Eiri, are you actually pro-life?

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.

Not true. You have an idea in your head about who gets abortions and why that is just wrong. For example, the majority, 61%, of women getting an abortion ALREADY HAVE AT LEAST ONE CHILD. And for the rest who do not have children yet, the majority have children later on in life, as I did.

And the older I get, the more PRO-CHOICE I become, especially since I have a daughter. The idea that someone else will take control of her body away from her enrages me. Over my dead body will I allow that to happen.

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 have never had an abortion but I assume the gentle pressure they speak of it is suction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suction-aspiration_abortion

My thoughts of abortion have changed over the years. For a very very long time I was pro-life mostly. But now am pro-choice. I really just don't care what people do with their own bodies.

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.

Feel free to invite whomever you wish, to this forum.

That goes for everybody else as well. This forum is open to the public.

EiriForLife wrote:

futureshock wrote:

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 :/

I'm pretty sure the emphasis in that definition is supposed to be on this part:
"A procedure involving major incisions"

Quote :

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.

You don't have to be sorry.

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 :

Ever heard of "painless birth"? Women give birth painlessly, some even orgasm.

Are you kidding me? Childbirth involves more pain and agony than our soldiers are allowed to inflict on enemy combatants.

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.

Quote :

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.

Sort of like a patient not taking their anti-rejection medication after receiving a transplant.

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.?

Quote :

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?

But how can you be for passing a law that so drastically harms the lives of women based on your opinion of a video?

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, but that was not the point of that exchange.

Quote :

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.

But what about those of us who do not agree that an embryo is the equivalent of a human being? Why should we be forced to submit the control of our bodies to the whims others?

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.

Quote :

Quote :

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.

We are talking about two different things here. I do not doubt that a fetus may be able to feel pain younger than 27 weeks. What I am questioning is the original claim:

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.

Quote :

Quote :

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.

EiriForLife wrote:

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.

why should it be in her med records?

with the climate of people andeverything now, i wouldn't blame a woman for not wanting to share that with justanyone. alot of people hate and label and judge.

In response to Erulissë:

"I'm just not" refers to "I am just not capable of approving of every single abortion".

And of course there's an exception to everything, but I was talking about an ELECTIVE abortion being done during birth. Who knows why? "This hurts too much, kill it?"

We are allowed to make laws that say killing born humans is bad. We make that call for other people. I understand that the situation of pregnancy is unique, but I don't think that just because the fetus is dependent on the woman's body to survive gives her the right to kill it at any time, aside from the exceptions.

When you make a mistake and make the wrong choice, someone else doesn't normally die. If another human does die, then it often goes to court. I do NOT approve of arresting women who abort, I'm just trying to say that this is a very serious "mistake" to make.

I would have asked why you don't want to be pregnant.

futureshock wrote:

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.

Not true. You have an idea in your head about who gets abortions and why that is just wrong.

The most common aborions are often done by married women who already have one child. I already knew that. My "view of women who abort" is not skewed. In those cases, killing your child just because you can't afford another one isn't a good enough excuse, because there is always adoption, and then NO one has to die. If it is dangerous for you to carry (more than normal pregnancy) and it would cause you to leave your own children motherless then that IS an excuse to abort.

Quote :

And the older I get, the more PRO-CHOICE I become, especially since I have a daughter. The idea that someone else will take control of her body away from her enrages me. Over my dead body will I allow that to happen.

But you're ok with your grandchild dying?

EiriForLife wrote:

In response to Erulissë:

"I'm just not" refers to "I am just not capable of approving of every single abortion".

I don't understand why you feel you would need to be approving of every single abortion in order to be pro-choice? You only need to approve of what you do with your own body.

Quote :

And of course there's an exception to everything, but I was talking about an ELECTIVE abortion being done during birth. Who knows why? "This hurts too much, kill it?"

As I have previously stated, The Roe Supreme Court decision makes that illegal already. Pro-choice means defending Roe, so being against elective post viability abortions still means you are pro-choice. Being pro-life WILL NOT EFFECT these procedures as they are already illegal.

Quote :

We are allowed to make laws that say killing born humans is bad. We make that call for other people. I understand that the situation of pregnancy is unique, but I don't think that just because the fetus is dependent on the woman's body to survive gives her the right to kill it at any time, aside from the exceptions.

*le sigh*
This is NOT what Roe says. This is pro-life propaganda.

Quote :

When you make a mistake and make the wrong choice, someone else doesn't normally die. If another human does die, then it often goes to court. I do NOT approve of arresting women who abort, I'm just trying to say that this is a very serious "mistake" to make.

I'm lost here.

Quote :

I would have asked why you don't want to be pregnant.

I have been pregnant and had a child. I would no want to go through that ever, ever again. The pregnancy was full of debilitating nausea and vomiting to the point where my husband had to take a leave from work to care for me, as I was bedridden. I was rushed to the hospital several times because my intestines were blocked.

The birth part was more agony than I could have ever imagined. The contractions felt like people were twisting my intestines an uterus and then puling tug of war style as hard as they could. The delivery part felt like someone put a long, sharp, cerated knife inside my vagina, sharp side pointed up, and then ripped me apart by slicing the sharp part up through my abdomen.

And I was in one of the best hospitals in the U.S., with multiple anesthesiologists attending.

One was in tears.

Erulissë wrote:

EiriForLife wrote:

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.

why should it be in her med records?

with the climate of people andeverything now, i wouldn't blame a woman for not wanting to share that with justanyone. alot of people hate and label and judge.

Your medical record is confidential and ANY procedure you have done should be in there, especially one as serious as an abortion.

futureshock wrote:

EiriForLife wrote:

In response to Erulissë:
"I'm just not" refers to "I am just not capable of approving of every single abortion".

I don't understand why you feel you would need to be approving of every single abortion in order to be pro-choice? You only need to approve of what you do with your own body.

Because that's the basis of pro-choice: You don't care what anyone else does with their body. And if the fetus had an input, then it wouldn't be a problem. But right now, women have the right to kill another human being, to destroy that human's body, without their permission.

Quote :

Quote :

And of course there's an exception to everything, but I was talking about an ELECTIVE abortion being done during birth. Who knows why? "This hurts too much, kill it?"

As I have previously stated, The Roe Supreme Court decision makes that illegal already.

It is a pro-choice argument I have heard, I'm not making this up.

Quote :

Quote :

We are allowed to make laws that say killing born humans is bad. We make that call for other people. I understand that the situation of pregnancy is unique, but I don't think that just because the fetus is dependent on the woman's body to survive gives her the right to kill it at any time, aside from the exceptions.

*le sigh*
This is NOT what Roe says. This is pro-life propaganda.

Are you kidding? I've heard the above argument straight from pro-choicers: "Abortion (pro-choice) is all about the woman's right to control her body. She has the right to kill the unborn because it is inside of her and attached to her."

Quote :

Quote :

When you make a mistake and make the wrong choice, someone else doesn't normally die. If another human does die, then it often goes to court. I do NOT approve of arresting women who abort, I'm just trying to say that this is a very serious "mistake" to make.

I'm lost here.

Which part lost you?

Quote :

Quote :

I would have asked why you don't want to be pregnant.

I have been pregnant and had a child. I would no want to go through that ever, ever again. The pregnancy was full of debilitating nausea and vomiting to the point where my husband had to take a leave from work to care for me, as I was bedridden. I was rushed to the hospital several times because my intestines were blocked.

Then you would definitely be allowed an abortion in my hypothetical clinic.

EiriForLife wrote:

Quote :

And the older I get, the more PRO-CHOICE I become, especially since I have a daughter. The idea that someone else will take control of her body away from her enrages me. Over my dead body will I allow that to happen.

But you're ok with your grandchild dying?

Eiri, I respect the fact that you consider a microscopic fertilized egg or embryo to be a human being, but I do not. I consider it to be human, like my cells are human, my heart is human, etc., etc., but I don't consider it to be a human being at that stage. When it is born, I view it as a human being.
Please read this excerpt from my blog (link at the end):

Quote :

Why I Am Pro-Choice

Even nature does not think embryos are as valuable as born people. The vast majority (up to 80%) of fertilized eggs and embryos die before they are born.
This has nothing to do with abortion, birth control, or any other reason. This happens in every fertile, sexually active woman:


80% Embryo Loss


"PROF. SANDEL: [W]hat percent of fertilized eggs fail to implant or are otherwise lost?
DR. OPITZ: The answer to your first question is that it is enormous. Estimates range all the way from 60 percent to 80 percent of the very earliest stages, cleavage stages, for example, that are lost."
 source

In fact, the numbers of embryos lost are so huge, they make abortion pale in comparison.
Natural procreation causes more embryo loss than abortion:


"The rate of natural embryo loss after conception in unassisted human reproduction is high, some suggest as high as 80 percent, and the fact of natural loss is fairly well known, so that persons who engage in or permit the pursuit of conception through unassisted reproduction are knowingly bringing about the conception of many embryos that will die.

Moreover, they suggest, the high rate of natural embryo loss should bring into question the views of those who believe that early-stage human embryos merit equal treatment with human children and adults. If so many die in the natural course of things, how do we not treat natural procreation as a great fountain of tragedy and carnage? They argue that the natural rate of embryo loss, and our response to it, should teach us something about the limited significance of human embryos in the earliest stages." source

Sexual Intercourse While Trying to Conceive Causes More Embryo Loss Than Abortion:

If you truly value each embryo as much as each born child, then you would have to be against anyone ever having another child, because more embryos die than are ever born, so the bottom line is, you kill more unborn children than ever get born, just in the process of trying to have a born child.
If your first reaction is that, well, that loss is really just part of nature, and so it's not that bad, then I ask you this:
If it is ok that up to 9 embryos die for every child born, would it be ok if some of your born children died while you were trying to conceive another?
OF COURSE NOT, RIGHT? But why? Their deaths would just be part of nature, exactly equivalent to the embryos that die so that one can be born, right?
The answer is, no one really values an embryo as much as they do a born child, no matter what they think.


"We now know that for every successful pregnancy which results in a live birth, many, perhaps as many as five, early embryos will be lost or 'miscarry' (although these are not perhaps miscarriages' as the term is normally used, because this sort of very early embryo loss is almost always entirely unnoticed).

How are we to think of the decision to have a child in the light of these facts? One obvious and inescapable conclusion is that God and/or nature has ordained that 'spare' embryos be produced for almost every pregnancy, and that most of these will have to die in order that a sibling embryo can come to birth. Thus the sacrifice of embryos seems to be an inescapable and inevitable part of the process of procreation. .**"

Large numbers of embryos, in other words, die as collateral damage in any case, side effects of normal, natural attempts to get pregnant. source

http://wingnutwatch.typepad.com/wingnutwatch/2008/06/this-is-the-seq.html

EiriForLife wrote:

Your medical record is confidential and ANY procedure you have done should be in there, especially one as serious as an abortion.

Why? What makes it so serious, and why does it need to be in a person's records?

EiriForLife wrote:

Then you would definitely be allowed an abortion in my hypothetical clinic.

Thanks Dr. Eiri.

futureshock wrote:

EiriForLife wrote:

Quote :

And the older I get, the more PRO-CHOICE I become, especially since I have a daughter. The idea that someone else will take control of her body away from her enrages me. Over my dead body will I allow that to happen.

But you're ok with your grandchild dying?

Eiri, I respect the fact that you consider a microscopic fertilized egg or embryo to be a human being, but I do not. I consider it to be human, like my cells are human, my heart is human, etc., etc., but I don't consider it to be a human being at that stage. When it is born, I view it as a human being.

Why is it not a "being"? It is human, I'm not going to pull the "iz it a frog lolz?" thing on you. I know you realise it is human material. But I'm not claiming it to be a person here. I don't want to open that can of worms!

Also, I know all of the facts you mentioned in your article, I use those facts to fight pro-lifers who think birth control is abortifacient

EiriForLife wrote:

Your medical record is confidential and ANY procedure you have done should be in there, especially one as serious as an abortion.

Sinceabortion has no long effects, there is no reasonfor a doctor who is looking at your lungs or whatever to know you had an abortion when youwere sixteen.

Abortion is not that serious as surgery as peoplewould have you think. local anesthesia, takes ten minutes, walking around immediately after. it's not this awful pain stricken thing that is wholey traumatic and makes peopletake weeks off work or something. i have had ingrown toenails makemore trouble than my abortion.

You said you would ask me why I din't want to be pregnant. I would answer "because I don't want to have a child and pregnancy is awful. I get sick all the time and I don'twant kids" . Let's keep going; what would you say?

Some abortion is so simple it's even called "menstrual extraction". Why would you need to have that in your medical record?

Women have spontaneous abortions very frequently, in which fertilized eggs and embryos pass in their menses without them even knowing about it. Should these be in all of our medical records?

Erulissë wrote:

EiriForLife wrote:

Your medical record is confidential and ANY procedure you have done should be in there, especially one as serious as an abortion.

Sinceabortion has no long effects,

It doesn't? Some women become infertile from it, others die. It can also have severe and long lasting mental effects. Not to mention a baby is never born. Lying and saying it "has no long term affect" is just silly. Are these effects common? No. But they DO exist.

Quote :

there is no reasonfor a doctor who is looking at your lungs or whatever to know you had an abortion when youwere sixteen.

I don't see why he would look at that part of my medical record, but it should still be in there.

Quote :

Abortion is not that serious as surgery as peoplewould have you think. local anesthesia, takes ten minutes, walking around immediately after. it's not this awful pain stricken thing that is wholey traumatic and makes peopletake weeks off work or something. i have had ingrown toenails makemore trouble than my abortion.

You said you would ask me why I din't want to be pregnant. I would answer "because I don't want to have a child and pregnancy is awful. I get sick all the time and I don'twant kids" . Let's keep going; what would you say?

If you had proof of that sickness being truly debilitating then you would be allowed an abortion.

futureshock wrote:

Some abortion is so simple it's even called "menstrual extraction". Why would you need to have that in your medical record?

Women have spontaneous abortions very frequently, in which fertilized eggs and embryos pass in their menses without them even knowing about it. Should these be in all of our medical records?

Because I want every toothache I go in for noted in my record. That way, if years from now I go in with something totally weird, they can look at a COMPLETE medical history as opposed to one with wholes caused by shame. Which is the only reason I could guess for you to not want your abortion included. If it was such a simple procedure, why do you want to hide it? If you don't think it's bad then why do you want to hide it?

And a human being still dies. A child is still never born. That's not simple.

EiriForLife wrote:

Erulissë wrote:

EiriForLife wrote:

Your medical record is confidential and ANY procedure you have done should be in there, especially one as serious as an abortion.

Sinceabortion has no long effects,

It doesn't? Some women become infertile from it, others die. It can also have severe and long lasting mental effects. Not to mention a baby is never born. Lying and saying it "has no long term affect" is just silly. Are these effects common? No. But they DO exist.

Quote :

there is no reasonfor a doctor who is looking at your lungs or whatever to know you had an abortion when youwere sixteen.

I don't see why he would look at that part of my medical record, but it should still be in there.

Quote :

Abortion is not that serious as surgery as peoplewould have you think. local anesthesia, takes ten minutes, walking around immediately after. it's not this awful pain stricken thing that is wholey traumatic and makes peopletake weeks off work or something. i have had ingrown toenails makemore trouble than my abortion.

You said you would ask me why I din't want to be pregnant. I would answer "because I don't want to have a child and pregnancy is awful. I get sick all the time and I don'twant kids" . Let's keep going; what would you say?

If you had proof of that sickness being truly debilitating then you would be allowed an abortion.

i said that abortion has nolongterm effects so there is no reason a doctor looking at your lungs needs to know about your abortion at sixteen like theywouldn't need to know you had a tooth pulled at 12. the mental effects are up to debate depending on which prolife site youread, but that is not something that needs put in your MED records, tho.

I don't know why you say it should still be there other than youthink it should. if there is sterility (sp?) or other problems then that isadifferent matter and your ob/gyn would need to know but not your general med record. if you had an abortion with no effects then it's as important to be in your record as your cavity filling at age 16.

i guess I don't like the clinic you run! ha ha. You say that ifIhad proof the sickness was debilitating then you'd allow me to have an abortion. pregnancy isdebilitating there aremanythings you can't do when pregnant. proof is there! or doyou get to randomly decide what reasons you like or not?

EiriForLife wrote:

Erulissë wrote:

EiriForLife wrote:

Your medical record is confidential and ANY procedure you have done should be in there, especially one as serious as an abortion.

Sinceabortion has no long effects,

It doesn't? Some women become infertile from it, others die. It can also have severe and long lasting mental effects. Not to mention a baby is never born. Lying and saying it "has no long term affect" is just silly. Are these effects common? No. But they DO exist.

Those things are much more likely to happen from giving birth. Why do you think an abortion could make you infertile? Could having your period make you infertile?
During an abortion, the uterine lining, the same thing that comes out in a period, is gently drawn out of the uterus. The embryo, which is so small you can't even see it, comes along with the lining. THAT'S IT.

Quote :

there is no reasonfor a doctor who is looking at your lungs or whatever to know you had an abortion when youwere sixteen.

I don't see why he would look at that part of my medical record, but it should still be in there.

Quote :

Abortion is not that serious as surgery as peoplewould have you think. local anesthesia, takes ten minutes, walking around immediately after. it's not this awful pain stricken thing that is wholey traumatic and makes peopletake weeks off work or something. i have had ingrown toenails makemore trouble than my abortion.

You said you would ask me why I din't want to be pregnant. I would answer "because I don't want to have a child and pregnancy is awful. I get sick all the time and I don'twant kids" . Let's keep going; what would you say?

If you had proof of that sickness being truly debilitating then you would be allowed an abortion.[/quote]

Pregnancy is debilitating for most women.

EiriForLife wrote:

And a human being still dies. A child is still never born. That's not simple.

I respect the fact that you believe a human being dies. I do not. I believe human tissue that is part of my body dies.

If a couple uses birth control, a child is still never born. If a couple falls asleep and skips sex altogether, a child is still never born.

If a couple has sex, and an egg gets fertilized, but doesn't implant, child is still never born.

This explains exactly how I view this subject. It comes from this thread:
https://alldrama.rpg-board.net/abortion-debate-f3/pro-choice-is-the-real-pro-life-t114.htm

This was written by Dr. Leonard Peikoff:

Quote :

Thirty years after Roe V. Wade, no one defends the right to abortion in fundamental, moral terms, which is why the pro-abortion rights forces are on the defensive.

Abortion-rights advocates should not cede the terms "pro-life" and "right to life" to the anti-abortionists. It is a woman's right to her life that gives her the right to terminate her pregnancy.

The status of the embryo in the first trimester is the basic issue that cannot be sidestepped. The embryo is clearly pre-human; only the mystical notions of religious dogma treat this clump of cells as constituting a person.

We must not confuse potentiality with actuality. An embryo is a potential human being. It can, granted the woman's choice, develop into an infant. But what it actually is during the first trimester is a mass of relatively undifferentiated cells that exist as a part of a woman's body. If we consider what it is - rather than what it might become, we must acknowledge that the embryo under three months is something far more primitive than a frog or a fish. To compare a fetus to a child is ludicrous.

If we are to accept the equation of the potential with the actual and call the embryo an "unborn child," we could, with equal logic, call any adult an "undead corpse" and bury him alive or vivisect him for the instruction of medical students.

That tiny growth, that mass of protoplasm, exists as a part of a woman's body. It is not an independently existing, biologically formed organism, let alone a person. That which lives within the body of another can claim no right against its host. Rights belong only to individuals, not to collectives or to parts of an individual.

("Independent" does not mean self-supporting--a child who depends on its parents for food, shelter, and clothing, has rights because it is an actual, separate human being.)

"Rights," in Ayn Rand's words, "do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A fetus cannot acquire any rights until it is born."

It is only on this base that we can support the woman's political right to do what she chooses in this issue. No other person--not even her husband--has the right to dictate what she may do with her own body. That is a fundamental principle of freedom.

There are many legitimate reasons why a rational woman might have an abortion--accidental pregnancy, rape, birth defects, danger to her health. The issue here is the proper role for government. If a pregnant woman acts wantonly or capriciously, then she should be condemned morally--but not treated as a murderer.

If someone capriciously puts to death his cat or dog, that can well be reprehensible, even immoral, but it is not the province of the state to interfere. The same is true of an abortion which puts to death a far less-developed growth in a woman's body.

If anti-abortionists object that an embryo has the genetic equipment of a human being, remember: so does every cell in the human body.

Abortions are private affairs and often involve painfully difficult decisions with life-long consequences. But, tragically, the lives of the parents are completely ignored by the anti-abortionists. Yet that is the essential issue. In any conflict it's the actual, living persons who count, not the mere potential of the embryo.

Being a parent is a profound responsibility--financial, psychological, moral--across decades. Raising a child demands time, effort, thought and money. It's a full-time job for the first three years, consuming thousands of hours after that--as caretaker, supervisor, educator and mentor. To a woman who does not want it, this is an unfair death sentence.

The anti-abortionists' attitude, however, is: "The actual life of the parents be damned! Give up your life, liberty, property and the pursuit of your own happiness."

Sentencing a woman to sacrifice her life to an embryo is not upholding the "right-to-life."

The anti-abortionists' claim to being "pro-life" is a classic Big Lie. You cannot be in favor of life and yet demand the sacrifice of an actual, living individual to a clump of tissue.

Anti-abortionists are not lovers of life--lovers of tissue, maybe. But their stand marks them as haters of real human beings.

http://www.prochoicetalk.com/message-board-forum/viewtopic.php?t=6672[/quote]

Erulissë wrote:

i said that abortion has nolongterm effects

But that's a lie.

Quote :

so there is no reason a doctor looking at your lungs needs to know about your abortion at sixteen like theywouldn't need to know you had a tooth pulled at 12.

I would still want it in my record. In the military medical system nothing is hidden. I'm not ashamed of any procedure I have had done to me. I have nothing to hide. Do you? Why would you want to hide an abortion?

Quote :

the mental effects are up to debate depending on which prolife site youread, but that is not something that needs put in your MED records, tho.

Depending on which pro-choice site you've read too. Even pro-choice sites admit that somewhere between 10-20% of women regret their abortion.

Quote :

I don't know why you say it should still be there other than youthink it should.

Because it is a medical procedure. Any medical procedure should be documented in your medical records. I'm actually shocked that this is not common law. I don't know why you're saying it shouldn't be on your record unless you're ashamed of it and don't want anyone to know you've had one. A doctor isn't allowed to blab about it, so what are you afraid of?

Quote :

if there is sterility (sp?) or other problems then that isadifferent matter and your ob/gyn would need to know but not your general med record. if you had an abortion with no effects then it's as important to be in your record as your cavity filling at age 16.

Your cavity fillings ARE on your general medical record. Or they should be, if they're not.

Quote :

i guess I don't like the clinic you run! ha ha. You say that ifIhad proof the sickness was debilitating then you'd allow me to have an abortion. pregnancy isdebilitating there aremanythings you can't do when pregnant. proof is there! or doyou get to randomly decide what reasons you like or not?

Not all women are so sick during pregnancy that they cannot even roll out of bed. MOST women are just fine and in fact enjoy their time being pregnant. Many women experience some side effects, but it's like arguing against birth control just because SOME women have bad side effects. All birth control should be illegal because SOME women get sick on it. That's a rather stupid argument don't you think?

Your symptoms would have to be truly debilitating with PROOF of this documented from your last pregnancy.

EiriForLife wrote:

Erulissë wrote:

i said that abortion has nolongterm effects

But that's a lie.

Quote :

so there is no reason a doctor looking at your lungs needs to know about your abortion at sixteen like theywouldn't need to know you had a tooth pulled at 12.

I would still want it in my record. In the military medical system nothing is hidden. I'm not ashamed of any procedure I have had done to me. I have nothing to hide. Do you? Why would you want to hide an abortion?

Quote :

the mental effects are up to debate depending on which prolife site youread, but that is not something that needs put in your MED records, tho.

Depending on which pro-choice site you've read too. Even pro-choice sites admit that somewhere between 10-20% of women regret their abortion.

Quote :

I don't know why you say it should still be there other than youthink it should.

Because it is a medical procedure. Any medical procedure should be documented in your medical records. I'm actually shocked that this is not common law. I don't know why you're saying it shouldn't be on your record unless you're ashamed of it and don't want anyone to know you've had one. A doctor isn't allowed to blab about it, so what are you afraid of?

Quote :

if there is sterility (sp?) or other problems then that isadifferent matter and your ob/gyn would need to know but not your general med record. if you had an abortion with no effects then it's as important to be in your record as your cavity filling at age 16.

Your cavity fillings ARE on your general medical record. Or they should be, if they're not.

Quote :

i guess I don't like the clinic you run! ha ha. You say that ifIhad proof the sickness was debilitating then you'd allow me to have an abortion. pregnancy isdebilitating there aremanythings you can't do when pregnant. proof is there! or doyou get to randomly decide what reasons you like or not?

Not all women are so sick during pregnancy that they cannot even roll out of bed. MOST women are just fine and in fact enjoy their time being pregnant. Many women experience some side effects, but it's like arguing against birth control just because SOME women have bad side effects. All birth control should be illegal because SOME women get sick on it. That's a rather stupid argument don't you think?

Your symptoms would have to be truly debilitating with PROOF of this documented from your last pregnancy.

it didn't for me so there is some truth in that statement.

i am not ashamed and have nothing to hide. i tell my doctors. i just don't see the significance of keeping it in a medical record. why if it has no bad effects on someone? i didn't say it shouldn't be; i haven't heard why it should yet!

med records don't follow people around they depend on you to tell them. i know nothing about militarystuff, tho.

i don't understand the birth control analogy.

I wouldn't goto your clinic! it sounds like you would have a rigidity way of dealing withwomen who don't want to be pregnant. that'snota nice way to be to people dealing with that kindo f thing.

There is no such thing as "your medical record" in the civilian world. In fact, that lack of records can present a problem, when you have to tell each doctor and specialist your entire history over and over again, just from memory.

An abortion is something that is natural to the the female body. We abort far more pregnancies and "pre-pregnancies" (fertilized eggs which have not implanted) than we ever carry to term.

There is no difference to our bodies physically between an abortion performed by a physician or one performed by our bodies. They both involve the emptying out of our uteruses (uteri?) with embryos attached. I was filling out forms for a new gynocologist and one of the questions said, "How many pregnancies?" I asked my doctor to clarify if she meant carried to term, abortion, spontaneous abortion (also known as miscarriage), etc.

Since the next question was "How many born children do you have?", it was clear that she would be able to differentiate between number of pregnancies and number carried to term. I asked her how to differentiate on the form between abortions as in going to a clinic and having it done, and miscarriages. She said they are the one and the same. She didn't care how they happened, it was all the same medically.

The reason they ask the question in the first place is for those women who have a hard time conceiving, and have many miscarriages. That's a warning sign for endometriosis and a symptom of a few other things, and that's what she cared about.

An abortion, whether it was spontaneous or done in a clinic, leaves NO lasting marks to the body, no scars, nothing. It has no future effect on anything, including fertility. Something would have to go horribly wrong for that to happen, and any procedure can go wrong, including pregnancy and childbirth. Just by using your own intuition and logic, you can understand why childbirth is so much more dangerous than abortion.