Here Is An Interesting Scenario

singinbeauty · Post by **singinbeauty** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 5:40 pm

Hello All!
Ok, so I came across something very interesting last night that I would like your opinion on. There are some people out there who are considered mentally unstable because of a desire they have to have certain limbs or parts of their bodies surgically removed. The parts are perfectly fine and normal. The person just feels like they don't need it, the feel it's a nuisance, or it is causing them to feel like it's hindering them in some way. It is against the law for a surgeon to perform these surgeries and they can lose their lisence for it. Is this any different then say a woman wanting to abort her baby because, with nothing being wrong with the baby, she just feels like it's going to hold her down, she doesn't need it, or it's going to be a nuisance? I mean this is a part of her and is very attached to her. Let me know what you think!

Corvus · Post by **Corvus** » Wed Nov 24, 2004 11:58 pm

No, I don't believe so. Hormones are what force us to try to produce offspring. The unique situation might cause one to panic, but since most abortions are by mothers who have already had children before, I suspect they probably know what they are doing before they do it. I also do not believe that the procedure is so instantaneously executed that the person undergoing it does not have time to reflect on their decision. I do not believe these women are delusional or that none are making reasonably informed and rational decisions. The "abortive mentality" is not a neurosis.

Amadeus · Post by **Amadeus** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 1:02 am

I have heard of many cases where the mother is beginning to have severe doubts about having an abortion, but the doctors and nurses won't let them consider it. In those same accounts, the doctors then administered more drugs to the patient so she could not make a conscious decision.

Corvus · Post by **Corvus** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 1:11 am

Amadeus wrote:I have heard of many cases where the mother is beginning to have severe doubts about having an abortion, but the doctors and nurses won't let them consider it. In those same accounts, the doctors then administered more drugs to the patient so she could not make a conscious decision.

Could you cite a source? That sort of thing is normally considered an example of medical malpractice in any country. Doctors and nurses can inform a patient's decision, but they should never be able to coerce someone into undergoing a medical procedure, especially in the case of an optional one that is not life-threatening.

Amadeus · Post by **Amadeus** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 1:32 am

The stories can be found in the articles at

http://www.abortiontv.com/

Check them out. I don't know where they get their info, but the stories are eye-opening.

BeHereNow · Post by **BeHereNow** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 9:06 am

Well Amadeus, I did 5 minutes of research at the website you recommended (which may be more time then you spent), and here is what I found.
I clicked on “True stories” and “learned”:
"In 1994, the unabashedly pro-choice Glamour magazine surveyed some 3,000 women who had undergone abortions. Overwhelmingly, respondents said that if prior to the procedure they had had any idea of how deeply they would come to regret..."

I then did a quick google search to find out that:
"When Glamour magazine asked its pro-life readers to send in their thoughts on abortion, 3,000 women responded. Many of the women reported that they were once "pro-choice," and 420 of them indicated they'd had an abortion."
Both sites were anti-choice.
Of this sampling the respondents did overwhelming say they regreted having the abortion.
Why did the "True stories" feel the need to so grossly distort the facts?

BeHereNow · Post by **BeHereNow** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 9:17 am

Please note that the "True Stories" quote identifies the respondents as representing the "pro-choice magazine", but the second quote clearly says they asked their "pro-life" (aka anti-choice) readers for opinions.
I find gross distortions to come more from one side of this debate than the other.

Jose · Post by **Jose** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 11:03 am

BeHereNow wrote:Please note that the "True Stories" quote identifies the respondents as representing the "pro-choice magazine", but the second quote clearly says they asked their "pro-life" (aka anti-choice) readers for opinions.
I find gross distortions to come more from one side of this debate than the other.

We tend to see this kind of distortion frequently, both with respect to the abortion issue and with respect to politics and evolution. I begin to worry that it reflects the notion that if you know you are Right, because God's morality is behind you, then it really doesn't matter what your methods are. We see this in a number of religions. Scientology, for example, states explicitly that it is acceptable to lie to people who are not of the faith. The same sentiment may be common, if not so explicitly stated, in other religions as well.

singinbeauty · Post by **singinbeauty** » Mon Nov 29, 2004 12:51 pm

All very good points but only one person has answered my question. I think that there is a study that should be done here. As you may have guessed I am female so I put myself in this category. I think that a woman, in the beginning stages of pregnancy, can have so much going on inside her that the hormones can play a BIG part in her decisions. Notice I said PART. A woman in a situation that might normally be scary (say she is helping a friend that got pregnant but has not husband or boyfriend and no money) but she can logically help this friend with decisions of adoption and such. Now add the hormones. Do you think that this situation can be magnified 100x's to a point where slaughtering her child seems like a logical choice?

Jose · Post by **Jose** » Mon Nov 29, 2004 3:28 pm

singinbeauty wrote:All very good points but only one person has answered my question. I think that there is a study that should be done here. As you may have guessed I am female so I put myself in this category. I think that a woman, in the beginning stages of pregnancy, can have so much going on inside her that the hormones can play a BIG part in her decisions. Notice I said PART. A woman in a situation that might normally be scary (say she is helping a friend that got pregnant but has not husband or boyfriend and no money) but she can logically help this friend with decisions of adoption and such. Now add the hormones. Do you think that this situation can be magnified 100x's to a point where slaughtering her child seems like a logical choice?

Never having been a woman, much less a pregnant one, I can speak only as an outside observer. The evidence appears to me to indicate that the hormones are not the critical players here, but that many other considerations come in. It is absolutely clear, from historical observation, that a great many women do come to a point where slaughtering their child seems like a logical choice. A significant number seem to do so even after the child is born (two were reported in our local newspaper just this last week). Post-partum depression and sleep deprivation are undoubtedly part of the problem.

Now, whether we would do the same, or whether we would seek abortion in the early weeks of pregnancy, I can't say. It is unrealistic, however, to extrapolate from what we think we might do to a claim of what is right for everyone to do.

If it helps, I recall Corvus's post from the top of page 5, which I think was particularly thoughtful:

Corvus wrote:No, I don't believe so. Hormones are what force us to try to produce offspring. The unique situation might cause one to panic, but since most abortions are by mothers who have already had children before, I suspect they probably know what they are doing before they do it. I also do not believe that the procedure is so instantaneously executed that the person undergoing it does not have time to reflect on their decision. I do not believe these women are delusional or that none are making reasonably informed and rational decisions. The "abortive mentality" is not a neurosis.

In other words, more often than not, a great deal of thought goes into it. I doubt that it's easy, or that it is done merely on a whim, or for mere convenience.

singinbeauty · Post by **singinbeauty** » Mon Nov 29, 2004 4:17 pm

In other words, more often than not, a great deal of thought goes into it. I doubt that it's easy, or that it is done merely on a whim, or for mere convenience.

I am not suggesting in any way that it is an easy decision to come to. I am merely theorizing that the hormones can magnify a situation to a woman so much that it seems like a logical choice. Just a theory though!

As for the "convenience" statement I disagree... how is abortion never about convenience?