Right to Life, Right to Murder

Oxlar said:

And I will throw this back at you. Are you telling me that these are the ONLY conditions under which late term abortions were performed?

Click to expand...

That's pretty much what the statistics Squeek linked to seem to indicate.

According to those statistics, in 2007, there were 293 third-trimester abortions performed. Of these, in 125 cases, the doctor determined that the fetus was not viable. Of the 168 abortions where the doctor determined that the fetus was probably viable, in 98 cases, the doctor believed there was a significant possibility that the fetus was *not* viable. The reason they listed for each and every one of these abortions was "to prevent substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function."

They could be lying, of course, but without fairly strong evidence to that effect, I'm inclined to trust their professional judgment on this score.

Prime Junta said:

But that, Rith, places you squarely in the middle of the pro-choice camp. Wanting to completely remove all restrictions on abortion is a fringe position. The anti-choice crowd wants to make abortion always illegal.

Click to expand...

But I also understand the viewpoint of "you're killing babies, stop!". I don't think this is a 'right to privacy' issue per se - and I don't agree with Roe at all, as I think that it was not based on any sort of legal fact. A position, by the way, that most American lawyers I've talked to (including ones that would make you appear center or center-right) agree with.

I also take offense at the (extreme) feminist position of "it's our body, we have the right to do what we want!" issue. I also don't like being told that since I'm a man, I can't have a say on this issue. It's not a fucking pancreas or a tumor, and I think at some point there's no difference between an abortion and smothering it with a pillow in a crib (I guess that would be the third trimester). I also don't like the statements by thugs like Garofolo that any woman who is not pro-choice is somehow some brainwashed oppressed Stockholm Syndrome victim.

I also think if women can get abortions before the third trimester then a man should have the ability to sever all parental rights and responsibilities (child support, etc) for a similar length of time.

Prime Junta said:

FWIW, I believe that abortion should be available without restrictions for the two first trimesters; for the third trimester, it should only be available for medical reasons. I also believe that we should find ways to bring the number of abortions down as far as possible, and I believe the best way to do that is through means other than coercion -- e.g. easily available and cheap or free contraceptives plus sex education good enough that people know where to get them and how to use them. "Safe, legal, and rare" is a pretty good slogan from where I'm at.

It would be great if the number of abortions would end up as zero, but I don't believe that's ever possible; medical complications alone will ensure that.

Click to expand...

I pretty much agree with you. I don't like abortion - and one of my closer friends I used to know in college had one. Her boyfriend basically got her completely trashed and then had his way with her so she'd be too drunk to tell him to use a condom, since he hated them. I was the first person she told, even before any of her family. It was ... intense, and she obviously was not happy having it done.

Rithrandil said:

I pretty much agree with you. I don't like abortion - and one of my closer friends I used to know in college had one. Her boyfriend basically got her completely trashed and then had his way with her so she'd be too drunk to tell him to use a condom, since he hated them. I was the first person she told, even before any of her family. It was ... intense, and she obviously was not happy having it done.

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone has one for fun, and I believe that those few who use it for contraception would use some more pleasant alternative if they had easy access to it.

I wonder what they mean by impairment of 'mental' function of the pregnant woman as a reason for late term abortion?

I have no idea. It wasn't listed as a reason on any of the 2007 abortions, though.

Would you consider answering my questions now, btw?

Prime Junta said:

I don't think anyone has one for fun, and I believe that those few who use it for contraception would use some more pleasant alternative if they had easy access to it.

Click to expand...

I think you have to have a very dark view of humainty to believe pregenant women would go for a late term abortion without what they and their doctors consider very real and important reasons.

As an afterthought: I doubt that there are all that many late-term abortions performed for other than medical reasons -- nor would be even if it was completely legal -- simply because the procedure must be god-awfully traumatic to the woman undergoing it. If contraception is widely available and people know how to use it, and if early-term abortions are also legal and available, I'd be highly surprised if the late-term abortion problem didn't pretty much solve itself.

(For comparison, I looked up the numbers for Finland: the number of third-trimester abortions per year has varied between 4 and 21 over the past twenty years, with no clear visible trend. For comparison, there were between about 13,000 and about 10,500 abortions performed per year, with a descending trend. Finland has a population of about five million, roughly double that of Kansas, so if you leave out the abortions performed for out-of-state patients, Finland and Kansas have roughly similar abortion rates.)

To my knowledge, it's not against the law to stick your hand in a wood chipper, but people tend not to do it because it's no fun at all.

V7 said:

I think you have to have a very dark view of humainty to believe pregenant women would go for a late term abortion without what they and their doctors consider very real and important reasons.

Click to expand...

Yes, that was what I was saying.

Squeek said:

This issue has grown to become particularly difficult here in the US, but it's naive to suggest it isn't understood all over the world. Many countries banned late-term abortions. According to Wikipedia, Sweden banned (or severly restricted) abortions beyond 18 weeks as recently as 1998.

Can I assume it's legal now? May I ask when the law was changed and if it was considered controversial at the time?

Click to expand...

Abortion is legal for any reason up to week 18 (recently it was judged that a girl who aborted a few fetuses in a row because they were of the wrong gender had the right to do so). After that it's only legal for medical reasons, and you need a doctor to give the green light in that case. However, the vast majority of all abortions (90%) are done before week 12 IIRC, so it's not a very big problem IMO.

Übereil

Prime Junta said:

Well, WW2 *was* rather absurd, but... what do you mean?

I don't believe that all taking of human life is murder, if that's what you mean. The definition of "murder" includes "unlawful," or "morally untenable" or "unacceptable" if you will. That makes "I believe murder is acceptable in some circumstances" an oxymoron, since murder that is acceptable is, by definition, not murder.

Click to expand...

Which means you've backed Oxlar into a corner of your own devising by giving him a binary choice that includes what you're calling an oxymoron. Poor form, there.

dteowner said:

Which means you've backed Oxlar into a corner of your own devising by giving him a binary choice that includes what you're calling an oxymoron. Poor form, there.

Click to expand...

Thats why I refuse to play his question games anymore.

Prime Junta said:

I have no idea. It wasn't listed as a reason on any of the 2007 abortions, though.

Would you consider answering my questions now, btw?

Click to expand...

The mental impairment is on the apendix portion where it explains the terms more. Try the appendicies for 2008. Your just not researching enough

And no, I will not answer your questions. Not because I have some horrific view, but simply because your motives for asking such questions are for the purposes of badgering.

So are you pro-choice or pro-life?

dteowner said:

Which means you've backed Oxlar into a corner of your own devising by giving him a binary choice that includes what you're calling an oxymoron. Poor form, there.

Click to expand...

No, he did that by himself. I'm just pointing out the contradictions inherent in his statements, and asking if he's able to resolve them. Looks like he isn't.

Oxlar said:

The mental impairment is on the apendix portion where it explains the terms more. Try the appendicies for 2008. Your just not researching enough

Click to expand...

I would have looked it up had there been significant numbers of abortions made for that reason; as there weren't, I thought it unimportant. The key to this kind of research is to know what's worth looking up and what isn't, you see, and not waste time on things that are irrelevant.

And no, I will not answer your questions. Not because I have some horrific view, but simply because your motives for asking such questions are for the purposes of badgering.

Click to expand...

That's one way of conceding a debate.

Prime Junta said:

I would have looked it up had there been significant numbers of abortions made for that reason; as there weren't, I thought it unimportant. The key to this kind of research is to know what's worth looking up and what isn't, you see, and not waste time on things that are irrelevant.



That's one way of conceding a debate.

Click to expand...

I believe it listed the mental and physical in the same category. Read the explanations of terms where it talks about each question and the answers. So, there is no way of knowing how many were due to mental and how many due to physical.


LOL you are so pompous. How do you look in the mirror every day without getting jealous?

Oxlar said:

I believe it listed the mental and physical in the same category.

Click to expand...

They were also listed separately at the end of the questionnaire. That part had zeros all through in both -- no data.

Read the explanations of terms where it talks about each question and the answers. So, there is no way of knowing how many were due to mental and how many due to physical.

Click to expand...

Quite, which is why I thought it was a waste of time to look any deeper into that.

LOL you are so pompous. How do you look in the mirror every day without getting jealous?

Click to expand...

What was that about ad hominem again?

Prime Junta said:

As an afterthought: I doubt that there are all that many late-term abortions performed for other than medical reasons -- nor would be even if it was completely legal -- simply because the procedure must be god-awfully traumatic to the woman undergoing it. If contraception is widely available and people know how to use it, and if early-term abortions are also legal and available, I'd be highly surprised if the late-term abortion problem didn't pretty much solve itself.

Click to expand...

Sweden confirms that too. We have extremely liberal abortion laws (free abortion until week 18, after that you need a medical condition). 72% of abortions take place in the first 8 weeks, and 95% in the first twelve.

There is also a very clear trend towards a higher percentage of the abortions taking place in the first 8 weeks. Abortions later than week 12 are pretty stable (I'd guess most of those are performed for medical reasons, 5% problematic pregnancies is a plausible rate). The trend is the same in Finland.

Found this old pdf with Nordic stats from 1970-2005 in Finnish, Swedish, and English.

http://www.stakes.fi/NR/rdonlyres/F60EBCF4-D1E4-443F-9C7A-E14892D67581/0/Tt01_07_liitetaulukot.pdf

Squeek said:

This issue has grown to become particularly difficult here in the US, but it's naive to suggest it isn't understood all over the world. Many countries banned late-term abortions. According to Wikipedia, Sweden banned (or severly restricted) abortions beyond 18 weeks as recently as 1998.

Can I assume it's legal now? May I ask when the law was changed and if it was considered controversial at the time?

Click to expand...

It is still legal. The difference is that you need to give a reason (usually medical, but I think you can get a late term abortion on other grounds as well).

The change was as far as I remember not particularly controversial. The only national controversy over abortion is that the Christian democrats (who are moral conservatives) want to put the restriction at week 12 rather than week 18.

I think there is a concensus to put the limit at "when a fetus is viable" minus a few weeks, and IIRC the limit was changed to 18 weeks as the official medical consensus changed to "we can save them from week 22"....

Oxlar said:

I believe it listed the mental and physical in the same category. Read the explanations of terms where it talks about each question and the answers. So, there is no way of knowing how many were due to mental and how many due to physical.


LOL you are so pompous. How do you look in the mirror every day without getting jealous?

Click to expand...

So are you going to answer any questions or explain your position or are you going to just keep dodging the issue? If you're not going to answer the question put forth to you at least five different times now you have no ground to stand on if you claim someone is "misrepresenting" your views.

Zaleukos said:

Found this old pdf with Nordic stats from 1970-2005 in Finnish, Swedish, and English.

http://www.stakes.fi/NR/rdonlyres/F60EBCF4-D1E4-443F-9C7A-E14892D67581/0/Tt01_07_liitetaulukot.pdf

Click to expand...

That was a bit surprising. I didn't know the abortion rates were so different in the Nordic countries -- Sweden's is almost double that of Finland's. Any idea why?