For Opponents of Late-Term Abortion

[Arkady]

There are people who aren't disturbed by terminating a pregnancy when it means the death of a clump of cells that look more like a tadpole than a person, but who are horrified by abortions later in pregnancy, when the fetus look more like a person (and, more meaningfully, when it starts to have a more developed brain). In light of that, it's interesting that there isn't an effort to push for more convenient access to early abortions.

Picture a system where getting a first-term abortion was as convenient as going to Walgreens for your flu shot -- and maybe subsidized to further incentivize it. Wouldn't this be expected to cut way down on later abortions? Sure, there would remain people who had a change of circumstances (loss of a partner or a job, or some health problem pop up for the mother or fetus) and so would only decide to terminate the pregnancy later. But, wouldn't there be lots of people who'd be drawn to the earlier abortions by the convenience and low cost, and thus who wouldn't even arrive in the later stages of pregnancy?

Obviously, this does nothing for those whose metaphysics mean they see the existence of an inviolable life from the moment when the sperm and egg join (or from implantation, or some other early milestone). But for those who object specifically to late-term abortions, wouldn't this be a fairly sure way of reducing such abortions?

 

[Lukey]

Abortion should not only be safe and legal, it should be rare.

Read more at http://www.notable-quotes.com/c/clinton_bill.html#Bi10IEZWh08UvRwF.99

 

[MrMike]

I think more Liberals should support late term abortions (from 0-65 years old). Save the planet...

 

[marvin martian]

I think more Liberals should support late term abortions (from 0-65 years old). Save the planet...

A lot of them already do.

 

[Zam-Zam]

There are people who aren't disturbed by terminating a pregnancy when it means the death of a clump of cells that look more like a tadpole than a person, but who are horrified by abortions later in pregnancy, when the fetus look more like a person (and, more meaningfully, when it starts to have a more developed brain). In light of that, it's interesting that there isn't an effort to push for more convenient access to early abortions.

Picture a system where getting a first-term abortion was as convenient as going to Walgreens for your flu shot -- and maybe subsidized to further incentivize it. Wouldn't this be expected to cut way down on later abortions? Sure, there would remain people who had a change of circumstances (loss of a partner or a job, or some health problem pop up for the mother or fetus) and so would only decide to terminate the pregnancy later. But, wouldn't there be lots of people who'd be drawn to the earlier abortions by the convenience and low cost, and thus who wouldn't even arrive in the later stages of pregnancy?

Obviously, this does nothing for those whose metaphysics mean they see the existence of an inviolable life from the moment when the sperm and egg join (or from implantation, or some other early milestone). But for those who object specifically to late-term abortions, wouldn't this be a fairly sure way of reducing such abortions?

Am I missing something? Isn't already legal to get a first-term abortion?

What's your complaint? That not enough abortions are occurring? You want more of them, and you want it made more convenient to terminate a life?

 

[Mr. Friscus]

There are people who aren't disturbed by terminating a pregnancy when it means the death of a clump of cells that look more like a tadpole than a person, but who are horrified by abortions later in pregnancy, when the fetus look more like a person (and, more meaningfully, when it starts to have a more developed brain). In light of that, it's interesting that there isn't an effort to push for more convenient access to early abortions.

Picture a system where getting a first-term abortion was as convenient as going to Walgreens for your flu shot -- and maybe subsidized to further incentivize it. Wouldn't this be expected to cut way down on later abortions? Sure, there would remain people who had a change of circumstances (loss of a partner or a job, or some health problem pop up for the mother or fetus) and so would only decide to terminate the pregnancy later. But, wouldn't there be lots of people who'd be drawn to the earlier abortions by the convenience and low cost, and thus who wouldn't even arrive in the later stages of pregnancy?

Obviously, this does nothing for those whose metaphysics mean they see the existence of an inviolable life from the moment when the sperm and egg join (or from implantation, or some other early milestone). But for those who object specifically to late-term abortions, wouldn't this be a fairly sure way of reducing such abortions?

So you're mildly admitting a bad thing (late term abortions), and advocating that the people you disagree with should be supporting a more moderate position...

Where are we even starting in this discussion?

When does "late term abortion" start? Are you okay with them?

I think most people who fight against abortion are fighting the first step, against our frighteningly lax current laws in protecting what is obviously human enough to be worth protecting (a 20+ week old fetus)...

Our standards now our disgusting.

 

[Arkady]

So you're mildly admitting a bad thing (late term abortions), and advocating that the people you disagree with should be supporting a more moderate position...

No. I'm saying that a person who opposes late-term abortion but doesn't have an issue with earlier abortion should seek to make early abortion cheap and convenient as a fairly sure way to reduce late term abortion. I thought that was clear. Apparently not.

When does "late term abortion" start?

For purposes of this discussion, it almost doesn't matter. Say you're OK with abortion up through the fourth month. Then make them cheap and convenient through month four, and you'll get fewer of them after month four. If your cut-off is the third month, then make them cheap and convenient through then, and you'll get fewer after that. Understand?

 

[Arkady]

Abortion should not only be safe and legal, it should be rare.

Read more at http://www.notable-quotes.com/c/clinton_bill.html#Bi10IEZWh08UvRwF.99

Relevance?

 

[Lukey]

Relevance?

I just wanted to document what the last really good political leader we had in this country thought about the issue. I think WJC's positions on most things were the last that we as a nation could generally agree on. Since then we've been at each others throats on each and every thing, set apart by political charlatans seeking to divide and conquer us to the benefit of the oligarchs.

 

[gigi]

Molech must really be getting grouchy. You're out now wheeling and dealing for him.
To suggest that people who believe in limiting something would support increasing access to it is ridiculous. It's beyond ridiculous. It's preposterous.

People who differentiate in what they can live with among first, second, and third trimester abortions are not necessarily "okay" with first trimester abortions. Most people recognize the humanity of the fetus from his or her beginning.

But because they've been led to believe that women are going to die if we do away with abortion,

and because they have been led to believe that certain women will suffer the rest of their lives if they don't kill their unborn,

and because they don't want the victim of the abortion to feel physical pain, they start looking at "compromise". AS in, "if you have to do it, can you just do it before the baby_________". And they fill that blank in with what feels the least heinous to them.

Their position on allowing first trimester abortion but cutting off at (whatever week they have in mind) comes from a place of compassion....A little misguided compassion, but compassion none the less. They don't want to see women die. They don't want mothers to be doomed to the hellish lives abortion advocates describe to scare them. And they don't want these very small, vulnerable helpless human beings to die painfully. Most often, if they're willing to talk about it, they can be walked back through to early gestation from whatever cutoff gestational age they have in mind and see that the human being they would allow to die at 10 weeks is the same human being they want to protect when he's 20 weeks.

I think you have a case against your HS biology department.
Tadpoles turn into frogs. Human embryos are human always.

 

[Arkady]

Am I missing something? Isn't already legal to get a first-term abortion?

What's your complaint?

I'm not complaining. Possibly a re-read would help. What I'm pointing out is that if you don't have a problem with early abortions but have a problem with late ones, one way to reduce late ones is by making early ones cheaper and more convenient, so that more people opt for them. But, as I already mentioned, if you have a metaphysical conception that there's something wrong even with early-term abortions, this idea isn't for you.... thus the reason I entitled the thread the way I did, to distinguish between late-term-abortion opponents and those who have an issue with all abortion (or all birth control, for that matter).

 

[Arkady]

Molech must really be getting grouchy. You're out now wheeling and dealing for him.
To suggest that people who believe in limiting something would support increasing access to it is ridiculous. It's beyond ridiculous. It's preposterous.

You've misunderstood. Try rereading. If you're still having trouble following, let me know and I can try to rephrase it for you.

I think you have a case against your HS biology department.
Tadpoles turn into frogs. Human embryos are human always.

Again, you've misunderstood. Nothing I said suggests that I think tadpoles don't turn into frogs or that human embryos aren't always human. Go back and reread. If you can identify what, exactly, you misread to make you think I was suffering some biology comprehension problems, point it out, and I can explain where you went wrong. Then we can talk about the case you have against your elementary school reading teachers.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

No. I'm saying that a person who opposes late-term abortion but doesn't have an issue with earlier abortion should seek to make early abortion cheap and convenient as a fairly sure way to reduce late term abortion. I thought that was clear. Apparently not.



For purposes of this discussion, it almost doesn't matter. Say you're OK with abortion up through the fourth month. Then make them cheap and convenient through month four, and you'll get fewer of them after month four. If your cut-off is the third month, then make them cheap and convenient through then, and you'll get fewer after that. Understand?

I guess this all depends on one's overwhelming worldview of humanity.

If one is coldly indifferent towards the value of even possible human life, then yes, abortion is simply a procedure to achieve an ends, and I could see how you might have the opinion you do. Perhaps abortion clinics ought to be like tanning beds, and women are in and out, with clinic hours from 9-5 without a care?

I would argue that your opponents say that there's no such thing as a happy abortion, and it's always within the unfortunate realm. Bill Clinton's quote about how abortions ought to be rare comes to mind, proof of just how radical Liberals have become. The shift has been intense in views that now borderline misanthropic, crushing a silent, unvoting minority that would dare make things biologically "inconvenient" for one sex in humanity.

You're demanding how people should think from your worldview perspective, a worldview not everyone holds.

 

[as seen on tv]

explain to me why - when there are a half dozen reliable methods of pregnancy prevention, most of them at nominal cost or subsidized by insurance - we still have over 1MM abortions each year, and nearly as many abortions as live births?

 

[gigi]

You've misunderstood. Try rereading. If you're still having trouble following, let me know and I can try to rephrase it for you.



Again, you've misunderstood. Nothing I said suggests that I think tadpoles don't turn into frogs or that human embryos aren't always human. Go back and reread. If you can identify what, exactly, you misread to make you think I was suffering some biology comprehension problems, point it out, and I can explain where you went wrong. Then we can talk about the case you have against your elementary school reading teachers.

I didn't misunderstand anything. You've got nothing here. Your premise is reliant on the disparity between convictions among the imaginary folks in your head. When you trot it all out to the real world, it falls apart. People who plead for limits on abortion are not okay with early term abortion.
And yes, I do believe you need a biology class. Most of us can look at a human embryo in its earliest stages of development and understand that it's human. You mention the stage as if it's nonsense to defend it as a human life because it "looks like a tadpole".

Then again, maybe it's just my personal preference. Maybe I prefer to believe you don't understand the difference and how important it is because the alternative to that is to accept that you really do believe the smallest of us are only "clumps of cells"

 

[marvin martian]

I thought that was clear. Apparently not.

Understand?

Relevance?

Possibly a re-read would help.

You've misunderstood.

Again, you've misunderstood.

Wow, everyone on the thread "misunderstood" you. Again.

LOL

 

[gigi]

explain to me why - when there are a half dozen reliable methods of pregnancy prevention, most of them at nominal cost or subsidized by insurance - we still have over 1MM abortions each year, and nearly as many abortions as live births?

He's going to tell you that it's because these methods are not available enough because republicans don't advocate for handing them out free to every girl of menstruating age. And you know what? If we started mailing them to every household free of charge, the number of abortions would stay the same and then people of his mentality would argue that we need to do more. Like wrap the Pills in liverwurst so they're easier to swallow and unroll the condoms directly onto the penises and give a consolation gift to make up for the pain of the shots because after all, women don't ask to be born female. Why should they have to endure the pain of an injection without some sort of gimme to make up for having to haul their wombs around everywhere they go.

 

[Zam-Zam]

I'm not complaining. Possibly a re-read would help. What I'm pointing out is that if you don't have a problem with early abortions but have a problem with late ones, one way to reduce late ones is by making early ones cheaper and more convenient, so that more people opt for them. But, as I already mentioned, if you have a metaphysical conception that there's something wrong even with early-term abortions, this idea isn't for you.... thus the reason I entitled the thread the way I did, to distinguish between late-term-abortion opponents and those who have an issue with all abortion (or all birth control, for that matter).

By that logic, we could also eliminate armed bank robberies by requiring tellers to hand over all cash to anyone who asks for it.

 

[Arkady]

I guess this all depends on one's overwhelming worldview of humanity.

If one is coldly indifferent towards the value of even possible human life, then yes, abortion is simply a procedure to achieve an ends, and I could see how you might have the opinion you do. Perhaps abortion clinics ought to be like tanning beds, and women are in and out, with clinic hours from 9-5 without a care?

I would argue that your opponents say that there's no such thing as a happy abortion, and it's always within the unfortunate realm. Bill Clinton's quote about how abortions ought to be rare comes to mind, proof of just how radical Liberals have become. The shift has been intense in views that now borderline misanthropic, crushing a silent, unvoting minority that would dare make things biologically "inconvenient" for one sex in humanity.
.

The concept here isn't difficult. It might be easier if you picture it in the context of condoms. Condoms prevent the creation of a potential life.... they result in the death of the sperm and the egg that might otherwise have resulted in a person. And so, some religious people have a taboo against their use. But, if you have a problem with abortion and not with contraception, then making condoms cheap and conveniently available is a potential way for reducing abortion. In the same sense, a first-term abortion results in the death of a fetus that might otherwise have resulted in a person. And so, some religious people have a taboo against it. But if you have a problem with late-term abortion and not early-term abortion, then making early term abortions cheap and conveniently available is a potential way for reducing late-term abortion.

You're demanding how people should think from your worldview perspective, a worldview not everyone holds

No. Reread. You've misunderstood. I'm not saying how you should think. I'm saying that if you think a certain way (e.g., that early abortion is OK but late-term abortion isn't), that you have open an avenue for using the thing you don't mind to reduce the incidence of the thing you do mind.

 

[Arkady]

explain to me why - when there are a half dozen reliable methods of pregnancy prevention, most of them at nominal cost or subsidized by insurance - we still have over 1MM abortions each year, and nearly as many abortions as live births?

I'd say much of it is because people aren't terribly disciplined. We all know that the way to be thin and healthy is to eat a well-balanced diet with low calories, while getting moderate regular activity. Yet, the majority of Americans are overweight. Why? Similarly, it's about lack of discipline. But, human nature is human nature, and if you want to address these things, you need to come up with solutions that accommodate it. Come up with ways to make eating healthy and exercising cheaper and more convenient, and people tend not to be as fat. Come up with ways to make alternatives to late-term abortion cheaper and more convenient, and we should expect less late-term abortion.