What's your position on abortion? And why?

[Criseyde]

Originally Posted by Curious cat

I've taken a look at the link and I don't doubt the integrity of it. However I do believe that the pictures do not entirely represent abortion in it's full gory. Admittedly I am a slasher movie fan, but this is not why I am suggesting we need to see abortion as a bloody aftermath. This is important because people need to see with their own eyes, so they can fully appreciate the extent of harm through assault to the senses. I think this is much like war. It's hard to picture the damage of war in your mind until you see the raw, honest and confronting images of war victims.

Have you actually seen an abortion performed, or are you just speculating?

[James81]

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

To be honest, I don't understand this at all. If you are pro-life, by definition, you must see pro-choice people as murderers as you see the fetus as a human being. This, as far as I can see, is the premise of the pro-life position. Conversely, if you are pro-life, you must be anti-woman as you are basically advocating for their legal and reproductive rights to be taken away from them under the unproven assumption that the fetus constitutes a human being.

And this is exactly my point. Until you understand that your idea of what pro-life means is DEAD WRONG, we can't really make any progress. Because, in your head (according to what you've posted here), because I say I'm pro-life, you automatically have a checklist of assumptions that I must also embrace. THIS IS WHY THIS IS SUCH A HOT-BUTTON TOPIC. Because there are too many people who take this issue too personally, who get all wired up in their own paradigms without ever taking a moment to see beyond it to reach an understanding. Essentially, then, what you get are people barking at what they have constructed the other person to be in their own minds. (Both pro-life and pro-choice do this, btw.)

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

Yes it does. The whole legal battle for reproductive rights was fought in order to alleviate the suffering of women, and by extension, their loved ones. You cannot speak of choices that are divorced from the real world. Women will rationally choose to undergo an illegal abortion and risk their lives and health doing so because they see the consequences of not doing so as potentially incurring greater harm. There is a simple solution for this. Protect the right that women ought to have to control their reproduction via the State. Give women the ability to choose the option that will best meet their physical, emotional and spiritual needs and the needs of their family.

And again, from the pro-choice paradigm, what you said makes perfect sense.

From the pro-life paradigm, though, it appears that you neglect several choices that the woman already has. I assert that it's virtually impossible to get pregnant if you combine the pill (or a form of birth control like that) with the use of condoms. (Of course, the possibility is still there, but it's so unbelievably slim that it would be a rare case if it ever did happen...i.e. the exception, rather than the rule.)

So, if a woman is taking responsibility for her own reproduction, then she can do so before ever getting pregnant. Or, hell, now that they have the morning after pill (which I am ALL for), the odds are even slimmer.

That's the whole point. You are wanting to make abortion legal just because people are too damn irresponsible to take birth control. And since the choice is often neglected on that end, I believe that when a woman DOES end up pregnant that (because that birth control choice exists and is fairly effective), that the right of the potential new life overrides whatever reproductive rights you think a woman has at that point.

And I'm all for making birth control as available as possible, making education on birth control and safe sex as assessable as possible, and doing everything within our power to educate and PREVENT unwanted pregnancy before it happens rather than deal with the aftermath. (And I understand that there are some pro-life zealots out there who don't believe that, and to them I say GET A DAMN GRIP. )

[ssandra]

This adds a bit to James' point.

Solving America's teen sex problem - Sex - Salon.com

I am all FOR abortion being an option. However, I prefer it not being an option that is needed, at all.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by James81

And this is exactly my point. Until you understand that your idea of what pro-life means is DEAD WRONG, we can't really make any progress. Because, in your head (according to what you've posted here), because I say I'm pro-life, you automatically have a checklist of assumptions that I must also embrace. THIS IS WHY THIS IS SUCH A HOT-BUTTON TOPIC. Because there are too many people who take this issue too personally, who get all wired up in their own paradigms without ever taking a moment to see beyond it to reach an understanding. Essentially, then, what you get are people barking at what they have constructed the other person to be in their own minds. (Both pro-life and pro-choice do this, btw.)




And again, from the pro-choice paradigm, what you said makes perfect sense.

From the pro-life paradigm, though, it appears that you neglect several choices that the woman already has. I assert that it's virtually impossible to get pregnant if you combine the pill (or a form of birth control like that) with the use of condoms. (Of course, the possibility is still there, but it's so unbelievably slim that it would be a rare case if it ever did happen...i.e. the exception, rather than the rule.)

So, if a woman is taking responsibility for her own reproduction, then she can do so before ever getting pregnant. Or, hell, now that they have the morning after pill (which I am ALL for), the odds are even slimmer.

That's the whole point. You are wanting to make abortion legal just because people are too damn irresponsible to take birth control. And since the choice is often neglected on that end, I believe that when a woman DOES end up pregnant that (because that birth control choice exists and is fairly effective), that the right of the potential new life overrides whatever reproductive rights you think a woman has at that point.

And I'm all for making birth control as available as possible, making education on birth control and safe sex as assessable as possible, and doing everything within our power to educate and PREVENT unwanted pregnancy before it happens rather than deal with the aftermath. (And I understand that there are some pro-life zealots out there who don't believe that, and to them I say GET A DAMN GRIP. )

even the best birth control isn't 100%. And of course you have the situations of rape. And then people who are extremely intoxicated, or very young and stupid. It always goes back to punishing the women for their irresponsibility, which sure as hell isn't a situation that a baby should be born in. " oh, sorry hunny, you were a mistake. I had to learn to love you, because we wanted to abort you, but weren't allowed".

[Moriarty]

Originally Posted by James81
[QUOTE

So, if a woman is taking responsibility for her own reproduction, then she can do so before ever getting pregnant.

And of course the responsibility lies with both parties.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

even the best birth control isn't 100%. And of course you have the situations of rape. And then people who are extremely intoxicated, or very young and stupid. It always goes back to punishing the women for their irresponsibility, which sure as hell isn't a situation that a baby should be born in. " oh, sorry hunny, you were a mistake. I had to learn to love you, because we wanted to abort you, but weren't allowed".

Exactly.

Young people are SUPPOSED to be irresponsable.

You can educate them about birth control and everything else, but they are still gonna mess up, it's just a fact of life. Punishing them ontop of what they are going through, isn't the best solution to anything.

[James81]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

even the best birth control isn't 100%. And of course you have the situations of rape. And then people who are extremely intoxicated, or very young and stupid. It always goes back to punishing the women for their irresponsibility, which sure as hell isn't a situation that a baby should be born in. " oh, sorry hunny, you were a mistake. I had to learn to love you, because we wanted to abort you, but weren't allowed".

Of course, there are always exceptions to every rule. I'm not sure that catering to less than 1% of the population is a good justification for abortion, though.

Originally Posted by elucidate

Young people are SUPPOSED to be irresponsable.

King Tut ruled Egypt at the age of 9. It was not at all uncommon for kings and queens to begin their rule at such young ages.

Our youth currently mature at the rate that we all collectively agree that they SHOULD mature. Truth is, our youth are irresponsible because we agreed to stop having any meaningful consequences to actions. You see it very blatantly in public schools today, where a student can be a complete jack off in class, do nothing at all, and actually cause behavioral issues and yet they won't fail them.

Now, I'm not a huge hardass. Like I said earlier in the thread, I'm not anti-abortion. But I DO believe that if people took more responsibility for their actions, this issue would be mostly a moot discussion. And it's not the fault of the woman for having unsafe sex. We all, collectively, have created a society in which abortion is an necessary evil. That says something about each and every one of us, and the responsibility for that lays on each of us.

[Mariana Trench]

Originally Posted by James81

Of course, there are always exceptions to every rule. I'm not sure that catering to less than 1% of the population is a good justification for abortion, though.

You've got to be kidding me. 1 in 6 women are raped.

Okay. I'm out of this thread for good. Won't be replying.

[aelle]

Originally Posted by James81

I assert that it's virtually impossible to get pregnant if you combine the pill (or a form of birth control like that) with the use of condoms. (Of course, the possibility is still there, but it's so unbelievably slim that it would be a rare case if it ever did happen...i.e. the exception, rather than the rule.)

Not really. Combined contraceptive pill ("the pill") failure rate: 8% in typical use. Condoms failure rate: 15% typical use. By combining the 2 methods you get a Pearl index of 1.2%, or 1.2 pregnancies per year per 100 couples. Not really "unbelievably slim", especially over an entire fertile life.

By comparison, the hormonal IUD alone has a Pearl index of 0.2 in typical use. 6 times less. Still not virtually impossible though, especially over an entire fertile life.

Combining an IUD with condoms would of course bring the numbers down into the "reasonably unlikely" range. But I'm pretty sure that if a couple goes through the trouble of using a permanent contraception AND condoms every single time, for 30+ years of fertile sexual life, they feel strongly enough about not being pregnant to find a way to terminate should they be part of the very unlucky 0.03%, whether it's legal or not.

[James81]

Originally Posted by Mariana Trench

1 in 6 women are raped.

How many of those results in a pregnacy?

I found these statistics to be interesting:

REAL Statistics

How ironic is it that the one group that we use to make the exceptions for (those that are raped) are actually carrying the babies to term (see the statistic at the bottom that of their sample of 37 women who were raped and got pregnant, 28 of them carried the baby to term).

Other websites I checked out had varying statistics...some said that less than 1% of the population that is raped actually gets pregnant...other sites said that 4% wind up pregnant. I think all the statistics I've seen thus far agree on one thing: THEY ARE NOT THE MAJORITY. Even 5% is a small percentage.

[momo3bur]

Oh wow...can't believe I missed this thread for, you know, 11 MONTHS! JEEZ! It's forever long.

I've never had an abortion and probably never would, even under circumstances of rape, child with disability, etc.

I have a relative very close to me who has had two, both times because she was simply irresponsible with birth control and could not have comfortably supported a child and raised the child in an environment she felt was healthy.

I have a friend who has had two children, both accidental pregnancies, and kept both babies against her family's wishes. Her words exactly when speaking about this subject were, "I made the choice to have sex whether or not I was using birth control (which she was). I knew the possible consequences, so I simply rerouted my life and I'm now a mother of two children I love more than life itself." She's a very good mother by my standards and she is very loving. I don't think she regrets her decision a single bit, even after seeing her cry and curse through her entire first pregnancy. The second she was married to the father of her first child, but she had such serious issues during the first pregnancy that abortion was recommended for her safety.

Personally, I believe it should be left prochoice even though I would never do so (well, where I stand now. Not saying the it wouldn't happen if circumstances changed in someway that would change my mind).

I find it an honorable decision to make when a woman knows she will be unable to give a baby up for adoption (because that's probably more difficult than abortion) and knows she'll be unable to provide a life that allows for a healthy and positive environment for a child to go ahead and abort if she becomes pregnant. It's so much better than a person who puts their child through all kinds of hell just because they don't believe it's right to abort and (snap snap) biotch, that MY baby you can't have it! won't give it up for adoption just because it's THEIRS.

Honestly, I don't think there will ever be an effective solution to this problem. People will always jack up with contraceptives, people will always have unprotected sex even though they know they should be more responsible, and god knows those things that we don't consent to will always happen.

What will happen if we attempt to fix it by taking the right of abortion away is that we'll have more and more children in foster care and orphanages, new born babies dumped in dumpsters, abandoned, drowned, abused, etc.

Personally, I'd rather see the abortions happening than discover a newborn in covered in ants during my rural morning jog. Not to get too graphic, but it happens, and I'd rather it not get worse. For this reason, I believe we should keep it prochoice, keep abortion inexpensive, and keep pounding in the sex education and providing free contraceptives.

[kenya]

Originally Posted by Andrew Brunelle

It comes down to a woman's choice, and I'm just going to leave it at that. Although I think men should also have some kind of rights as well, that is not the case today. Either way, it's not up to me to decide.

yes, I agree, I think whether to have or not is up to the mother. sometimes she is not willing but must do abortion.

[James81]

Originally Posted by aelle

Not really. Combined contraceptive pill ("the pill") failure rate: 8% in typical use. Condoms failure rate: 15% typical use. By combining the 2 methods you get a Pearl index of 1.2%, or 1.2 pregnancies per year per 100 couples. Not really "unbelievably slim", especially over an entire fertile life.

I still think that 1.2% is a ridiculously low number of pregnancies from which to make a majority opinion.

Why do we need to make it legal for all women, all pregnancies, no matter what the reason, so that we can deal with these outlier instances? I don't get that. Let the outlier instances be legal (like they always were), and let those who want to use abortion as birth control make their choice of the risk of coat-hanger stuff or taking responsibility for their actions..

Honestly, I personally know a woman who has had three abortions. She has 4 kids (all boys) and she pines over the fact that she never had a girl. and I scratch my head at that instance and think "How ♥♥♥♥ing irresponsible and reckless are you, and then you turn around an ♥♥♥♥♥ about the fact that you can't have a girl?" I find that blatant disregard for human life (even if it IS in its embryo/fetal stages) to be quite sickening.

(Another common misalignment of paradigms is that the pro-life camp tends to think of the women who use abortion as birth control and the pro-choice camp tends to think of those outlier instances such as rape, incest, complications, etc.)

[aelle]

Originally Posted by James81

(Another common misalignment of paradigms is that the pro-life camp tends to think of the women who use abortion as birth control and the pro-choice camp tends to think of those outlier instances such as rape, incest, complications, etc.)

Sure, cause we all know that the best laws are those designed with the deliberate exclusion of minorities in mind.

[Shift]

Just want to pop in and mention one thing...

I'm pro-choice, but not to the extreme that I used to be. The thing that changed it all for me is that in the near future, I'm going to be a dad. If I'd seen this thread one year ago, I would read it a lot differently than I read it now.

I know James is a dad, and I understand exactly where he is coming from. For me, it really changed my perspective.

[Criseyde]

Originally Posted by James81

How many of those results in a pregnacy?

I found these statistics to be interesting:

REAL Statistics

How ironic is it that the one group that we use to make the exceptions for (those that are raped) are actually carrying the babies to term (see the statistic at the bottom that of their sample of 37 women who were raped and got pregnant, 28 of them carried the baby to term).

Other websites I checked out had varying statistics...some said that less than 1% of the population that is raped actually gets pregnant...other sites said that 4% wind up pregnant. I think all the statistics I've seen thus far agree on one thing: THEY ARE NOT THE MAJORITY. Even 5% is a small percentage.

James, many laws are made to protect the minority. :\ You know that there are a lot of women reading this forum who have been raped, how do you know none of them became pregnant? 5% of 1% sounds small but remember how many people there actually are.

[James81]

Originally Posted by Criseyde

James, many laws are made to protect the minority. :\ You know that there are a lot of women reading this forum who have been raped, how do you know none of them became pregnant? 5% of 1% sounds small but remember how many people there actually are.

I think you missed the point.

Why broadstroke a law for ALL women, when you can just deal with these minority issues?

How is "Well, zillions of women are raped each year" an actual argument for why abortion should be legal for all women.

Why can't we say "Well, ok, in the cases of rape, incest, or complications, it's ok to get an abortion."

See what I'm saying?

You see this type of thing all the time in an abortion discussion. Someone says "Well what about rape? What about incest? What about when the mother is at risk of dying because of the pregnancies?" as if those are all reasons why abortion should be universally legal.

When the truth is, those types of questions are really only cases for making those specific cases legal.

[Criseyde]

Originally Posted by James81

I think you missed the point.

Why broadstroke a law for ALL women, when you can just deal with these minority issues?

How is "Well, zillions of women are raped each year" an actual argument for why abortion should be legal for all women.

Why can't we say "Well, ok, in the cases of rape, incest, or complications, it's ok to get an abortion."

See what I'm saying?

You see this type of thing all the time in an abortion discussion. Someone says "Well what about rape? What about incest? What about when the mother is at risk of dying because of the pregnancies?" as if those are all reasons why abortion should be universally legal.

When the truth is, those types of questions are really only cases for making those specific cases legal.

I do see what you're saying. As you know, I think that all women have the right to an abortion, but I'm going to set that aside for the sake of this point.

The issue with rape is that rape is hard to prove. Few cases are reported and even fewer are convicted. Unless it's obvious that there was violence, and the woman gets a rape kit right away, it generally becomes he-said she-said in the courtroom, which can't really be prosecuted. A conviction almost certainly won't happen within 9 weeks, which is really the ideal time for an abortion; our court system is slow for a reason.

So what happens then? Do you let a woman who claims rape get an abortion, even if there's no conviction? If you do that, but outlaw abortion in other cases, then you'll probably see an increase of false rape accusations (as it stands, the number of false rape accusations is no higher than it is for any other crime). But if you force her to wait for a conviction, you'll get a) more late-term abortions, and b) cases where they can't convict because there isn't enough evidence, but the woman will end up being forced to carry her rapist's baby.

[momo3bur]

Originally Posted by Shift

Just want to pop in and mention one thing...

I'm pro-choice, but not to the extreme that I used to be. The thing that changed it all for me is that in the near future, I'm going to be a dad. If I'd seen this thread one year ago, I would read it a lot differently than I read it now.

I know James is a dad, and I understand exactly where he is coming from. For me, it really changed my perspective.

I know exactly where you are coming from. I have my own children so it's hard for me to understand how anyone could deny these wonderful little bundles of joy, much less how anyone could kill one before it has the chance to live.

The fact is, though, there are times when I personally feel it's better for everyone involved, including that unborn child, to opt for abortion. It's very sad, but it's the truth. I keep wanting to come up with ways to solve the issue, but it's just impossible. There is always a counterargument as to why one option is better than the other and neither side is any less valid than the other.

Now that you know how it feels to have a child and WANT that child, it's really hard to condone using abortion as birth control, huh? It's a really hard position to take knowing that it is needed but disliking it's abuse, but I'm not sure we'd still be a democracy if we said no to some and yes to others, especially considering many circumstances surrounding abortion are based solely on the mother's account.

[Cado]

Originally Posted by James81

I think you missed the point.

Why broadstroke a law for ALL women, when you can just deal with these minority issues?

How is "Well, zillions of women are raped each year" an actual argument for why abortion should be legal for all women.

Why can't we say "Well, ok, in the cases of rape, incest, or complications, it's ok to get an abortion."

See what I'm saying?

You see this type of thing all the time in an abortion discussion. Someone says "Well what about rape? What about incest? What about when the mother is at risk of dying because of the pregnancies?" as if those are all reasons why abortion should be universally legal.

When the truth is, those types of questions are really only cases for making those specific cases legal.

Narrowing the law implies that one would have to present proof. What about cases where you have none?

I suspect a sensible implementation would do little to curb abortion but the rate of incest and rape would skyrocket.

Speaking of, a lot of instances go unreported because the victim either can't do anything about it or they're embarrassed to say anything, feeling deep down that it's somehow their fault. Should they be denied an abortion because they want to keep a traumatic experience as private as possible? I don't know how often that kind of thing happens and I'm not a woman but I've talked with enough women who've experienced sexual violence that I know it isn't easy to bring it forward, even when you're clearly in the right.

The idea that a fetus is a person with all the rights and privileges of a baby is based on a non-falsifiable position: that they are as human as the full grown child. That they will eventually become so isn't up for debate but the potential argument has all kinds of implications and it's hard to say it's all that relevant to abortion. It's really not that different from the old Christian argument that semen is sacred and shouldn't be spilled onto your sheets.

The line between "fetus" and "person" is quite blurry and taking a hardline stance without any solid facts to base it on seems pretty silly, to be frank, especially when there are a number of pragmatic reasons to favor abortion. You know, I don't think that someone who would use abortion as birth control instead of a last resort should really be having kids. If they won't take any precautions and they're not under emotional blackmail then what makes you think they will be responsible parents?

From a societal perspective, in an already overcrowded world, the fewer poorly raised kids we have the better-and let's not forget the strain on the system. America already has more debt than tax revenue. Even if only a small number of those pregnancies resulted in those families being put on government aid it would strain a system that's already being stretched. In short, we have far bigger concerns than the children who will never be born because of abortion.

[ZephyrusX]

I'd rather say that women have the right to an abortion irrespective of how responsible she may or may have been. If a woman fails to use the proper protection because she was too drunk, she still has the right to an abortion. If she gets pregnant because she is ignorant of the different contraceptives available and their protection rates, she still has a right to an abortion.

There are, of course, plenty of examples where this line of reasoning is just not even applicable (i.e rape, women who do use contraceptives and yet still get pregnant), but by focusing upon this standard of reasoning, I believe we are essentially missing the crucial point.

I'm not obligated to live up to your standard of responsibility.

And a woman has no responsibility to a potential baby that has no will to account for. It just seems like a way to punish people for failing to live up to some standard that she may not even adhere to her self. It is a form of punishment.

Originally Posted by James81

Why can't we say "Well, ok, in the cases of rape, incest, or complications, it's ok to get an abortion."

See what I'm saying?

You see this type of thing all the time in an abortion discussion. Someone says "Well what about rape? What about incest? What about when the mother is at risk of dying because of the pregnancies?" as if those are all reasons why abortion should be universally legal.

[ZephyrusX]

Just to clarify, James, how would you feel about a woman getting an abortion if she used proper protection, and yet, still got pregnant? Or if a woman simply did not know about contraceptives and their protection rates and got pregnant? I'll all for education as well, but the truth is, that information is not readily available through mainstream channels (i.e education system).

In fact, I'll be painfully honest. It is a damn good thing that I haven't been sexually active as of yet because I didn't know about the different types of contraceptives and their success rates until I came to this forum. I just assumed that a condom would be good enough and so didn't even think about looking into it (Ha! And I'm a uni-grad!).

It's not good enough to note that this information is available through the web for free. You also have to account for the information seeking behaviours of different sub populations and determine whether they are actually accessing this information, and if not, why?

[Curious cat]

Originally Posted by ssandra

Here you are. The "bloody aftermath" of a 6 week abortion.

And I think you're comment in bold might be a typo?
Because do you feel we really need to see an abortion as "a bloody aftermath" or do we need to see it what it really is?

I would say see it for what it really is, which from what I have seen indicates that it is (bloody). Though Criseyde asked a valid question concerning my experience with it. I have not personally seen an abortion performed in real life, I only have what is on the internet to draw from.

[Curious cat]

Originally Posted by Criseyde

Have you actually seen an abortion performed, or are you just speculating?

No i have not been there in person to witness one and i don't personally know anyone who performs them either.

I have viewed youtubes posted by rosaryfilms and online images.

This is a genuine question. Have you witnessed one performed in person?

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by James81

And this is exactly my point. Until you understand that your idea of what pro-life means is DEAD WRONG, we can't really make any progress. Because, in your head (according to what you've posted here), because I say I'm pro-life, you automatically have a checklist of assumptions that I must also embrace. THIS IS WHY THIS IS SUCH A HOT-BUTTON TOPIC. Because there are too many people who take this issue too personally, who get all wired up in their own paradigms without ever taking a moment to see beyond it to reach an understanding. Essentially, then, what you get are people barking at what they have constructed the other person to be in their own minds. (Both pro-life and pro-choice do this, btw.)




And again, from the pro-choice paradigm, what you said makes perfect sense.

From the pro-life paradigm, though, it appears that you neglect several choices that the woman already has. I assert that it's virtually impossible to get pregnant if you combine the pill (or a form of birth control like that) with the use of condoms. (Of course, the possibility is still there, but it's so unbelievably slim that it would be a rare case if it ever did happen...i.e. the exception, rather than the rule.)

So, if a woman is taking responsibility for her own reproduction, then she can do so before ever getting pregnant. Or, hell, now that they have the morning after pill (which I am ALL for), the odds are even slimmer.

That's the whole point. You are wanting to make abortion legal just because people are too damn irresponsible to take birth control. And since the choice is often neglected on that end, I believe that when a woman DOES end up pregnant that (because that birth control choice exists and is fairly effective), that the right of the potential new life overrides whatever reproductive rights you think a woman has at that point.

And I'm all for making birth control as available as possible, making education on birth control and safe sex as assessable as possible, and doing everything within our power to educate and PREVENT unwanted pregnancy before it happens rather than deal with the aftermath. (And I understand that there are some pro-life zealots out there who don't believe that, and to them I say GET A DAMN GRIP. )

You know, it's funny that you push pro life, AND sexual education that involves safe sex. Normally, pro life teaches sex through abstinence education, and I'd even go as far as saying, that pro life is THE reason for so many uneducated kids having unprotected sex. You claim it's "some", but I'd say it's the majority. Again, not always, but a majority .Pro life, almost always comes with it, the religious. Majority of this country is religious, and the majority of abortion opponents are also religious. And religion teaches you not to have sex before marriage. Therefor, teaching kids how to have safe sex, would be going completely against the teachings in the first place. And then they blame the people for having unprotected sex, and force them to have the child. Which normally brings about another child, who will be poorly educated about sex.
Which is truly sad and ironic.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Curious cat

No i have not been there in person to witness one and i don't personally know anyone who performs them either.

I have viewed youtubes posted by rosaryfilms and online images.

This is a genuine question. Have you witnessed one performed in person?

Super biased youtube channel, but lets go with that. Which videos in particular? Show us. I'd like to see how many months into the pregnancy the videos are depicting, and how much more blood was released, compared to a normal period. Because, most of their videos, seem to show very late term abortions. Which is usually what people like them, try to show others. Scare tactics.

And I hope you viewed some of their other crazy videos. And their teaching to not use birth control pills, and comparing pro choice people to nazi's.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by ssandra

Here you are. The "bloody aftermath" of a 6 week abortion.

And I think you're comment in bold might be a typo?
Because do you feel we really need to see an abortion as "a bloody aftermath" or do we need to see it what it really is?

I think what cat is saying, is that 6 week abortions have a bloody aftermath, and there for people need to see abortions, "for what it really is".

[garentee]

I think abortion ought to be safe, legal, and hard to get. It should not be used as birth control...I am opposed to abortion in general, but there are many instances where it is NECESSARY. Certainly in cases of rape, incest,mothers life at risk, and many others that may come up..

While adoption is a possibility, most orphanages are hellish and sometimes people who adopt children are just not suited to be parents... I can think of a few instances....So the answer is to have better quality orphanages and other ways to care for "unwanted children" and to have other ways that they can live a fulfilling life..

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by garentee

I think abortion ought to be safe, legal, and hard to get. It should not be used as birth control...I am opposed to abortion in general, but there are many instances where it is NECESSARY. Certainly in cases of rape, incest,mothers life at risk, and many others that may come up..

While adoption is a possibility, most orphanages are hellish and sometimes people who adopt children are just not suited to be parents... I can think of a few instances....So the answer is to have better quality orphanages and other ways to care for "unwanted children" and to have other ways that they can live a fulfilling life..

reminds me of a picture I saw on my friends facebook.

[Criseyde]

Originally Posted by Curious cat

No i have not been there in person to witness one and i don't personally know anyone who performs them either.

I have viewed youtubes posted by rosaryfilms and online images.

This is a genuine question. Have you witnessed one performed in person?

No, but I've seen a lot of labeled images of abortions (labeled with number of weeks, usually), and I've been to two "Body Worlds" exhibits (real human bodies preserved by plasticization), which had fetus/baby bodies too (in a separate room, with a warning ), and the bloody, scary-looking ones are late-term. Anything that actually looks to my eyes like a baby is fairly late-term. The pro-life propagandists just leave out the # of weeks and where the abortion was performed in their photos.

ETA: russianrocket, I have no doubt that an abortion produces more blood than would be considered normal for a menstrual period, actually. It's the mother's blood. Even miscarriages can be bloody (fun fact: the medical term for "miscarriage" is "abortion"). The uterus has more tissue to expel, so it makes sense. Sometimes the only sign a woman has that she's miscarried (if she gets one at all -- it's been estimated that some large % of pregnancies are terminated by the body, like 50% or more) is a heavier period than normal.