Caskets for Miscarriages

EiriForLife wrote:

Maz wrote:

EiriForLife wrote:

I am not a traditional pro-lifer so please stop trying to stereotype me.

You are a traditional prolifer. The fact that you oh so very graciously "allow" women to abort for her health reasons doesn't make you any "better" than any of the other prolifers who want to stop women from accessing safe and legal abortion.

I absolutely am not, as I approve of over 90% of all abortions. According to pro-lifers, I am pro-choice. Neither of you want me.

So you are prochoice now?

krystineM wrote:

i dont know if you are implying that i am giving the ok for abortions a week before their due,
but i was talking more about women who do not go out and get an abortion right away, and might wait a few weeks or so before they get one.
NOT a week before their due date.

A "few weeks" is unlikely to take her into the second term by very much. But why would that woman wait? Too busy? Mmm, that's not a very good reason. Abortion doesn't take very long. Not enough money? Okay, no problem.

Quote :

a woman may decide to get an abortion if a baby does not fit into their budget,

Two weeks before th due date? I keep asking because I'm trying to find out if you have limits. DO you? Because if you do, then STOP accusing me of being hypocritical.

You know what? I'm getting REALLY tired of being in this debate. I can't get help from either side, no one agrees with me. It sucks. All because I refuse to adhere to the either side 100%.

I don't believe early abortions are bad. But once the child is viable, past 20 weeks, I believe abortion IS bad. I believe that between the weeks of 12 and 20 the mother should be accountable for her reasons to abort. Past 20 weeks, her reasons have to be EXTRA good.

Erulissë wrote:

EiriForLife wrote:

Maz wrote:

EiriForLife wrote:

I am not a traditional pro-lifer so please stop trying to stereotype me.

You are a traditional prolifer. The fact that you oh so very graciously "allow" women to abort for her health reasons doesn't make you any "better" than any of the other prolifers who want to stop women from accessing safe and legal abortion.

I absolutely am not, as I approve of over 90% of all abortions. According to pro-lifers, I am pro-choice. Neither of you want me.

So you are prochoice now?

No, because I still believe in maternal accountability past 12 weeks.

EiriForLife wrote:

krystineM wrote:

i dont know if you are implying that i am giving the ok for abortions a week before their due,
but i was talking more about women who do not go out and get an abortion right away, and might wait a few weeks or so before they get one.
NOT a week before their due date.

A "few weeks" is unlikely to take her into the second term by very much. But why would that woman wait? Too busy? Mmm, that's not a very good reason. Abortion doesn't take very long. Not enough money? Okay, no problem.

Quote :

a woman may decide to get an abortion if a baby does not fit into their budget,

Two weeks before th due date? I keep asking because I'm trying to find out if you have limits. DO you? Because if you do, then STOP accusing me of being hypocritical.

You know what? I'm getting REALLY tired of being in this debate. I can't get help from either side, no one agrees with me. It sucks. All because I refuse to adhere to the either side 100%.

I don't believe early abortions are bad. But once the child is viable, past 20 weeks, I believe abortion IS bad. I believe that between the weeks of 12 and 20 the mother should be accountable for her reasons to abort. Past 20 weeks, her reasons have to be EXTRA good.

You are not really listening to other people. Abortion past viability is ALREADY illegal, so I do not know why you even bring it up. Do you see people actively trying to change roe v. wade to make abortion after viability legal? No, you don't.

Reasons for second trimester abortions, scroll down until you see my post that says "PCT" in blue:

https://alldrama.rpg-board.net/abortion-debate-f3/eiri-are-you-actually-pro-life-t124-105.htm

But women don't have to be ACCOUNTABLE for those reasons right now. I mean, even "I didn't know until now" is an acceptable reason in my book; I'm really lenient! But the pain issue bothers me. I definitely no longer believe that pain doesn't start until week 27; there is a lot of stress-test evidence from much earlier that proves the unborn are feeling SOMETHING and it is causing them a lot of stress.

I at least feel that anesthesia for the unborn should be mandatory past 12 weeks. Sure, they're going to "die anyway", but that doesn't mean they deserve to feel pain. For God's sake, a dog is euthanized humanely without pain! Why do our own children not get the same treatment? They could just shoot the dog; "it's going to die anyway". But we know that's not nice and it's not kind, so the humane path is taken.

You cannot experience pain without the brain. All pain is experienced in the brain.

Quote :

Remember, all pain is experienced in the brain. Whether you have just stubbed your toe or are experiencing chronic headache, the messages go up the spinal cord to the brain where the signals are interpreted as pain.
http://www.wilsonbanwell.com/articles/health/managing_chronic_pain.htm

Quote :

Although pain makes a certain part of the body hurt, it is actually felt in the brain. When someone hurts a specific part of their body, the nerve endings in it create sensations. There are different receptors in the brain for different types of sensations. The damaged tissue in the damaged part of the body also releases chemicals that make the pain more acute. Some of these chemicals are called prostaglandins and when these chemicals work in cells in the damaged tissues, they release chemicals using and enzyme called cyclooxygenase 2 (COX-2). The prostaglandings case the nerve endings to send a sensation through the nerves and into the brian, where the pain sensation is created.
http://www.drugsandpain.com/

Quote :

It's a fact that pain is largely a matter of brain chemistry.
http://www.indiana.edu/~rcapub/v30n2/pain.shtml

Quote :

To understand the action of anesthesia, it is necessary to understand the way pain is felt. Pain is experienced by the brain. When a toe is stubbed, for example, the injury affects tiny nerves. These pass a signal to other, larger nerves. In this manner, moving as if from a twig on a tree through the branches to the trunk and into the root, pain travels from the toe to the nerves of the spinal column and into the brain. In the brain the signal is instantly decoded, and the message “hurt” is transmitted to the toe. Because of the shorter distance to the brain, a cut finger, for example, hurts more quickly than a similar injury to one's foot or to a toe.
http://www.britannica.com/oscar/print?articleId=272866&fullArticle=true&tocId=196375

Anyway, since the woman and fetus are one, any anesthesia a woman gets obviously effects the fetus.

Every time I see someone use the word "unborn", I think, are we all "undead"?

EiriForLife wrote:

krystineM wrote:

i dont know if you are implying that i am giving the ok for abortions a week before their due,
but i was talking more about women who do not go out and get an abortion right away, and might wait a few weeks or so before they get one.
NOT a week before their due date.

A "few weeks" is unlikely to take her into the second term by very much. But why would that woman wait? Too busy? Mmm, that's not a very good reason. Abortion doesn't take very long.

Busy can be a logical reason a woman gets an abortion a few weeks past 12 weeks. Say the woman does not find out she is pregnant until 10 or 12 weeks. It does happen I did not find out I was pregnant with my first until week 12. Then say either she works M-F with weekends off. I doubt there are many if any doctor offices open on the weekend. And she has to give 3 weeks notice to get a day requested day off from work. Or what if the clinic has no openings from several weeks. Then she is closer to 13-15 weeks along. She wants the abortion but does not want to lose her job to get one. So then is it a good enough reason for her to get the abortion between 13-15 weeks?

futureshock wrote:

Anyway, since the woman and fetus are one, any anesthesia a woman gets obviously effects the fetus.

Exactly. I have watched some of those birthing shows on t.v. They have said many times that the do not like to put women under general because the anesthesia does pass to the baby and there can be negative effects. And when they do have to put woman under general they have to move much quicker because of the effects on the baby.

http://www.americanpregnancy.org/labornbirth/generalanesthesia.htm

Quote :

Research strongly indicates that the rate of maternal death due to general anesthesia may be at least double the rate of deaths due to regional anesthesia. The primary cause of maternal death due to general anesthesia is difficulty with airway management. The greatest concern for the baby is the decrease in uterine blood flow and neonatal depression. According to Danforth's Obstetrics and Gynecology, the prolonged neonatal effects have led to the virtual elimination of general anesthesia’s use during labor and birth.

Thanks for that info, RebelCats.

Eiri, are you dense in the head!?

Waiting to have an abortion because your weighing out the whole situation is and can be a good reason for people going in for one a little later than earlier.
They are seeing if they can do it-raise a child
if they can afford it-again raise a child
if the partner will stay and support them through this time
if their ready for a child.
These can be reasons as to why they have waited to see if they can manage,
and if not, abortion may be their second option.

And once again, you are taking my responses out of context.
I was not saying that the woman would wait well into the second trimester, but wait a little bit to weigh out the whole situation.
And if the couple are thinking the whole situation over, i do not think their going to wait like 3, 4, 5 months or more.
Their going to wait to get everything settled sooner than later. so they might get an abortion in the end after a couple weeks have gone by.

And you have not answered my question either.
Do you honestly think that a woman with a medical problem is going to wait to get the procedure taken care of a week before she is due?
And what doctor do you think will allow a woman to kill her baby while she is giving birth?
If its a medical problem that can affect her and the baby, i am sure that she would get things taken care of sooner than a week before she is due.
And if a woman was not wanting to have a child but carried on till she was a week do or in labour, i think the doctor would advise her to contact an adoption agency, seeing as third trimester abortions are illegal.
And for that little rant on a pregnant woman getting into a car accident and comparing that to abortion, its two different things.
one is ending a pregnancy, and the other is saving a life if there was any harm to that baby inside the mother, plus since you were describing the accident for a woman who was a week due, the child would most likely survive.

And btw hun, you are the one who brought up the subject of having an abortion a week or two weeks before the baby's due date.
pay attention to what you are writing, pay attention to what others are writing and do not throw words into their mouths.
READ CAREFULLY.

EiriForLife wrote:

I don't believe early abortions are bad. But once the child is viable, past 20 weeks, I believe abortion IS bad. I believe that between the weeks of 12 and 20 the mother should be accountable for her reasons to abort. Past 20 weeks, her reasons have to be EXTRA good.

lol again, there you go arguing both sides!

First you say, i do not think its right to abort past 20 weeks at all.
THEN! you say, past 20 weeks they have to have a really good reason.

Either you think its right to do or not!

And dont bring up the matter of "well the mother may have a medical/health problem"
If she has a medical problem, she would get it addressed sooner rather than later, and would be the first thing she brings up at the doctors office.
Her MEDICAL HISTORY and medical problems IN HER FAMILY then, the doctor would go over what ones are a risk to her or the baby and what to do about it.
THEN! She's go for a screening around 12 weeks and up, and they would screen for all kinda of medical problems, disabilities and so on!
So you see, your excuse of the mother having a health problem is useless, because if it was something serious to be concerned about, the mother would talk to the doctor about it right away and seek out information as to what could happen and what can be done right away instead of waiting to get the situation dealt with.

krystineM wrote:

EiriForLife wrote:

I don't believe early abortions are bad. But once the child is viable, past 20 weeks, I believe abortion IS bad. I believe that between the weeks of 12 and 20 the mother should be accountable for her reasons to abort. Past 20 weeks, her reasons have to be EXTRA good.

lol again, there you go arguing both sides!

Of course I am. You already know that I am for aspects of both sides. I'm just going to have to call myself a moderate and deal with it.

Quote :

First you say, i do not think its right to abort past 20 weeks at all.
THEN! you say, past 20 weeks they have to have a really good reason.

Aah, no, you actually misread me the first time. By "her reasons have to be really good" I mean the rape/danger/etc reasons.

Quote :

And dont bring up the matter of "well the mother may have a medical/health problem"
If she has a medical problem, she would get it addressed sooner rather than later, and would be the first thing she brings up at the doctors office.

Actually you're wrong again. If she has a medical problem late in pregnancy it is likely the child was wanted, but due to unforseen events, she is now in danger and must abort. Not all abortions come from accidental pregnancies.

Quote :

So you see, your excuse of the mother having a health problem is useless, because if it was something serious to be concerned about, the mother would talk to the doctor about it right away and seek out information as to what could happen and what can be done right away instead of waiting to get the situation dealt with.

You are aware that most abortions after 20 weeks are for medical reasons, and that elective abortions past 20 weeks are illegal in many places?

oh i am very aware that late term abortions are illegal, you seem to argue that women still seek out late term abortions.
and, a doctor would look into her health problem if it occured later on in the pregnancy.
they wouldn't just say go abort.
they'd give options, find possible sollutions in how they can help the mother without harming the unborn child,
their professional doctors for a reason. Their not just going to go with the easier sollution and say end the pregnancy now.
And in the end, it is the mothers choice to end the pregnancy or not. She may end up pursuing the pregnancy even if there is a medical problem.
its still her choice, and a doctor cannot make her get one.

As for your reasons of having an abortions past 20 weeks because of rape etc.
[BTW i did not misread any part of what you wrote, that was word for word what you had said.]
If a woman is raped, and becomes pregnant, i HIGHLY doubt that she would wait till she is past 20 weeks to get an abortion.
I am almost certain that she would go and get one right away.

krystineM wrote:

oh i am very aware that late term abortions are illegal, you seem to argue that women still seek out late term abortions.
and, a doctor would look into her health problem if it occured later on in the pregnancy.
they wouldn't just say go abort.

Of course they would, I never said they wouldn't. Why would you assume such a thing?

Quote :

their professional doctors for a reason. Their not just going to go with the easier sollution and say end the pregnancy now.

Sometimes they offer abortion to cover their asses, say says pro-life. What do you think about that?

Quote :

If a woman is raped, and becomes pregnant, i HIGHLY doubt that she would wait till she is past 20 weeks to get an abortion.

I don't think she would either, BUT IF for some reason it happened, I would still support her right to abort.

You seemed to imply that the only sollution would be to abort if a medical problem arose later on.
Why would they offer abortion to cover their asses? That makes no sense.
Im sure the couple would or could possibly go seek out more information from more than one doctor to see what could be done about the medical problem. At least that's what i would do if such a problem arose.

If a couple got pregnant, and could not afford to raise that child seeing as they cost well up to $40,000+ to raise,
and decided to abort because they want to be financially stable when they bring a child into the world, and would not want to place a child they created up for adoption, that would be their reason for abortion. And, just so you dont misread what i say here, IM SURE they would not wait to abort when their in the second trimester. I would think that they would get things dealt with sooner than later.

If a young teen, maybe 15+ years old gets pregnant, she has no job, has not finished school, does not support herself, the boyfriend does not want to be apart of the pregnancy or child's life, and she does not know if she can raise this child at all, is she ok to get an abortion?
Or do you think that all girls who have sex young, don't exactaly know what it takes to bring up a child, dont use protection and get themselves pregnant should be able to walk around with a baby, and are more than ready to be a parent? Because just so you know, young teens giving up a child for adoption these days is not very common, most end up keeping the child even if their partner is not supportive.

krystineM wrote:

You seemed to imply that the only sollution would be to abort if a medical problem arose later on.

Absolutely not, and I never meant to imply such. It is simply an option.

Quote :

Why would they offer abortion to cover their asses? That makes no sense.

If the mother dies from the complication, and abortion could have saved her life, and if the doctor didn't offer the abortion, then it could look like the doctor refused the patient access to or knowledge of a life-saving option.

Quote :

If a couple got pregnant, and could not afford to raise that child seeing as they cost well up to $40,000+ to raise,
and decided to abort because they want to be financially stable when they bring a child into the world, and would not want to place a child they created up for adoption, that would be their reason for abortion.

I don't think it's right to kill that child. There is financial aid for pregnancy. I can understand them not wanting to keep that child, but I can't see the justification for its death. I just can't. "We couldn't afford to raise you, so we killed you." Early term no problem, but late in pregnancy that is not a viable excuse. Why did they wait so long? If it was because they couldn't afford it early on then fine, but past 20 or so weeks it's not an option at all anyway. So we're talking between 8 and 20 weeks.

[quote]

Quote :

And, just so you dont misread what i say here, IM SURE they would not wait to abort when their in the second trimester. I would think that they would get things dealt with sooner than later.

Well I figure at this point we can discuss the time period between 8-20 weeks.

Quote :

If a young teen, maybe 15+ years old gets pregnant, she has no job, has not finished school, does not support herself, the boyfriend does not want to be apart of the pregnancy or child's life, and she does not know if she can raise this child at all, is she ok to get an abortion?

Yes. I think teen pregnancy shouldn't be this closeted secret though. It shouldn't be shameful. Obviously I don't think she should be having sex and getting pregnant at all, and almost any abortion is going to be safer for her than birth. Young maternal age is one of my exceptions where even up to 20 weeks abortion is ok. After 20 weeks if it's not obvious she's in harms way, I think she should try to carry as long as is possible and healthy before being induced, to give the child a fighting chance. This is of course dependent on the fact that she's not hiding the pregnancy out of fear. I don't think ANY pregnant woman should be afraid of being pregnant.

Quote :

Or do you think that all girls who have sex young, don't exactaly know what it takes to bring up a child, dont use protection and get themselves pregnant should be able to walk around with a baby, and are more than ready to be a parent?

Absolutely not. Children should not be making children, nor should they be raising one.

Quote :

Because just so you know, young teens giving up a child for adoption these days is not very common, most end up keeping the child even if their partner is not supportive.

I know, and I think it's a sad situation. They aren't ready to raise a child and often do a terrible job. A child of a teen is much more likely to stay lower class and give birth young herself. It's a horrible cycle.

EiriForLife wrote:

Quote :

If a woman is raped, and becomes pregnant, i HIGHLY doubt that she would wait till she is past 20 weeks to get an abortion.

I don't think she would either, BUT IF for some reason it happened, I would still support her right to abort.

Then you can't really believe the fetus is a human being at that point.

EiriForLife wrote:

Quote :

If a couple got pregnant, and could not afford to raise that child seeing as they cost well up to $40,000+ to raise,
and decided to abort because they want to be financially stable when they bring a child into the world, and would not want to place a child they created up for adoption, that would be their reason for abortion.

I don't think it's right to kill that child. There is financial aid for pregnancy.

LOL! WHAT????

Quote :

I can understand them not wanting to keep that child, but I can't see the justification for its death. I just can't. "We couldn't afford to raise you, so we killed you." Early term no problem, but late in pregnancy that is not a viable excuse. Why did they wait so long? If it was because they couldn't afford it early on then fine, but past 20 or so weeks it's not an option at all anyway. So we're talking between 8 and 20 weeks.

WHY IS EARLIER THAN 8 WEEKS DIFFERENT THAN LATER THAN 8 WEEKS?

Quote :

Quote :

Because just so you know, young teens giving up a child for adoption these days is not very common, most end up keeping the child even if their partner is not supportive.

I know, and I think it's a sad situation. They aren't ready to raise a child and often do a terrible job. A child of a teen is much more likely to stay lower class and give birth young herself. It's a horrible cycle.

I agree totally. In fact, since I've had my eyes opened by reading the ehealth teen pregnancy board, I have much less sympathy for poor people. Too many of them bring poverty on themselves, and doom their children to the same fate.

futureshock wrote:

EiriForLife wrote:

Quote :

If a woman is raped, and becomes pregnant, i HIGHLY doubt that she would wait till she is past 20 weeks to get an abortion.

I don't think she would either, BUT IF for some reason it happened, I would still support her right to abort.

Then you can't really believe the fetus is a human being at that point.

Why? I certainly do believe it is a human being and a person. But its rights do not superceede the rights of the woman. She is a person too. She has a right to not be pregnant. The unborn cannot survive on its own yet. It has SOME right to life, but because the woman was raped, that's an extenuating circumstance.

By the way on the issue of rape, I'm arguing with Galen on prolifeamerica. Apparently, every single woman she's counseled who has had an abortion after rape has regretted the abortion. She doesn't counsel solely post-rape-abortion women, she counsels rape victims in general, but I still think she's only seeing a tiny sliver of the big picture. On top of that, she's trying to justify outlawing abortion based on the opinions of less than 1% of all women who abort! Yet she has the gall to say I am the one with "blinders" on!

futureshock wrote:

EiriForLife wrote:

Quote :

If a couple got pregnant, and could not afford to raise that child seeing as they cost well up to $40,000+ to raise,
and decided to abort because they want to be financially stable when they bring a child into the world, and would not want to place a child they created up for adoption, that would be their reason for abortion.

I don't think it's right to kill that child. There is financial aid for pregnancy.

LOL! WHAT????

Which part are you confused by? I will try to explain further. I don't believe a child should be killed over financial issues.

Quote :

Quote :

I can understand them not wanting to keep that child, but I can't see the justification for its death. I just can't. "We couldn't afford to raise you, so we killed you." Early term no problem, but late in pregnancy that is not a viable excuse. Why did they wait so long? If it was because they couldn't afford it early on then fine, but past 20 or so weeks it's not an option at all anyway. So we're talking between 8 and 20 weeks.

WHY IS EARLIER THAN 8 WEEKS DIFFERENT THAN LATER THAN 8 WEEKS?

Because of the paper you posted on here discussing what is a human being and what is not. Obviously.

Once again Eiri,
if it were a medical problem that came about later on in the pregnancy, the doctor WOULD go over what actions the mother can take, and what they can do to help her without harming the child. They would most likely offer abortion as one of those options, but in the end, it is the mother's choice as to what she wants to do with her child and body. So i don't see how it would be covering their asses.
Because they lay out all the possible out comes and choices for the mother.

EiriForLife wrote:

futureshock wrote:

EiriForLife wrote:

Quote :

If a woman is raped, and becomes pregnant, i HIGHLY doubt that she would wait till she is past 20 weeks to get an abortion.

I don't think she would either, BUT IF for some reason it happened, I would still support her right to abort.

Then you can't really believe the fetus is a human being at that point.

Why? I certainly do believe it is a human being and a person. But its rights do not superceede the rights of the woman. She is a person too. She has a right to not be pregnant. The unborn cannot survive on its own yet. It has SOME right to life, but because the woman was raped, that's an extenuating circumstance.

By the way on the issue of rape, I'm arguing with Galen on prolifeamerica. Apparently, every single woman she's counseled who has had an abortion after rape has regretted the abortion. She doesn't counsel solely post-rape-abortion women, she counsels rape victims in general, but I still think she's only seeing a tiny sliver of the big picture. On top of that, she's trying to justify outlawing abortion based on the opinions of less than 1% of all women who abort! Yet she has the gall to say I am the one with "blinders" on!

She's lying to you. She doesn't get it yet that you are much more intelligent than the average yahoo she is used to preaching to.

EiriForLife wrote:

futureshock wrote:

EiriForLife wrote:

Quote :

If a couple got pregnant, and could not afford to raise that child seeing as they cost well up to $40,000+ to raise,
and decided to abort because they want to be financially stable when they bring a child into the world, and would not want to place a child they created up for adoption, that would be their reason for abortion.

I don't think it's right to kill that child. There is financial aid for pregnancy.

LOL! WHAT????

Which part are you confused by? I will try to explain further. I don't believe a child should be killed over financial issues.

Stop using the pro-life rhetoric here, it's nauseating. People aren't slitting the throats of their 3 year olds because of financial problems.

Quote :

Quote :

Quote :

I can understand them not wanting to keep that child, but I can't see the justification for its death. I just can't. "We couldn't afford to raise you, so we killed you." Early term no problem, but late in pregnancy that is not a viable excuse. Why did they wait so long? If it was because they couldn't afford it early on then fine, but past 20 or so weeks it's not an option at all anyway. So we're talking between 8 and 20 weeks.

WHY IS EARLIER THAN 8 WEEKS DIFFERENT THAN LATER THAN 8 WEEKS?

Because of the paper you posted on here discussing what is a human being and what is not. Obviously.

What paper? I showed you a source which shows exactly when, country by country, human being status is bestowed. Almost all of them said "at birth".