[Politics] Abortion Failure Megathread

[tzor]

Let me try asking this another way.

So what should be the penalty for getting an illegal abortion? Moreover, what constitutes an illegal abortion? Who will determine if an abortion was legal or not? If you were going to punish the doctors for it but let the women get off scot-free, what about people who induce abortions outside of a medical facility? Are the penalties for inducing an abortion a month after conception the same as inducing once in the third trimester?

That's a complicated question. Clearly there is a penalty for procuring and being involved in a prohibited medical procedure, but that's more of a technical penalty than anything else. The rest would depend on the nature of the laws passed. Heartbeat laws come to mind here, where the laws attempt to place a significance at the moment the fetus has a viable heartbeat.

From a personal perspective, I don't think "punishment" is the means to an end (with the exception of the application of the basic standards of medical practice; those doctors running filthy germ ridden abortion clinics should be arrested and confined in the same filthy conditions as what they subject their pateints to).

[tzor]

Does this mean banning IUD's and the morning after pill?

With one exception (I'll mention that later) I'm perfectly willing to give way on the question of non implantation methods of contraception. I know that's not common in the pro-life community, but since non implantation happens all the time, the deliberate attempt at doing so seems somehow lessened especially when the person will probably never know if they did prevent an implantation by the method in the first place or not.

(The exception involves the "morning after pill." Basically playing with hormones on a massive scale appears to not be a good thing. Over use and dependency on the morning after pill could cause long term consequences.)

[PoliteNewb]

(The exception involves the "morning after pill." Basically playing with hormones on a massive scale appears to not be a good thing. Over use and dependency on the morning after pill could cause long term consequences.)

Hold up...you're in favor of banning the morning after pill, not because it kills potential babies, but because it "could cause long term consequences"? Are you for real?

Alcohol causes long term consequences. So does listening to heavy metal music at extreme volumes. So do tons of behaviors, and we leave it up to individuals to decide if those long-term consequences are a risk or not. Where does this nanny-state streak of "for your own good" come from?

For that matter...any evidence on your assertion that the morning after pill is not a good thing, and could cause these vague consequences?

[Maxus]

Alcohol causes long term consequences. So does listening to heavy metal music any music at extreme volumes. So do tons of behaviors, and we leave it up to individuals to decide if those long-term consequences are a risk or not. Where does this nanny-state streak of "for your own good" come from?

For that matter...any evidence on your assertion that the morning after pill is not a good thing, and could cause these vague consequences?

Fixed that for you.

[mean_liar]

*stuff*

Yes.

Did you know that liberals abort ten million fetuses a day? And some of the fetuses are shoved back in the woman so they can be aborted again?

Yes again. Hi Count! Stay awesome!

To be absolutely fair, I do know pro-lifers who are some combination of vegan, anti-death penalty, anti-torture, pro-universal health care, anti-war, etc..

Hi!

[tzor]

(The exception involves the "morning after pill." Basically playing with hormones on a massive scale appears to not be a good thing. Over use and dependency on the morning after pill could cause long term consequences.)

Hold up...you're in favor of banning the morning after pill, not because it kills potential babies, but because it "could cause long term consequences"? Are you for real?

No, you need to hold up. I never said I'm in favor of banning. That's a medical decision here and I don't know all the facts. I do know even the suporters stress that is is "emergency" meaning "exception." (And of course the normal state "don't take if you are pregnant" so if you are late, you are twice screwed.) Here is a page that talks up the bad effects of the pill.

The 'morning-after' pill causes an increase in the incidence of ectopic pregnancies (lodgment of the human embryo in the Fallopian tube rather than in the womb.)

[Sheffer-Mimouni G, Pauzer D, Maslovitch S et al. Ectopic pregnancies following levonorgestrel contraception. Contraception. 2003;67:267-269]

The common side-effects of the 'morning-after pill' (nausea and abdominal pain) are also the symptoms of an ectopic pregnancy and could therefore mask the presence of this potentially life-threatening condition.

The 'morning-after' pill can also have serious interactions with prescribed medications. The British Medical Journal has reported that the 'morning-after' pill can interfere with warfarin medications.

[Ellison J, Thomson AJ, Greer IA. Apparent interaction between warfarin and levonorgestrel used for emergency contraception. BMJ. 2000;321:1382 and Richards D. An Important drug interaction - an alternate mechanism. BMJ Rapid responses. 22 December 2000]

There is concern that the very high dose of hormone taken in the 'morning-after' pill might 'kick-start' cervical cancer if a woman is already infected with human papilloma virus.

[Chen Y-H, Huang L-H, Chen T-M. Differential effects of progestins and estrogens on long control regions of human papillomavirus types 16 and 18.]
Even the notorious abortion promoter, David A Grimes, MD, who was a presenter for Plan B's manufacturer before the FDA advisory committee in December 2003, acknowledged in a 2002 interview that emergency contraception has a serious negative effect on a woman's menstrual cycle:

"Repeated use of EC wreaks havoc on a woman's cycle, so the resulting menstrual chaos acts as a powerful deterrent to using this method too often."
In fact, the menstrual chaos Grimes warns about does not deter women from repeated and routine use of MAP, as studies have shown. But MAP-induced menstrual irregularities do make it hard for women to determine whether or not they are pregnant or experiencing delayed menses.

The question is not banning, but regulation. Sometimes risks are necessary, sometimes not.

[PoliteNewb]

All right, replace "ban" with "regulate". But while I'm not against some minor regulation of the morning-after pill (like the way we regulate cars), I am against major regulation (like the way we often regulate firearms).

Unless you can show me that the risks of repeated use of the morning after pill are worse than the risks involved in drinking a fifth of Jack Daniels every morning, there is no reason we should require a doctor's involvement. People have the right in this country, assuming they are 21 and don't hurt anyone, to be extreme alcoholics and give themselves cirrhosis and various other problems. We don't require a prescription to buy booze, even though the risks can be severe. And booze doesn't even have a valid medical use (aside from mild painkiller and depressant, maybe). When people have better access to mind-altering and body-poisoning drugs (like alcohol) than they do to what basically amounts to retroactive contraception, your priorities are fucked up.

You want to regulate, show me the risk. And I'm talking data, numbers. That link you provided did not give a single data point on how risky is to use the morning after pill. It proved absolutely nothing.

Sometimes risks are necessary, sometimes not.

Because it bears repeating, this is bullshit. Whether or not a risk is valid should be determined by the person who is bearing the consequences of that risk. If the only risk is to YOURSELF, whether or not you take it is nobody else's business.

Is it your job to determine what risks are "necessary" for other people? Better go start talking to bungee jumpers, mixed martial artists, and the people on Jackass.

[CatharzGodfoot]

And booze doesn't even have a valid medical use (aside from mild painkiller and depressant, maybe).

It's a blood thinner and can be used to treat a few small classes of poison (e.g. methanol).

[Maj]

Sort of a random tangent on birth control (and the current [somewhat incorrect] notions of what's biologically appropriate for women's menstruation)... Did you know one of the guys who invented the birth control pill did it because he was Catholic and thought it would become a church-approved contraceptive?

Source: John Rock's Error, by Malcolm Gladwell {OK, Interesting, Science, White}

[tzor]

All right, replace "ban" with "regulate". But while I'm not against some minor regulation of the morning-after pill (like the way we regulate cars), I am against major regulation (like the way we often regulate firearms).

Unless you can show me that the risks of repeated use of the morning after pill are worse than the risks involved in drinking a fifth of Jack Daniels every morning, there is no reason we should require a doctor's involvement.

First of all, I don't think I mentioned a "doctor's involvement." You just did. I didn't mention the level of regulation. I do think your medical risk assessment (comparing it to a daily fifth of Jack ... I prefer a fifth of Beethoven myself) is ... Classic Gaming Den. (You get a cookie.)

Regulation could be as simple as appropriate warning and usage labels.

P.S. You know, people like you are the reason why I am so opposed to paying for "public" health care. A fifth of Jack Daniels every morning and I expect you want me to pay for the liver transplant?

Because it bears repeating, this is bullshit. Whether or not a risk is valid should be determined by the person who is bearing the consequences of that risk. If the only risk is to YOURSELF, whether or not you take it is nobody else's business.

Spoken like a true ... er ... libertarian. Glenn Beck would be proud. I think.

[Maj]

P.S. You know, people like you are the reason why I am so opposed to paying for "public" health care. A fifth of Jack Daniels every morning and I expect you want me to pay for the liver transplant?

I don't know exactly how the organ transplant thing works, but I'm fairly sure that if you are a substance abuser (alcohol included) {OK, Liver Transplants, Medicine}, you do not qualify for a transplant.

[PhoneLobster]

Heartbeat laws come to mind here, where the laws attempt to place a significance at the moment the fetus has a viable heartbeat.

Lets ammend the kick ass strawman then.

All women must now from a very early age have a heart beat detection device locked permanently onto their body. This device can detect the tiniest heartbeat and is connected to what amounts to a mobile phone and a GPS tracker. It communicates directly to the church state central pregnancy control center to ensure 100% heartbeat law enforcement as this is of course the only fucking way to make bullshit heartbeat law mean dick.

Meanwhile if your heart stops for even a moment you are fucking dead and no one is required to attempt to keep you alive or revive you using any of the many means that have been known to medical science for ages now. This is because your soul lives inside your heart and without it you are a souless monster frankenstein. Similarly pacemakers, and worse soul stealing heart transplants and other "heart beat augmentation" technology are banned as abominations against the very defining trait of all human existence.

From a personal perspective, I don't think "punishment" is the means to an end ...I never said I'm in favor of banning. That's a medical decision here and I don't know all the facts...

Oh...

Er...

Right...

So then that actually means you do not in fact want to make abortion illegal at all. You see for something to actually BE illegal, even restricted or regulated there kinda MUST be a "punishment" of some form for breaking the rules...

If you are leaving it as a medical decision for the people who know the facts. THAT IS THE CURRENT REGIME YOU ARE FIGHTING AGAINST YOU STUPID FUCKER.

[PoliteNewb]

First of all, I don't think I mentioned a "doctor's involvement." You just did. I didn't mention the level of regulation.

Ok, I'll retract. When you said "that's a medical decision", I misread that to mean "a decision for medical professionals".

Regulation could be as simple as appropriate warning and usage labels.

I have no problem with that...but then, I don't really consider that regulation, considering it's the default status for just about any product sold in the USA.

P.S. You know, people like you are the reason why I am so opposed to paying for "public" health care. A fifth of Jack Daniels every morning and I expect you want me to pay for the liver transplant?

People like me? I don't even drink anymore (haven't since 2000), and I don't necessarily support "public" health care. Strawman again?

My point was, as it stands right now, it is perfectly legal and practically unregulated (must be 18) to drink at levels that will provide serious consequences. And our society (not me personally) accepts that as a reasonable state of affairs, since I don't see a lot of lobbying for heavier restrictions on alcohol (instead, I see a bunch of Dos Equis ads).

Because it bears repeating, this is bullshit. Whether or not a risk is valid should be determined by the person who is bearing the consequences of that risk. If the only risk is to YOURSELF, whether or not you take it is nobody else's business.

Spoken like a true ... er ... libertarian. Glenn Beck would be proud. I think.

I am a libertarian. Fuck Glenn Beck, and fuck you.

[Psychic Robot]

women who have needless abortions should be sentenced to receive three lashes and community service. doctors who perform needless abortions should be sentenced to receive seven lashes and heavily fined. feminists advocating abortions should be sentenced to work in deep siberian day care centers

[K]

People should remember that Tzor's litany of "dangers" to contraception and abortion is actually just a list of scare tactics you use when you peer pressure ignorant 16-year-olds who are otherwise scared out of their minds and haven't actually reached a medical professional.

You should be unsurprised that there is no data to support any of it.

[wotmaniac]

The argument I'm familiar with is that once conceived, a child is considered to be brought into this world, and taking them out of it is thus morally wrong.

The idea that personhood begins at genetic completeness is not only a bad understanding of basic biology (otherwise I killed hundreds of thousands of pwecious babies when I jerked off to the Newsweek magazine this morning) but also religious bigotry.

Fail.
what you left on the towel that's standing in the corner is only half the genetic equation.
by definition, half is not complete.
and could you possibly explain the whole religious bigotry part? as it stands, I'm seeing a bit of a non sequitur there.

living human being = human DNA + heartbeat (seems fairly straight forward to me)

So, how does this work for people who recently suffered a heart attack (or whatever) and CPR? Or do you mean that distinction only pertains to those inside the womb?

strawman.
the default assumption (legally; medical ethics; etc.) is that if the life can be saved, then it will be. the usual exception is in the case of a DNR -- which isn't really applicable in this situation.

oh, and for a tangential side-note: Planned Parenthood was started by a eugenicist, who explicitly started the organization to try to get rid of poor/minorities. just some food for thought.

So the fuck what? America was founded by slave-raping slave rapers. Take your genetic fallacy elsewhere.

who's spouting the fallacies? I count at least 3 in your post.
besides, why are you lashing out so hard against an inconsequential side tangent? really?

Romania outlawed abortions and created one of the most horrific systems of orphanages in the world to handle the flood of unwanted children

Romania? Really? Fucking Romania?
Hows about we look at what is actually happening in the U.S. on the orphan front .....
While, yes, the foster care system is overcrowded and the kids that emerge from it are pretty much set up for failure; this broad brush simply doesn't show what is going on in the micro.
There are huge waiting lists for infant/newborn adoption. That's right, there are more people waiting to adopt newborns than there are newborns being given up for adoption. it's only as the kid ages that their chance for proper/successful adoption starts to plummet. If the kid is given up at/shortly-after birth, then it will get adopted; and statistically speaking, these adoptions are hugely and overwhelmingly successful.
Oh, and these adopting parents actually have to demonstrate their fitness as parents, as well as having to be pretty well off financially.

Sorry if that offends you.

Oh, I'm not offended. (for the record, I'm a devout agnostic)
I just have a minor quibble with the nuances and implications of your specific verbiage. It's no big deal, really.
However ....

I'll nit pick here because I find the study of wackjobs fascinating. Your argument actually supports a Theist Wackjob as opposed to a specific type of Theist. If he used specific Christian arguments in his case then could apply the Christian label. he probably did, but that's not your argument.

In general any X Wackjob probably fucks up any association with X because being a wackjob he doesn't understand X from shit.

I could probably expound upon this; but I'll let it stand on its own (at least for now).

I have no problem with someone to choose an abortion up into the 2nd trimester. Once the baby is old enough that there is a real chance of survival outside the womb, then I have more of an issue with it, except for valid health reasons (Which exist)

Personally, I'd never want an abortion, and it would be a deal breaker for me in a relationship. But that's ME.. that doesn't mean I get to make that choice for other people.

I'm in basic agreement with you on this.
The only problem with the "viability outside the womb" approach is that it definitionally establishes a moving target. furthermore, there are multiple variables that cause that target to move, and they each move that target arbitrarily.
I have a problem with arbitrary, moving targets -- especially when it involves legally defined targets.

A fetus has no rights, save those conveyed to it by it's mother.

says who? and why? this is the crux of the issue for many.
If I kill a pregnant woman, I go down for 2 homicides ..... even if I didn't know she was pregnant, and even if the fetus is only a week old and she's on her way to the abortion clinic.
if a pregnant woman participates in "high risk" activity, she can be charged with endangering her unborn child. but yet she can simply have it sucked out of her, and nobody is supposed to bat an eye.
which goes back to my point on legal definitions. yet another example of major inconsistency in the law. and hypocrisy in action.

besides which, from a strict constructionist standpoint, Roe v. Wade has zero constitutional basis.

I would rather have someone abort the next Albert Enstein, then force some woman to have a baby she doesn't want (for what ever reason).

I find this to be short-sighted, and, well, idiotic. (I'll get to the details in just a minute)

Most women don't even KNOW they are pregnant by day 35.

This finally brings me around to the larger issue at hand -- personal responsibility.
there has been an alarmingly increasing trend over the last 50+ years that says that people shouldn't have to be responsible for their actions/decisions. We are constantly barraged with the idea that we don't have to take responsibility for anything, and that nothing is our fault; that we can be as irresponsible as we want with impunity. We're all to ready to push our kids in to adulthood without fully preparing them for it. We've now become permissive to the point of saying that "well, I did it when I was a kid, so it'd be wrong for me to not let my kid do it" -- BULLSHIT ... a principled person says "it was a bad idea when I did it, and it's a bad idea for my kid" (at this point I'm talking way outside the narrow scope of this discussion). Getting an abortion isn't being responsible (the thought being that the kid would have most likely had a disadvantaged life) -- it is a direct abdication of responsibility. I am so sick and tired of the bullshit of "oh, well, we don't want to punish someone for .... " -- nobody's punishing anybody; THEY DID IT TO THEM-FUCKING-SELVES. This concept that we shouldn't have to take responsibility for ourselves erodes the fabric of society, and it makes me want to puke.
Biologically, fucking is for procreation; evolutionarily, those who get pleasure from fucking are more likely to procreate than those who derive no pleasure -- ergo, the pleasure response is simply nature's way of ensuring the continuation of the species. nothing more; nothing less.
A person chooses to fuck. at the point that choice is made, that individual assumes all that comes with that. contraceptives fail, or are forgotten; shit happens. As such, said individuals have the moral and ethical obligations to be fully on top of their shit. if the goal is to not get pregnant, then simply taking a pill or slapping on a raincoat simply doesn't cut it. Before the pants come off, said individuals should have already made-up their mind on what they are gonna do in the event of contraceptive failure. regular pregnancy tests are in order (# proportional to frequency of sexual activity) -- they're cheap (potentially free) and reliable, so there is no reason for not doing it, other than simply being a sorry-ass.
AFAIC, the inconvenience of pregnancy and pain of child birth is a wholly appropriate consequence of the irresponsible behavior that caused it. Don't want to deal with the hassle of raising the would-be welfare baby? don't worry, there's a waiting list of responsible, altruistic, and beneficent couples (many of whom can't conceive themselves) who are ready, willing, and able to take that night of indiscretion off your hands and raise that next Einstein.




Oh, and for those interested, according to this, the largest age demographic that has abortions is the 20-24 age group (I only mention it because I saw the age issue rise a couple of times). not sure what to make of it, but there it is. (I have my own ideas, but such are pure speculation) (also, I'm not really concerned with the change rates -- this was just the first graph that I could find that had clear, concise #'s for age demos)

[Psychic Robot]

The idea that personhood begins at genetic completeness is not only a bad understanding of basic biology (otherwise I killed hundreds of thousands of pwecious babies when I jerked off to the Newsweek magazine this morning) but also religious bigotry.

Romania outlawed abortions and created one of the most horrific systems of orphanages in the world to handle the flood of unwanted children

A fetus has no rights, save those conveyed to it by it's mother.

see this is why we needed a thread to serve as a catch-all for abortion idiocy

[Count Arioch the 28th]

I would be okay with the adoption option if the person adopting the infant would be required to pay all of the mother's medical bills for prenatal care and delivery in full. I know several women that had abortions simply because the cost of being born is astronomical, and the state I live in was "Tea Party" decades before the public relations campaign that coined the phrase, so charity simply does not exist.

Roughly half of my close friends were orphans that were never adopted, so my honest opinions is that any parent that's willing to adopt a baby but not a child should be kicked square in the nuts, but I am aware what's good for me is usually bad for the country at large.

[Psychic Robot]

actually count raises a good point

tzor are you willing to raise taxes on the wealthy to fund welfare for the women who would normally have abortions due to economic conditions?

[K]

A person chooses to fuck.

I was going to post about adoption rates to show you that black children in the US don't get adopted and take up 35%-42% of newborns in foster care, but then I saw this gem.

What the fuck are you talking about? Have you even looked at rape statistics or even imagine how many rapes go unreported because the women have no significant legal protections? According to the US Justice department, 1/6 women in the US has been raped meaning that if you walked into a crowded movie theater you'd be sitting near 20-30 rape victims.

Can you even imagine the number of women who are currently being exploited, abused, and otherwise taken advantage of? Can you imagine how many women are currently in a sexual relationship because they are afraid to leave because they are being physically abused and they are afraid for their lives?

Sorry, you just failed the basic empathy test and Deckard must hunt you down you fucking android.

[Psychic Robot]

lol

~80% of women who become pregnant due to rape choose to keep the baby

~1% of abortion cases are due to rape

google your own damn statistics

[wotmaniac]

@K
what are you talking about? Nobody on this thread is talking about rape victims. That was always a provision everywhere before Roe v. Wade. Hell, the whole premise for that case was that Mrs. "Roe" was gonna cry rape so that she could get the legal abortion.

Thanks for the strawman, doucetard.
Oh, and thank Psychic Robot for the stat check.

[Koumei]

see this is why we needed a thread to serve as a catch-all for abortion idiocy

We still wouldn't "need" this thread if you'd just ragequit again but this time, not come back. Spouting your shit here, no matter whether you actually think you're right rather than trolling, is just as stupid as going to a "The Earth is Flat" forum and telling them how wrong they are: it's only pissing people off.

Seriously, you won't be missed. The closest thing to "value" you've contributed to the Den has been some insults.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

actually count raises a good point

tzor are you willing to raise taxes on the wealthy to fund welfare for the women who would normally have abortions due to economic conditions?

He has openly proclaimed that Reagan's decision specifically to raise taxes on us to fund the tax cuts on himself makes him a great president. He's not above stealing money right out of our pockets like a goddamn thief, I don't think he actually gives two shits.

[DSMatticus]

I don't get this.

If a fetus is a person and has rights of personhood, abortion is always wrong. The fetus didn't do the 'rape,' so terminating it for what its father did is archaic and horrible. You are trading the life of a 'person' for emotional comfort of the mother, and that's barbaric and horrible. You don't get to kill other people to make yourself feel better about life, that's something society is pretty firm on.

If you are okay with abortion in the case of rape, you are saying fetuses are less than people. You are saying, "I'd like to avoid killing fetuses, but I understand killing them can make the life of actual, living people better, and they aren't really people, so it's okay." At which point, I'd like to point out that abortions are most commonly had by young women in the midst of getting their life together, getting an education started, getting a career started, and the abortion is going to make their life better to in tangible, measurable ways.

The only actual, valid justification for a stance of "rape-abortion okay, not-rape-abortion bad," is to say, "carrying the fetus is punishment for your choice." That choosing to have sex is somehow inherently bad, and the consequences of having sex should be allowed to negatively impact your life and you should have no recourse to 'improve your life' because you chose to have sex and that's bad. And you can hold that position, but it hinges on the presupposition that sex is bad, and that's a moral judgment I find laughable and certainly don't share with you; stop trying to legislate it.

And if your position is that rape-abortion is bad, you are just a horrible person to begin with, and it should be obvious why. The rape abortion case should not be an exception to dance around, it should be an illuminating point of why fetuses are not actually people. It's the case that makes you realize, "wow, yeah, mother rights tramp the fetus's rights." Trying to define fetuses as "half-people" with "half-rights" is not a solution.