Quote :

Information for Women Seeking Abortion

Either by statute or judicial precedent, all states require health care providers to obtain consent from patients prior to performing a nonemergency medical procedure, according to R. Alta Charo, professor of law and bioethics at the University of Wisconsin Law School.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/10/4/gpr100406.html

Doctors are required to inform patients about the risks of Accutane, but yet a woman got away with suing a doctor for not doing so after she became pregnant and the child was (obviously) deformed. Requiring doctors to give the information doesn't mean it gets read, and apparently that woman on Accutane didn't even GET all of the information.

And WHAT exact information are the doctors required to provide? Images of what the child looks like at the time of gestation? Information of what it's physically capable of doing? Real information on the possibility of it feeling pain as early as week 17? If cigarettes can harm your unborn baby... then so does abortion.

Quote :

Quote :

[...] They woman should be shown an image of the child at the week she is in at the time, and a picture of what it will look like when her appointment is scheduled. She needs to be told what the baby will be capable of by that time. Above all, everyone needs to stop spreading the lie that the unborn is just a "blob of flesh" or a "blob of cells". By week 6 (when the most abortions begin happening) the embryo is far from a blob of cells.

As for being shown a video of the procedure, [...] it should be available and offered, and I don't think that is the case right now.

Ultrasounds should be required to be performed, and the screen should be visible to the woman. She doesn't have to look, but it shouldn't be hidden from her. If seeing the image is going to change her mind, she probably shouldn't be getting the abortion in the first place.

It is the case right now. Many clinics allow a patient to watch the procedure on ultrasound

I'm still hearing a lot of cases of ultrasounds not being performed, especially when the pregnancy is young. I hear about it all the time, so it should be law, not just a courtesy.

What do you think about being offered a video of the abortion procedure?

Quote :

Quote :

All of this, and elective abortion would still be legal.

What do you mean here?

I mean that, all of this stuff I mentioned is the first steps towards making elective abortion illegal, but it steps that will not cause a backlash. All of the aforementioned requirements would still not make abortion illegal, but it would drastically reduce the number of them occurring, I really believe that.

Quote :

Quote :

Yet I feel that these procedures would drastically reduce the number of abortions by helping women choose life.
[...]

So, that's how I am pro-life. I don't believe abortion is a choice a woman should ever have to make. I believe every effort short of violence or lying should be done to guide her towards choosing life.

You are still using the term "choosing". You know what that means, don't you?

At this point in time, yes, because I am smart enough to know that the first steps towards making elective abortion illegal is getting women to voluntarily choose life.

Sorry I had to edit a lot of my posts and yours in the quotes. The forum told me the post was too long lol.

Maz wrote:

Quote :

Right now, a woman doesn't have to tell anyone why she's aborting, it's a completely confidential operation.

So who else do you think should be told?

The doctor and a psychiatrist. It should be in her record just like any other procedure is. If abortion isn't "bad"... then why is it hidden so much?

EiriForLife wrote:

Maz wrote:

Quote :

Right now, a woman doesn't have to tell anyone why she's aborting, it's a completely confidential operation.

So who else do you think should be told?

The doctor and a psychiatrist. It should be in her record just like any other procedure is. If abortion isn't "bad"... then why is it hidden so much?

I wasn't aware that abortions were erased from women's medical records. They certainly aren't in the UK.

Maz wrote:

EiriForLife wrote:

Maz wrote:

Quote :

Right now, a woman doesn't have to tell anyone why she's aborting, it's a completely confidential operation.

So who else do you think should be told?

The doctor and a psychiatrist. It should be in her record just like any other procedure is. If abortion isn't "bad"... then why is it hidden so much?

I wasn't aware that abortions were erased from women's medical records. They certainly aren't in the UK.

They aren't erased. I didn't say that. But I have heard of cases where it's simply not mentioned at all, or falsified as a miscarriage because the woman is too ashamed of having gotten an abortion.

EiriForLife wrote:

That's how I've always heard of early term abortions being done.

Hi! What a long post! lol I'm going to say a couple things.

One is that I have never heard of the cervixbeig moved like you described, and I have done extensive research into abortion procedures and had one done, too.
Doyou have link? Id like to see.

EiriForLife wrote:

This is so far exactly the same as the abortion I saw, and it most certainly is a surgical procedure. The dialation of the cervix was horrifying, it looked so abusive. Perhaps this particular procedure is done a lot earlier? The abortion I saw wasn't far along either. Like I said, the woman wasn't even showing yet.

(edit some stuff out)
So how does this cause an abortion? How common is this particular procedure? I could see this being used in cases of young maternal age and rape cases to minimize secondary physical and emotional trauma to an already hurt woman.

That procedure is exactly what i experienced and it wasn't painful. It was like a pap smear. Uncomfortable but not painful. Nothing sharp or throbbing or nothing.

EiriForLife wrote:

There would not be any complications if it wasn't harmful "in any way". Women can die from this procedure, and complications due to abortion are often undiscovered because the procedure is so confidential that these women don't want to tell anyone that they have had an abortion.

i have read that that comes from anesthesia. But why is this a part of being prolife? women can die and do more often from childbirth.

EiriForLife wrote:

I'm going to have to ask for something I don't think you (or anyone) can provide... videos of abortions that don't make me want to lurch from the pain the woman expriences. How about the procedure you linked to? There's hardly any video proof in the first place, and properly documented abortion videos are even rarer.

I can't give youa video but I can tell you that I did not feel this terrible pain. The procedure was like a pap test, I felt something odd that later caused cramping for about six hours. I took a bunch of medicine like ibuprofen and then iwas fine that night.

EiriForLife wrote:

How was the procedure not being done to abort a pregnancy? What were they doing then? It's not a leap; if a picture is worth a thousand words, a video is worth millions. I saw something happening to a woman that should not be elective.

Listen, tho! It is not that horrifying!

EiriForLife wrote:

It is the case that Roe vs. Wade allows each state to make all post-viability abortions ILLEGAL, with exceptions for the life and health of the woman. So, a person who is anti-post-viability abortion is STILL pro-choice.

Not according to Birch, or Darkmoon, or Kypros... I'm sure the list goes on and on...

[/quote]

Maybethey meant that ifyou are prolife at one stage you aren't prochoice anymore?

EiriForLife wrote:

I hear about girls being forced into abortions by outside forces... and that's where I feel more attention needs to be paid in regards to pre-abortion therapy. "My mother will disown me" is not a legitimate reason to kill another human being, no matter how young they are. The girl needs taken to a safe home if needed and the mother needs to be brought in to be talked to by the staff and the girl.

i agree-that's awful and not prochoicer!


Hey eirie maybe you could visit a PP or something and talk to women there about abortion or observe or something? I would hate to think someone is prolife partly because they think abortion is some painful awful procedure when it's not. wouldyou do something like that?

Oh, I did some reading on sex reassignment therapy and physicians can decide whether or not to have their patients do the therapy. Maybe the same could be done for abortion, is that what you are saying?

EiriForLife wrote:

Quote :

Here's another non-surgical method:
From a description by a physician trained at Harvard Medical School:

Quote :

Getting an Aspiration Procedure:

You are in a regular doctor's examination room (not an operating room). You can have a friend or family member with you the whole time. We're also there to support you. We do everything to make you as comfortable and relaxed as possible.

* The doctor inserts a speculum (like a Pap smear).
* The doctor numbs the cervix with a local anesthetic.
You usually don't feel this.
* The doctor stretches the opening in your cervix with small plastic dilators and inserts a thin tube (cannula).

This is so far exactly the same as the abortion I saw, and it most certainly is a surgical procedure. The dialation of the cervix was horrifying, it looked so abusive. Perhaps this particular procedure is done a lot earlier? The abortion I saw wasn't far along either. Like I said, the woman wasn't even showing yet.

The doctor who performs these procedures does not consider the aspiration method to be surgical, possibly because it doesn't fall under the common definition of surgery:
"A procedure involving major incisions to remove, repair, or replace a part of a body;"
This is from that same site:

Quote :

Gentle, Non-Surgical Methods

• Aspiration Method - A quick and simple procedure completed in less than 5 minutes.

• Abortion Pill - Pills that help you end your pregnancy safely and privately in the comfort of your own home.


No Surgery
No Scraping, No Machine
No General Anesthesia
Immediate Recovery

http://earlyabortionoptions.com/index.htm

Quote :

The doctor then attaches a plastic instrument that applies a gentle pressure for 2-3 minutes.

Quote :

Which does what, exactly? Sorry; I just don't want any vagueness.

I always provide links so the reader can look into the subject further.

Quote :

You may feel mild to moderate cramping.
* The doctor removes the instruments. You lie on the table for another 5-10 minutes.
The cramps die down quickly. In 5-10 minutes you feel completely normal.
http://earlyabortionoptions.com/aspiration.htm

Quote :

So how does this cause an abortion? How common is this particular procedure? I could see this being used in cases of young maternal age and rape cases to minimize secondary physical and emotional trauma to an already hurt woman.

This can be done on any abortion up to 10 weeks.

Quote :

aspiration procedure
The aspiration procedure is a simple, natural procedure to end an early pregnancy. It is gentler than a regular surgical abortion (D&C). There is no machine and no scraping. The procedure takes minutes to complete, then it takes another few minutes to recover.

The aspiration procedure has been safely practiced for decades throughout the world. In the United States, it was practiced in the 1970's by the Women's Health movement. It was called "Menstrual Extraction." It is so simple, women used to do it in their own homes.
http://earlyabortionoptions.com/aspiration.htm

Quote :

Quote :

But not only was this a procedure the woman was choosing to have done to herself that was clearly physically harmful...

Once a woman is pregnant she has to either abort or give birth. Giving birth is A LOT MORE PAINFUL and harmful than an abortion.

Quote :

Quote :

First trimester abortions are not "physically harmful" to the woman, in any way.

There would not be any complications if it wasn't harmful "in any way". Women can die from this procedure, and complications due to abortion are often undiscovered because the procedure is so confidential that these women don't want to tell anyone that they have had an abortion.

I think you are imagining this. Women tell the doctor who performs the procedure, and the doctor has a follow up appointment with the patient a few weeks later. Any complications that arise are no more than any other medical procedure, and certainly occur less frequently.

Quote :

Quote :

[...] Seeing the abuse this woman was going through finally allowed me to accept the abuse the unborn was going through.

First of all, women are not abused during an abortion, as I have already pointed out.

Quote :

I'm going to have to ask for something I don't think you (or anyone) can provide... videos of abortions that don't make me want to lurch from the pain the woman expriences. How about the procedure you linked to? There's hardly any video proof in the first place, and properly documented abortion videos are even rarer.

How about all of us who have actually had abortions? How many times do we have to tell you we were not abused, we weren't harmed, etc., etc.?

Quote :

Second of all, an embryo is not a conscious, thinking, feeling person, and as such cannot feel or experience "abuse" as a woman can.

Quote :

That does not matter to me. It is a person in my opinion, it is certainly a human being, and I just cannot say it is ok to kill it anymore, I just can't.

You don't have to.

Quote :

[...]
Something else that struck me was the issue of fetal pain. Although the nerves are not connected to the spine until week 27 it is possible the unborn is still capable experiencing pain as early as week 17, but in a completely uncontrolled way because the brain isn't involved. So an abortion at 17 weeks could actually be more painful than a late-term abortion.

Quote :

Quote :

How could it be possible to experience something without the brain involved?

The nerves still fire. It is entirely possible and not beyond the realm of logic that the fetus may simply sense pain at the site of the nerves. There is research supporting this by doctors who are not pro-life wackos.

Really? There is research going on about this? That would be miraculous, considering it is impossible to feel nerves firing at the site of the nerves themselves. Ask paralyzed people:

Quote :

The spinal cord transmits signals between the brain and the body. A bruise to the spinal cord, from a bone chip or other trauma, damages it permanently.

"It's like cutting a telephone cord," Cantella explained. "The signals from the brain can't get to the body and the signals from the body can't get to the brain. You become paralyzed. Where the injury occurs determines where the paralysis occurs. Higher injuries cause higher paralysis. Your body can't send signals to the brain; there are no feelings from the point of the injury down. It feels like your body ends where the injury is. You lose the ability to feel pain, which is dangerous. Also, bowel, bladder and sexual functions are permanently affected."
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_393741.html

Erulissë wrote:

EiriForLife wrote:

That's how I've always heard of early term abortions being done.

Hi! What a long post! lol I'm going to say a couple things.

One is that I have never heard of the cervixbeig moved like you described, and I have done extensive research into abortion procedures and had one done, too.
Doyou have link? Id like to see.

Unfortunately, the video was removed from YouTube shortly after I saw it, which really stinks since you know, a video of brain surgery wouldn't be removed. What's wrong with a video of an abortion? I just don't get it. Maybe it was an old video, I don't know. It did involve the use of a curette as opposed to suctioning which seems to suggest a procedure done after 10 weeks. It's still thankfully not the stereotypical pro-life bullshit of late-term saline abortions (which don't even happen anymore).

Quote :

EiriForLife wrote:

This is so far exactly the same as the abortion I saw, and it most certainly is a surgical procedure. The dialation of the cervix was horrifying, it looked so abusive. Perhaps this particular procedure is done a lot earlier? The abortion I saw wasn't far along either. Like I said, the woman wasn't even showing yet.
(edit some stuff out)
So how does this cause an abortion? How common is this particular procedure? I could see this being used in cases of young maternal age and rape cases to minimize secondary physical and emotional trauma to an already hurt woman.

That procedure is exactly what i experienced and it wasn't painful. It was like a pap smear. Uncomfortable but not painful. Nothing sharp or throbbing or nothing.

Ok, interesting. It sounds like it must be an early-term procedure, though I still don't understand how the "pressure" part of it causes the embryo to come out.

Quote :

EiriForLife wrote:

There would not be any complications if it wasn't harmful "in any way". Women can die from this procedure, and complications due to abortion are often undiscovered because the procedure is so confidential that these women don't want to tell anyone that they have had an abortion.

i have read that that comes from anesthesia. But why is this a part of being prolife? women can die and do more often from childbirth.

I think for me it's the combination of the risks to the woman AND the risk to the baby. Which is death, obviously.

Quote :

EiriForLife wrote:

I'm going to have to ask for something I don't think you (or anyone) can provide... videos of abortions that don't make me want to lurch from the pain the woman expriences. How about the procedure you linked to? There's hardly any video proof in the first place, and properly documented abortion videos are even rarer.

I can't give youa video but I can tell you that I did not feel this terrible pain. The procedure was like a pap test, I felt something odd that later caused cramping for about six hours. I took a bunch of medicine like ibuprofen and then iwas fine that night.

I don't think the woman in the video had much in the form of anesthesia, local or general. I don't think I even remember an injection taking place. Could have been general I suppose. She certainly wasn't having a painless or even mildly comfortable procedure.

Quote :

Quote :

EiriForLife wrote:

How was the procedure not being done to abort a pregnancy? What were they doing then? It's not a leap; if a picture is worth a thousand words, a video is worth millions. I saw something happening to a woman that should not be elective.

Listen, tho! It is not that horrifying!

EiriForLife wrote:

It is the case that Roe vs. Wade allows each state to make all post-viability abortions ILLEGAL, with exceptions for the life and health of the woman. So, a person who is anti-post-viability abortion is STILL pro-choice.

Not according to Birch, or Darkmoon, or Kypros... I'm sure the list goes on and on...

Maybethey meant that ifyou are prolife at one stage you aren't prochoice anymore?

Well yeah, they were basically saying that unless I was pro-death for any unborn child at any stage of pregnancy for any reason and for any amount of abortions, I was pro-life. And I'm sorry, but I'm just not.

I don't like abortion as a sole form of birth control (obviously it is a form of birth control but I feel it should be a last resort, not the front line). If a woman cannot use any chemical/barrier forms of birth control then there is still NFP.

I completely disapprove of late term abortions unless the mother's life is truly at risk (I had pro-choicers trying to tell me that "lifestyle" was the same as "life", but I'm sorry. You're not going to keel over because of some stretch marks). I had pro-choicers saying they would approve of a mother's right to kill her child even if she was in labor, just because it was still inside of her. Total insanity.

Quote :

EiriForLife wrote:

I hear about girls being forced into abortions by outside forces... and that's where I feel more attention needs to be paid in regards to pre-abortion therapy. "My mother will disown me" is not a legitimate reason to kill another human being, no matter how young they are. The girl needs taken to a safe home if needed and the mother needs to be brought in to be talked to by the staff and the girl.

i agree-that's awful and not prochoicer!

Definitely not!

Quote :

Hey eirie maybe you could visit a PP or something and talk to women there about abortion or observe or something? I would hate to think someone is prolife partly because they think abortion is some painful awful procedure when it's not. wouldyou do something like that?

I don't really have access to too many PP's down in Florida, plus I loathe driving... and finding a random excuse to go driving when I live with my parents just isn't happening. My only real source is videos. Like I said before, seeing what this procedure can do to a woman made me finally able to accept that what it does to the unborn is wrong, too. A human being dies, and I just can't support that.

Quote :

Oh, I did some reading on sex reassignment therapy and physicians can decide whether or not to have their patients do the therapy. Maybe the same could be done for abortion, is that what you are saying?

Most competent surgeons I know of advise the therapy. Hacks I'm sure don't. Trans patients normally need to live at least a year dressed as the opposite gender and going about life as one, before being accepted for hormone therapy which takes a year or two. Then finally, operations begin. Most doctors will not let patients work around this.

If a woman comes into a clinic hell bent on getting an abortion, and I were assigned as her initial case-worker-therapist-counselor-whatever, I guess I'd ask my required questions, which would include "why" and I would not take "I don't have to tell you" as an answer - I believe women do need to have a reason they're not embarrassed to talk about. If she were absolutely adamant, I'd sign her through... But ANY hesitation and I'd make her consult with a doctor and psychologist. I believe that unless a woman is 100% confident that the procedure is right for her and she is ok with killing another human being, then abortion is not the right choice. Many women don't regret the procedure right away, but as they get older, see friends with children, and hit menopause, they often change their minds.

futureshock wrote:

EiriForLife wrote:

Quote :

Here's another non-surgical method:
From a description by a physician trained at Harvard Medical School:

Quote :

Getting an Aspiration Procedure:

You are in a regular doctor's examination room (not an operating room). You can have a friend or family member with you the whole time. We're also there to support you. We do everything to make you as comfortable and relaxed as possible.

* The doctor inserts a speculum (like a Pap smear).
* The doctor numbs the cervix with a local anesthetic.
You usually don't feel this.
* The doctor stretches the opening in your cervix with small plastic dilators and inserts a thin tube (cannula).

This is so far exactly the same as the abortion I saw, and it most certainly is a surgical procedure. The dialation of the cervix was horrifying, it looked so abusive. Perhaps this particular procedure is done a lot earlier? The abortion I saw wasn't far along either. Like I said, the woman wasn't even showing yet.

The doctor who performs these procedures does not consider the aspiration method to be surgical, possibly because it doesn't fall under the common definition of surgery:
"A procedure involving major incisions to remove, repair, or replace a part of a body;"

Of course not... because the embryo/fetus' body doesn't count :/

Quote :

Gentle, Non-Surgical Methods
• Aspiration Method - A quick and simple procedure completed in less than 5 minutes.
• Abortion Pill - Pills that help you end your pregnancy safely and privately in the comfort of your own home.
No Surgery
No Scraping, No Machine
No General Anesthesia
Immediate Recovery

Except for the unborn, because it's dead. Sorry; it's just that I can no longer get past the fact that another human being dies during this procedure.

Quote :

Quote :

[quote="EiriForLife"]So how does this cause an abortion? How common is this particular procedure? I could see this being used in cases of young maternal age and rape cases to minimize secondary physical and emotional trauma to an already hurt woman.

This can be done on any abortion up to 10 weeks.

Quote :

aspiration procedure
The aspiration procedure is a simple, natural procedure to end an early pregnancy.

A natural end to a pregnancy is birth or miscarriage. Not abortion.

Quote :

It is gentler than a regular surgical abortion (D&C). There is no machine and no scraping. The procedure takes minutes to complete, then it takes another few minutes to recover.

The aspiration procedure has been safely practiced for decades throughout the world. In the United States, it was practiced in the 1970's by the Women's Health movement. It was called "Menstrual Extraction." It is so simple, women used to do it in their own homes.
http://earlyabortionoptions.com/aspiration.htm

Quote :

Quote :

But not only was this a procedure the woman was choosing to have done to herself that was clearly physically harmful...

Once a woman is pregnant she has to either abort or give birth. Giving birth is A LOT MORE PAINFUL and harmful than an abortion.

Ever heard of "painless birth"? Women give birth painlessly, some even orgasm. And another human being doesn't die. Sorry, but the pain of childbirth vs dead human. Hm...

Quote :

Quote :

There would not be any complications if it wasn't harmful "in any way". Women can die from this procedure, and complications due to abortion are often undiscovered because the procedure is so confidential that these women don't want to tell anyone that they have had an abortion.

I think you are imagining this. Women tell the doctor who performs the procedure, and the doctor has a follow up appointment with the patient a few weeks later. Any complications that arise are no more than any other medical procedure, and certainly occur less frequently.

I heard a lot of eHealth of women not going to their follow-ups... though I suppose any death/injury is then their fault, not the fault of the surgeon.

Quote :

Quote :

I'm going to have to ask for something I don't think you (or anyone) can provide... videos of abortions that don't make me want to lurch from the pain the woman expriences. How about the procedure you linked to? There's hardly any video proof in the first place, and properly documented abortion videos are even rarer.

How about all of us who have actually had abortions? How many times do we have to tell you we were not abused, we weren't harmed, etc., etc.?

Because there are hundreds of stories from the other side of the fence. Women who did feel abused. That's why I want to see it for myself. No opinions except my own, you know?

Quote :

Quote :

Second of all, an embryo is not a conscious, thinking, feeling person, and as such cannot feel or experience "abuse" as a woman can.

Quote :

That does not matter to me. It is a person in my opinion, it is certainly a human being, and I just cannot say it is ok to kill it anymore, I just can't.

You don't have to.

That's why I'm pro-life. I don't think anyone should have the right to kill another human being unless their own life is directly in danger.

Quote :

Quote :

[...]
Something else that struck me was the issue of fetal pain. Although the nerves are not connected to the spine until week 27 it is possible the unborn is still capable experiencing pain as early as week 17, but in a completely uncontrolled way because the brain isn't involved. So an abortion at 17 weeks could actually be more painful than a late-term abortion.

Quote :

Quote :

How could it be possible to experience something without the brain involved?

The nerves still fire. It is entirely possible and not beyond the realm of logic that the fetus may simply sense pain at the site of the nerves. There is research supporting this by doctors who are not pro-life wackos.

Really? There is research going on about this? That would be miraculous, considering it is impossible to feel nerves firing at the site of the nerves themselves.

The research tests stress signals of unborn babies and premature infants, and then compard that to developmental delays later in infancy. It showed that prenatal surgery without anesthesia caused the same developmental delays as premature babies that were repeatedly subjected to painful procedures without anesthesia. Both sets of babies are often younger than 27 weeks old, the stage when the brain and nerves connect. Yet physical reactions to what seems to be pain in younger premature babies, the stress responses it caused, and the developmental delays this stress caused all point to the concept that these babies are indeed feeling pain, possibly in an uncontrolled way. They can't manage the pain, unlike a baby that has a connected spinal cord.

These fetuses are not paraplegics. How on earth could they move and kick and suck their thumbs, move period if their nerves weren't connected to their brains? They are learning motor control in the womb; the jerking movements are not totally random nerves firing with no response to the brain; guiding a thumb to the mouth repeatedly proves that much. These fetuses can feel, and evidence points to them feeling pain too.

I want to thank you guys for being really nice; it's clearly something I desperately need to talk about. I wish Galen and a few others from prolife america were on here because they are very intelligent, kind, calm people.

Hi again!!!

EiriForLife wrote:

[
Unfortunately, the video was removed from YouTube shortly after I saw it, which really stinks since you know, a video of brain surgery wouldn't be removed. What's wrong with a video of an abortion? I just don't get it. Maybe it was an old video, I don't know. It did involve the use of a curette as opposed to suctioning which seems to suggest a procedure done after 10 weeks. It's still thankfully not the stereotypical pro-life bullshit of late-term saline abortions (which don't even happen anymore).

Yah, brain surgery wouldnt be removed but people aren't so offended by it, you're right. so since it was just one video on youtube i hope you don't think every abortion has a woman in lotsof pain with her cervix drug out of her. That sounds like some prolife stuff i've read about before. and i'v eseen all those signs of abortions and they are like fully formed babies and all that. its hard to believe anything anymore.

EiriForLife wrote:

Ok, interesting. It sounds like it must be an early-term procedure, though I still don't understand how the "pressure" part of it causes the embryo to come out.

i think the pressure part is what a woman feels not really part of the abortion itself?
but I still don't understand what thathas to do with someone being prolife. all surgeries carry risk and pain but no one is trying to ban elective surgerieslike getting your nose fixed or something. i know that's not like abortion -so it's not apart of the discussion, youknow? if prolife means banning this awful procedure because of the pain, then all procedures that cause pain should be banned, does that make sense?

EiriForLife wrote:

]

I don't think the woman in the video had much in the form of anesthesia, local or general. I don't think I even remember an injection taking place. Could have been general I suppose. She certainly wasn't having a painless or even mildly comfortable procedure.

That is horrible and women should have access to pain medication for this.

EiriForLife wrote:

Well yeah, they were basically saying that unless I was pro-death for any unborn child at any stage of pregnancy for any reason and for any amount of abortions, I was pro-life. And I'm sorry, but I'm just not.

I don't like abortion as a sole form of birth control (obviously it is a form of birth control but I feel it should be a last resort, not the front line). If a woman cannot use any chemical/barrier forms of birth control then there is still NFP.

I completely disapprove of late term abortions unless the mother's life is truly at risk (I had pro-choicers trying to tell me that "lifestyle" was the same as "life", but I'm sorry. You're not going to keel over because of some stretch marks). I had pro-choicers saying they would approve of a mother's right to kill her child even if she was in labor, just because it was still inside of her. Total insanity.

wait I am confused. you said "you're just not" but I thought you are prolife?
I hear that about stretch marks but I have never heard a woman say that she was going to get an abortion because of stretch marks, ever.

I guess that if a woman was in labor and about todie from it and the only way she is going to live is abortion then that is her decision to make since it's herlife at stake.

EiriForLife wrote:

I don't really have access to too many PP's down in Florida, plus I loathe driving... and finding a random excuse to go driving when I live with my parents just isn't happening. My only real source is videos. Like I said before, seeing what this procedure can do to a woman made me finally able to accept that what it does to the unborn is wrong, too. A human being dies, and I just can't support that.

oh I see. but I just hope you remember that the video you saw that make your mind change maynot be true. yeah, a human dies in abortion but i am not convinced it is my call to make for other people. why you think you can, y'know?

EiriForLife wrote:

If a woman comes into a clinic hell bent on getting an abortion, and I were assigned as her initial case-worker-therapist-counselor-whatever, I guess I'd ask my required questions, which would include "why" and I would not take "I don't have to tell you" as an answer - I believe women do need to have a reason they're not embarrassed to talk about. If she were absolutely adamant, I'd sign her through... But ANY hesitation and I'd make her consult with a doctor and psychologist. I believe that unless a woman is 100% confident that the procedure is right for her and she is ok with killing another human being, then abortion is not the right choice. Many women don't regret the procedure right away, but as they get older, see friends with children, and hit menopause, they often change their minds.

lots of people wish they had made lots of other choices in life but it doesn'tmake sense to limit anyones choices because of some who regret. if you regret living withyour parents now should we make law against people living withtheir parents?

my answer if you been my caseworker would have been because "I don't want to be pregnant". What would you have said?

EiriForLife wrote:

I want to thank you guys for being really nice; it's clearly something I desperately need to talk about. I wish Galen and a few others from prolife america were on here because they are very intelligent, kind, calm people.

You are welcome. I have been stalked and harassed before on forum and it's really stupid and lame that people do that kind of thing. if youdisagree some people go crazy on you. i don'tknow galen but i will go look at prolifeamerica.