Reducing the number of abortions

To solve world problems

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
mrmufin
Scholar
Posts: 403
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 4:58 pm
Location: 18042

Reducing the number of abortions

Post #1

Post by mrmufin »

Otseng has mentioned this topic a few times, and I think it's worthy of discussion:

How can the number of abortions be lowered?

Remember, folks: this forum is for discussion toward a common objective, not for debate on the issue of abortion...

Regards,
mrmufin
Historically, bad science has been corrected by better science, not economists, clergy, or corporate interference.

User avatar
AClockWorkOrange
Scholar
Posts: 251
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2006 10:07 pm
Location: Alaska

Post #71

Post by AClockWorkOrange »

AClockWorkOrange.
Emotional manipulate? Now that is something that is different. I suggest you do not watch any television ads. And ads at all for that matter. Put blinders on when going out in public. Etc. Emotional manipulation has to be the thing most people deal with hundreds of times a day. Surely we can not use it to help saved people from aborting their children.
just becuase something is practiced does not mean it is right.
i did not argue that emotional manipulation wasnt panoramic, i simply said it was a little evil. Give your opinion, and hope they listen. Dont force it. No pne like a beligerant jerk.

I did not think the issue here was overpopulation. But to deal with one thing, To reduce the number of Abortions. We are not going to put the whole world on hold and just deal with reducing Abortions, all the other things in this world have to be dealt with also.
well that is my point. i do not think procreation is very good right now becuase the world is overpopulated. I am not saying im pro abortion, becuase i am neutral in my feelings for infants. I am saying that people have the right to make a level decision on a level field.
The Focus is reduced Abortions, And you do not seem to care about reducing them at all.

i sure dont, it is called an opinion. I can say i disagree with a premise, its a big part of finding solutions to anything.
So when heads are put together to deal with this, What is your head doing here? The name of this thread is not “Come see what smart remarks AclockWorkOrange can make.”
Coming to a correct conclusion does not mean we have to agree on something.
You say that we need to reduce abortions, and i say you dont.
I can have an opinion on a discussion board.

If any were to walk into a nursery and kill a Baby laying there, The World would scream (you excluded). But doing that five minutes earlier seems to be alright and a woman’s right.
This position is fairly reactionary. Most pro choice advocates prefer to kill the fetus before it is fully formed or has much of a nervous system becuase they are more like a growth than a person at that point. Not "five minutes before it was born" as you so emotionally put it. So, alls you have alienated was me. I think that as long as that umbilical chord is attached, it is a part of the mom, and she can do with it what she wishes. I am indeed an intense minority.
Regardless of that issue, a person has to live with what they do. And allowing your own child to be put to death is not something that will not be remembered. But it is something that you can not go back and change.
allright? im pretty sure most things you do are exactly like that...
Almost everyone has little events they wish they could go back and change. Some very irrelevant. But they seem to never stop bothering a person. They just wish they had never done it. What would you want someone to go through life with a burden of guilt like that which will be quite a burden for a lot of women.
and they have to deal with that. you have to deal with your actions. trying to protect people from regret by sacrificing their civil liberties is fascism. nuts to that, i like freedom.



If they were to get a pet and not a kid, They would find out they have a pet which is not a young Goat. What has this to do with Children?
my point was having a kid to fullfill emotional need is terrible, and instead they should get a pet if they are lonely. Child reering is ENTIRELY SELFLESS and if there are any selfish reasons behind it, then they need to stop and get a dog or a cat or a fish. Goats are difficult.

As far as Brainwashing, A lot of people need a good brainwashing.
ew. Thank god for my bill of rights.
For their minds and thoughts are useless to themselves and others around them. For responsibility does not dwell in such brains, all that is there is “Me, Me, Me.”


for sure. people can be selfish. i suggest you read "1984" or "Atlas Bergeron" or "Anthem" to see where your philosophy ends.
Depletion of resources? I hope that does not mean you have to live with less? Keyword was “Live.” which was not their option.
my point was that as our population grows exponentially, eventualyl we will starve and die horribly.
“Nice!, Mean, Vindictive, AND flipant!” No problem, You see, Such Attributes come with being alive. They do not call aborted Children those names. We really do not know what they would grow up to be called, Do we?
This sounds like something off of South Park. Like when one of the adults goes on a bizzarr diatribe that convolutes at the end...Actually, if your were not serious, this is funny.


When you live in Alaska, you need to keep your head covered, Frostbite you know!
im cozy, dont worry.

A Baby can be “CURED” with a pill? Is that what you call a cure for a Baby? And you use words like Mean and Vindictive to others?
Trust me, it is a cure. I think that Abortion Clinics should be re-labled "Life Un-Ruiners".

You might not know it but there are a lot of loving people at Child Services who really try to help these children live a decent life. Have the things they need, See they are cared for. Many of them just see a Baby, Not how they go to be on earth.
Good. I've got no problems with babies put up for adoption.
I did not get into any legality. Nor right or wrong. But more of the harm done to the woman who goes through it. Killing the earthly life of the Child does not end the life of the Child, They are with God, and well taken care of. Heaven may well be like Hong Kong, Lots of babies running around.
A little creepy here.

As far as Biological Property? That might be the reason God gives them back when the Mother arrives there. And just a side note. Any miscarriages are also there waiting, from the moment of conception, a child lives. If they die that day, Momma does not know someone is waiting for her.
creepy again.

plus, ive been curious, where does it talk about dead babies waiting in heaven? Im not discrediting it, im just curious where it is at.
One Woman asked me if she should have an abortion, I told here that was a choice she would have to make herself, But what ever the choice was. Only the earthly life can be aborted, and that if she did abort the Child, God would give her the Child back for the same reason He gave it to her in the First place, Because He loves her.
or becuase the condom broke.

love has curious forms...
And I know Christianity’s values has lead to a lot of Hidden pregnancies which lead to abortions to avoid what they felt would be the shame. Although Christianity has not owned up to this.
sure has'nt.

Ken


PS
There is Scripture to support a Unicorn. There is not Scripture to support a Unicorn being a horse with a horn in the center of their forehead, Is there? The object is not to know what is written in the Bible, But what it means.
well, pray tell. What does the Unicorn mean?

Oh, and there is danger here:

How can something that is absolutly true be interprited?
If it is not universly understandable, how can anyone trust earthly interpritations?
Why bother if you are logically unable to comprehend it?

If something is interpritable, that means it is not difinitive.
The Christian resolution to find the world ugly and bad has made the
world ugly and bad.


Friedrich Nietzsche

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 18574
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 146 times
Been thanked: 212 times
Contact:

Post #72

Post by otseng »

As a reminder, this topic is not meant for debating, but for problem solving. The focus should be on reaching a solution, not debating differences. Thanks.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 18574
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 146 times
Been thanked: 212 times
Contact:

Post #73

Post by otseng »

Moderator note:

I deleted several posts between AClockWorkOrange and ken1burton. If you two would like to continue debating about abortion, either start a debate thread or use PM.

Nick_A
Sage
Posts: 504
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 9:49 am

Post #74

Post by Nick_A »

How can the number of abortions be lowered?
Abortions of convenience are just a symptom of the loss of what should be our normal respect for life and the life processes.

Abortion is just a place along the line that begins at conception and has the potential to continue on through birth, maturity and finally death. The fact that abortions of convenience seem fine only indicates a lack of understanding, respect for, and the value of life.

So if people really want to put their heads together as easily as their genitals, the question becomes how to discover or rediscover the respect for life which would honor the whole process beginning at conception and ending with death. Such nrespect would lower abortions virtually by definition.

With secular egotism as influential as it has become, I don't know if this self importance it has generated could ever allow the majority to willingly acquire a perspective that does not glorify self importance. But its worth a shot IMO.

Beto

Post #75

Post by Beto »

I know I'm being lazy, but has the use of the next-day pill been considered "abortion", in the thread?

User avatar
Intrepidman
Scholar
Posts: 423
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 12:45 am

Post #76

Post by Intrepidman »

Beto wrote:I know I'm being lazy, but has the use of the next-day pill been considered "abortion", in the thread?
Although scientists aren't completely sure how it works, they believe that levonorgestrel prevents pregnancy either by

1) stopping the ovulation process or by
2) disrupting the ability of sperm and egg to meet in the fallopian tubes.
3) Some speculate that the drug may prevent the fertilized egg from implanting as well, perhaps by making the uterine lining less receptive to the egg.

1 & 2 are definitely not abortion IMHO.

3) would be an interesting debate.

User avatar
catalyst
Site Supporter
Posts: 1775
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 6:45 pm
Location: Australia

Post #77

Post by catalyst »

Intrepidman wrote:
Beto wrote:I know I'm being lazy, but has the use of the next-day pill been considered "abortion", in the thread?
Although scientists aren't completely sure how it works, they believe that levonorgestrel prevents pregnancy either by

1) stopping the ovulation process or by
2) disrupting the ability of sperm and egg to meet in the fallopian tubes.
3) Some speculate that the drug may prevent the fertilized egg from implanting as well, perhaps by making the uterine lining less receptive to the egg.

1 & 2 are definitely not abortion IMHO.

3) would be an interesting debate.
It works much the same as 'The Pill", but the levels of the hormones in the M-A Pill are higher. Some morning-after pills contain only one hormone, levonorgestrel, and others contain two, progestin and estrogen. Progestin prevents the sperm from reaching the egg and keeps a fertilised egg from attaching to the wall of the uterus (implantation). Estrogen stops the ovaries from releasing eggs (ovulation) that can be fertilised by sperm.

Morning-after pills aren't the same as mifepristone (Mifeprex), the so-called abortion pill.

-----------------------

There is something that needs to be clarified here as well.

Voluntary medically assisted termination (over spontaneous abortion) of a pregnancy, I am assuming, is what is being discussed here and how to avoid it?

It should be realised that even a miscarriage (spontaneous) is abortion. Even when a woman or girl has a miscarriage, if the miscarriage happens any time from weeks 6- 8 into the pregnancy, a VOLUNTARY D&C is performed on the woman/girl, which is the exact same procedure as medically assisted termination.
On the medical records of the female in question, it is written as ABORTION even at miscarriage stage. Even removal of an eptopic pregnancy is listed as abortion. The voluntary "bit" means only that the patient signed off to have the NECESSARY post miscarriage/eptopic pregnancy procedure done.

So to assume that these may be the reasons:

otseng wrote:
I was also trying to think of some root issues of why people have abortions. Why are there unwanted pregnancies? Seems like there are several situations where a pregnancy would be unwanted:
- Partners are not married
- Partners are not "ready" for children
- Partners cannot support the child
- Partners do not want more children
Is not necessarily the case.

MANY a termination procedure and I would say the majority, are due to necessity, over desire. The pregnancies MAY have been wanted even in all or any the above circumstances.

I will check around to see if I can see any statistical research has been done on the numbers of UNWANTED pregnancy and subsequent termination ONLY and check out their numbers, vs the number of "voluntary" abortions performed.

I reckon only then it can be determined which way to go as to suggestions as to curbing the issue.

^---- What do you think Osteng? Is it viable given the POHT topic?

It really does have to be realised that many a girl or woman going to a clinic to have a D&C done, is not necessarily a "baby killer" and could well be grieving the loss of her WANTED child.

I did mention all of the above because as I read through the thread it was apparent that the majority of contributors to this discussion, are men. I was not sure if any or all were aware of this.

User avatar
Intrepidman
Scholar
Posts: 423
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 12:45 am

Post #78

Post by Intrepidman »

catalyst wrote:
Intrepidman wrote:
Beto wrote:I know I'm being lazy, but has the use of the next-day pill been considered "abortion", in the thread?
Although scientists aren't completely sure how it works, they believe that levonorgestrel prevents pregnancy either by

1) stopping the ovulation process or by
2) disrupting the ability of sperm and egg to meet in the fallopian tubes.
3) Some speculate that the drug may prevent the fertilized egg from implanting as well, perhaps by making the uterine lining less receptive to the egg.

1 & 2 are definitely not abortion IMHO.

3) would be an interesting debate.
It works much the same as 'The Pill", but the levels of the hormones in the M-A Pill are higher. Some morning-after pills contain only one hormone, levonorgestrel, and others contain two, progestin and estrogen. Progestin prevents the sperm from reaching the egg and keeps a fertilised egg from attaching to the wall of the uterus (implantation). Estrogen stops the ovaries from releasing eggs (ovulation) that can be fertilised by sperm.

Morning-after pills aren't the same as mifepristone (Mifeprex), the so-called abortion pill.

-----------------------

There is something that needs to be clarified here as well.

Voluntary medically assisted termination (over spontaneous abortion) of a pregnancy, I am assuming, is what is being discussed here and how to avoid it?

It should be realised that even a miscarriage (spontaneous) is abortion. Even when a woman or girl has a miscarriage, if the miscarriage happens any time from weeks 6- 8 into the pregnancy, a VOLUNTARY D&C is performed on the woman/girl, which is the exact same procedure as medically assisted termination.
On the medical records of the female in question, it is written as ABORTION even at miscarriage stage. Even removal of an eptopic pregnancy is listed as abortion. The voluntary "bit" means only that the patient signed off to have the NECESSARY post miscarriage/eptopic pregnancy procedure done.

So to assume that these may be the reasons:

otseng wrote:
I was also trying to think of some root issues of why people have abortions. Why are there unwanted pregnancies? Seems like there are several situations where a pregnancy would be unwanted:
- Partners are not married
- Partners are not "ready" for children
- Partners cannot support the child
- Partners do not want more children
Is not necessarily the case.

MANY a termination procedure and I would say the majority, are due to necessity, over desire. The pregnancies MAY have been wanted even in all or any the above circumstances.

I will check around to see if I can see any statistical research has been done on the numbers of UNWANTED pregnancy and subsequent termination ONLY and check out their numbers, vs the number of "voluntary" abortions performed.

I reckon only then it can be determined which way to go as to suggestions as to curbing the issue.

^---- What do you think Osteng? Is it viable given the POHT topic?

It really does have to be realised that many a girl or woman going to a clinic to have a D&C done, is not necessarily a "baby killer" and could well be grieving the loss of her WANTED child.

I did mention all of the above because as I read through the thread it was apparent that the majority of contributors to this discussion, are men. I was not sure if any or all were aware of this.
Maybe it's a problem with a poorly worded OP? What does the OP mean by 'abortion'? My guess is terminating a healthy pregnancy voluntarily because the female (I use the word 'female' because can we consider a 12 year old a 'woman'?) did not want to be pregnant any more.

IMHO, God does not consider the female a murderer for having an ectopic pregnancy terminated. The baby is not going to come to term anyway, and it could kill the mother. Something has gone horribly, horribly wrong. Life is not perfect and clean, and sometimes people have to make impossible decisions.

This is not the same as a supermodel who doesn't want to lose her figure.

User avatar
catalyst
Site Supporter
Posts: 1775
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 6:45 pm
Location: Australia

Post #79

Post by catalyst »

IM wrote:
Maybe it's a problem with a poorly worded OP? What does the OP mean by 'abortion'? My guess is terminating a healthy pregnancy voluntarily because the female (I use the word 'female' because can we consider a 12 year old a 'woman'?) did not want to be pregnant any more.
But too rape could result in a "healthy" pregnancy, but in that case I could not blame the rape victim for wanting to terminate the pregnancy. Certainly it is unwanted, but so was the violation of her body in the first place to cause the pregnancy.
IMHO, God does not consider the female a murderer for having an ectopic pregnancy terminated. The baby is not going to come to term anyway, and it could kill the mother. Something has gone horribly, horribly wrong. Life is not perfect and clean, and sometimes people have to make impossible decisions.
I am glad you have that opinion IM, but many a placcard-holding pro-lifer standing outside FP clinics, calling the exiting females "baby-killers", do not know the circumstances behind the termination. The assumption is, they made a gleeful choice to kill their baby.
This is not the same as a supermodel who doesn't want to lose her figure.
Many a supermodel have babies they have given birth to. Elle MacPherson, Heidi Klum, Cindy Crawford..Yasmin Le Bon..etc..just a few examples. So perhaps the other "supermodels" who may have had voluntary terminations, it too may have been a case of miscarriage or eptopic pregnancy over vanity.

We don't know. We just know that the "abortion numbers" are put out there, not taking the variables as to reasons into account.

User avatar
Intrepidman
Scholar
Posts: 423
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 12:45 am

Post #80

Post by Intrepidman »

catalyst wrote: But too rape could result in a "healthy" pregnancy, but in that case I could not blame the rape victim for wanting to terminate the pregnancy. Certainly it is unwanted, but so was the violation of her body in the first place to cause the pregnancy....
That is a really tough one. The 'morning-after' remedies would be a good choice. I'm guessing there are things that can be done the next day or 2 to make certain that the victim is not pregnant.

I hate to sound like a heartless hard-a$$, but if a victim has been raped the first things I would think that would come to mind would be 'what I get a disease? What if I get pregnant?'. If they wait until the baby has a heartbeat things get really nasty indeed. Then we have to try to figure out just why is the baby different from a person in a coma on life support?
catalyst wrote:Many a supermodel have babies they have given birth to. Elle MacPherson, Heidi Klum, Cindy Crawford..Yasmin Le Bon..etc..just a few examples. So perhaps the other "supermodels" who may have had voluntary terminations, it too may have been a case of miscarriage or eptopic pregnancy over vanity.

We don't know. We just know that the "abortion numbers" are put out there, not taking the variables as to reasons into account.
I don't know, but I doubt that pregnancies that were biologically threatening to the mother were illegal before '72 in the USA. I would compare the number of abortions before '72 and now.

Post Reply