The difference between the death penalty and abortion

1…89101214

Comments

  • Posts: 19,305
    scb wrote:
    I respect everyone's emotions, religion, etc. about their own pregnancies. I have cried at the funeral of a baby who was miscarried at 39 weeks, the day after throwing her mother a big baby shower. I have helped friends through emotionally painful miscarriages. I have witnessed autopsies of stillborn babies, and the agony the parents felt in making the decision to autopsy or not. And I have helped many women through abortions of pregnancies that they considered babies, and even been to memorial services provided by the abortion clinic. But these are all about the emotions and perspectives of the woman carrying the pregnancy. I don't think anyone has a right to tell a woman she's killing her "baby" when that is not only not her perspective but also not the perspective of medical science or law.

    I don't know what "abortion simply for that sake" is - but I don't think it's my right to tell a woman it shouldn't be an option. If you're suggesting that most decisions to have abortions are made just as another birth control option - like, "I don't want to take the pill, so I'll just have an abortion if I get pregnant" - I disagree.
    Is it that a women would have to acknowledge committing murder if their fetus is aborted . . . is that the bigger issue for you? You are obviously not devoid of emotion. If so, then I'm at last beginning to see some insight to your perspective.
    Be Excellent To Each Other
    Party On, Dudes!
  • Grand Junction CO Posts: 1,356
    I still think that the abortion issue would be better addressed by addressing the list of reasons why women seek abortion. It's clear that the world will never agree on whether or not the procedure is ethical/moral/or should be legal. I also think that the number of death row inmates would decrease if we prevented the causes of crimes that land someone on death row. I think the abortion vs. the death penalty debate is unwinable and we need to start some upstream thinking on these subjects.
    It's nice to be nice to the nice.
  • Posts: 6,657
    JonnyPistachio wrote:
    show previous quotes

    it is true. do some research. how do you think it happens?
    Maybe today more commonly they use drugs, or that good old suction device to suck out all the babies parts and placenta

    Dude, you have no idea about the research I've done. I'll tell you how it happens, which varies based on gestational age. Stats are for the United States, as of 2006, according to the CDC...

    61% of abortions occur at 8 weeks or less (and nearly 1/2 of those are at less than 6 weeks).
    78% of abortions occur at 10 weeks or less.
    87% of abortion occur in the 1st trimester.
    6% of abortions occur between 13-15 weeks.
    4% of abortions occur between 16-20 weeks.
    1% of abortions occur at 21 weeks or greater.
    0.07% of abortions occur in the 3rd trimester, the point at which the medical community says it's possible for a fetus to live outside the womb.

    22% of all abortions under 9 weeks are done with medication. It works like this: The woman takes a pill in the doctor's office. That pill ends the pregnancy by blocking the hormone (progesterone) that the body needs for the pregnancy to continue. Within the next 3 days, at home, the woman inserts or takes another pill that causes her to have cramps that expel the pregnancy like a heavy period. She sees what comes out, and I have never heard of anyone saying she saw anything that resembled a baby.

    Other abortions in the first trimester happen like this: The woman lays on the table and her vagina is opened with a speculum, like when you get a pap smear. Shots are given to numb the cervix. The cervix is slowly dilated by placing a tiny rod into it, then a little bigger one, and so forth, depending on the gestational age. Then there is a currette, which is basically just a straw, that is attached to a hand-hand suction device that's basically a big syrynge. It can also be attached to a tube that goes to an electric vacuum machine, but this isn't necessary so early in the pregnancy. The doctor inserts the straw into the woman's uterus and uses the suction to remove the pregnancy. The entire process takes about 15 mintues.

    Once you get past the 1st trimester, the process is similar but the cervix may need to be opened over a day or two with seaweed that's kind of like a tampon and the electric suction is necessary. This can be done at least up to 22 weeks. There are no sharp instruments involved. Forceps might be needed to remove anything they missed. Something may be given to end the life of the fetus before the actual procedure.

    For 3rd trimester (and really late 2nd trimester) abortions, something is usally given to the fetus to end its life in the womb and then the patient delivers it like a stillborn.

    The other methods are extremely rare (if not outlawed) and only used if the doctor thinks they're medically indicated.

    Have whatever opinion about abortion procedures you want, but please don't spread such bullshit misinformation about what the common procedures are.
  • Florida Posts: 10,219
    scb wrote:
    [4% of abortions occur between 16-20 weeks.
    1% of abortions occur at 21 weeks or greater.
    0.07% of abortions occur in the 3rd trimester, the point at which the medical community says it's possible for a fetus to live outside the womb.

    Thank god these stats are low.
    scb wrote:
    22% of all abortions under 9 weeks are done with medication. It works like this: The woman takes a pill in the doctor's office. That pill ends the pregnancy by blocking the hormone (progesterone) that the body needs for the pregnancy to continue. Within the next 3 days, at home, the woman inserts or takes another pill that causes her to have cramps that expel the pregnancy like a heavy period. She sees what comes out, and I have never heard of anyone saying she saw anything that resembled a baby.

    Ok, but it doesn’t explain how the death occurs. I assume that means the baby kinda starves to death? 22% is not a lot.
    scb wrote:
    Other abortions in the first trimester happen like this: The woman lays on the table and her vagina is opened with a speculum, like when you get a pap smear. Shots are given to numb the cervix. The cervix is slowly dilated by placing a tiny rod into it, then a little bigger one, and so forth, depending on the gestational age. Then there is a currette, which is basically just a straw, that is attached to a hand-hand suction device that's basically a big syrynge. It can also be attached to a tube that goes to an electric vacuum machine, but this isn't necessary so early in the pregnancy. The doctor inserts the straw into the woman's uterus and uses the suction to remove the pregnancy. The entire process takes about 15 mintues.

    So the baby is sucked apart to pieces with a vacuum/syringe? I don’t see this more much different than pulling it apart with tools. It’s terrible either way to me. Like I said, I can’t squash a bug, let alone make baby soup with a vacuum.
    scb wrote:
    The other methods are extremely rare (if not outlawed) and only used if the doctor thinks they're medically indicated.

    The other methods? Hmm, but they DO occur.
    scb wrote:
    Have whatever opinion about abortion procedures you want, but please don't spread such bullshit misinformation about what the common procedures are.

    My mistake. I honestly didn’t mean to make it sound like they are the most common procedures. (I said the first one I listed was outlawed in the original post.)
    Pick up my debut novel here on amazon: Jonny Bails Floatin (in paperback) (also available on Kindle for $2.99)
  • Posts: 6,657
    JonnyPistachio wrote:
    show previous quotes

    I guess David Birnbach, M.D., president of the Society for Obstetric Anesthesia and Perinatology is clueless huh? I wouldnt call his findings arbitrary baseless shit out of anyones ass.

    And I didn't.
    JonnyPistachio wrote:
    I was just giving instances that I thought might make people think differently. I thought that if anyone was to see how terrible abortion is, and SOME of the instances of how it is performed, some people might think twice about it and not just live by the arbitrary baseless, unscientific ideals that a baby isnt a person before it comes out of its mother.

    I don't understand how you can say that this idea is completely arbitrary, baseless, and unscientific when I've just shown that many scientists have come to the same conclusion.
  • Florida Posts: 10,219
    scb wrote:
    show previous quotes

    I don't understand how you can say that this idea is completely arbitrary, baseless, and unscientific when I've just shown that many scientists have come to the same conclusion.

    Sorry, I must've missed it...I didnt see where any scientists say that a baby isnt a person one day before birth, and then become a person as soon as it is born. I dont think there isnt really that much of a difference in the two. The arbitrary comment is the agrument that no-one will win about the definition of a person/human if we have opinions on the matter. Yes, the law can state that it isnt a person before it is 'born', but we all don't let the law govern our moral beliefs.

    in fact, not to sidetrack (and this is a longshot), but the law is somewhat hypocritcal. You can abort a baby legally, but if someone kills a woman who is pregnant, they can be charged with two murders.
    Pick up my debut novel here on amazon: Jonny Bails Floatin (in paperback) (also available on Kindle for $2.99)
  • Posts: 169
    My view on abortion is this: so long as the fetus needs me as a life support system for it, it isn't an actual, separate person. It is part of me--it has no separate identity from me. It is me. I can do what I want to myself, and no one should have the right to run my life for me but me. I am grateful to live in country where others do not run my life for me or sacrifice my life to that of another or who might literally sacrifice my life to the mere wishes of others.
  • Posts: 6,657
    JonnyPistachio wrote:
    I think a fetus becomes a baby at 12-16 weeks.

    Just a few other thoughts on abortion. I have heard that there are some laws being considered that require a woman to see an ultrasound before having an abortion. I think one law was just declined in Florida. I don't think it's a bad idea to show a woman the moving, living being inside of her. I would think it might make a few people reconsider having an abortion.

    Also, just for the record I know wikipedia is not a perfect source, but I read this:
    In 2000, cases of rape or incest accounted for 1% of abortions. Another study, in 1998, revealed that in 1987-1988 women reported the following reasons for choosing an abortion:

    25.5% Want to postpone childbearing
    21.3% Cannot afford a baby
    14.1% Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy
    12.2% Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy
    10.8% Having a child will disrupt education or job
    7.9% Want no (more) children
    3.3% Risk to fetal health
    2.8% Risk to maternal health
    2.1% Other


    In my opinion, the last three are the only legitimate reasons.
    And even if this poll in not 100% accurate or old, just from what i've read over the years, it is close to reality.

    Those are the only legitimate reasons to have an abortion after 12-16 weeks or ever?

    Did you know that most ultrasounds done before an abortion have to be done using a vaginal probe (because the fetus is too small to see with a regular ultrasound)? One of the reasons these laws are being rejected - aside from the fact that it's politicians inserting themselves between a patient and her doctore - is because there have not been (any, to my knowledge) exceptions for rape victims, who could be further traumatized by having their vaginas probed against their will.
  • Posts: 29,003
    JonnyPistachio wrote:
    show previous quotes

    Google it. I have read very rare instances. Obviosly 3 months sounds ridiculous. But it definitely happens at 5-6 months. But this has nothing to do with how prevalent it is. The point is, that a typical 9 month pregnancy is a lousy way of defining a person/baby/will to live/consiousness.This is about the fact that if ANY premature baby can survive, can it be considerd a person?

    it is a living organism. I am the kind of person that doesnt kill bugs in my house. I catch them and release them outside. I can't imagine killing a baby, at ANY stage of development.


    obviously it sound ridiculous because it is ridiculous and totally untrue. whoever or wherever you heard that from was lying and aiming for sensationalism. either that or they are seriously ill informed.
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • Posts: 1,301
    scb wrote:

    I respect everyone's emotions, religion, etc. about their own pregnancies. I have cried at the funeral of a baby who was miscarried at 39 weeks, the day after throwing her mother a big baby shower. I have helped friends through emotionally painful miscarriages. I have witnessed autopsies of stillborn babies, and the agony the parents felt in making the decision to autopsy or not. And I have helped many women through abortions of pregnancies that they considered babies, and even been to memorial services provided by the abortion clinic. But these are all about the emotions and perspectives of the woman carrying the pregnancy. I don't think anyone has a right to tell a woman she's killing her "baby" when that is not only not her perspective but also not the perspective of medical science or law.

    I don't know what "abortion simply for that sake" is - but I don't think it's my right to tell a woman it shouldn't be an option. If you're suggesting that most decisions to have abortions are made just as another birth control option - like, "I don't want to take the pill, so I'll just have an abortion if I get pregnant" - I disagree.

    Nope, I'm not suggesting in any way that MOST abortions are performed as an alternative to birth control, I am saying that SOME are. I personally know a woman who had three children already, she is a couple of years younger than me - married, all of the children have the same father (a chauvinistic arrogant arsehole moron - but that's besides the point), all the kids are healthy, they are financially stable, no issues to speak of. She fell pregnant to her husband, and they waited until the 11 week ultrasound, where they were told the baby was a girl, (and yes, I know that it's not always possible to tell the sex of a child that early on, but it IS possible - I found out that early that my son was a boy)..and she then had an abortion. No issues with the child other than the fact that it was female and they wanted a boy (they had two girls and one boy already). My issue lies here with the fact that the law says that's ok. All they had to do to get an abortion at 11 and a half weeks was to say that they didn't want to be pregnant. (she had the procedure booked BEFORE the ultrasound, with the option to cancel). She didn't cancel the appointment and then a couple of months later became pregnant again and it was a boy - who they kept. I find this disgusting. And I get that this is the minority. I have stated over and over again - a woman's right to choose is essential. I just believe there should be a way to impose a moral requirement on that, but obviously it's not going to happen.

    And I would never say to her 'you've killed your baby'. I don't necessarily think completely that way - I understand what you are saying on that point. MY children were real to me, and babies from that point on, but her child wasn't real to me - and I could never say to her, no matter how much it disturbs me that she did it, that she killed her child, because it IS a different situation to someone having a late pregnancy abortion, or someone killing their child after it is born. I get that - but I think I would have a different point of view if she had been over half way through her pregnancy - because it IS a real living moving child by that point, that with a lot of EXTREME medical help could survive outside the womb.

    So I guess that is really my ultimate timeframe when I think it over in my head logically. ONce a pregnancy progresses to the point that the baby could survive without the mother, then it's IN MY OPINION wrong to terminate it - but I also know this rarely happens. Most abortions are done early on and I know this. But personally for me in regards to my own body, its a lot earlier than that point.

    I would agree though, about the point made giving the comparison between abortion and the fact that if someone murders a woman while she is pregnant, they are charged with two murders. I would ask though, because I really don't know - are there laws in regard to second or third trimester abortion? If so, this would make this point (the comparison between murdering two people and abortion) invalid completely.

    I still won't ever agree that a foetus isn't a baby - but that's my own opinion, and everyone has theirs, and there has been a lot of valid points made in this thread.
    http://giventoart.blogspot.com.au
  • Posts: 29,003
    i stand corrected SCB, i found your definition of a person... well a partial definition anyway.
    scb wrote:
    1. Characteristics of a person include individuality, the development of self-consciousness and consciousness of the world around it, and development of the ability for rational thought.

    im assuming(correct me if im wrong) that according to your definition, only humans can be classified as persons??? yet youve no idea if other creatures share these charcteristics because yuore human and can only have the knowledge of being a human.


    so i shall reask my question: what is a person?
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • Posts: 6,657
    cincybearcat wrote:
    show previous quotes


    Thanks. But how exactly?

    By likening legitimate information to internet bullshit, as if all sources are equal.
  • Posts: 6,657
    megatron wrote:

    well all i know about life at conception is they will have to redo the whole birthday system.
    :lol::lol:
  • NYC Posts: 3,155
    This was in the New Yorker a little less than a year ago. It's the best, and most shocking piece I've ever read about the death penalty (I think it was also noted on a bunch of lists as one of the most important articles of the year). A must read for anyone interested in this topic.

    http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009 ... fact_grann
    you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane

  • Posts: 6,657
    Jason P wrote:
    show previous quotes
    Is it that a women would have to acknowledge committing murder if their fetus is aborted . . . is that the bigger issue for you? You are obviously not devoid of emotion. If so, then I'm at last beginning to see some insight to your perspective.

    I'm not sure I understand your question.

    If you're asking for clarification of my post above, I was just saying I think there's a big difference between biology (and the law) and how we choose to perceive or feel about things. I support whatever way people choose to perceive and the emotions they have about their own lives. But I don't think anyone's perception changes the actual biological facts. And I don't think anyone's perception should be pushed onto anyone else.

    For instance, if my parents had divorced when I was a kid and I had been raised in a home with a stepfather, I could consider the stepfather to be my dad. (I'm using father and dad synonymously here.) But that could never make him my biological father. And I would have no right to tell someone else that they should feel the same way about their stepfather, nor should I expect the law to change to fall in line with my feelings about my situation.

    Or were you asking something else?
  • Posts: 6,657
    dasvidana wrote:
    I still think that the abortion issue would be better addressed by addressing the list of reasons why women seek abortion. It's clear that the world will never agree on whether or not the procedure is ethical/moral/or should be legal. I also think that the number of death row inmates would decrease if we prevented the causes of crimes that land someone on death row. I think the abortion vs. the death penalty debate is unwinable and we need to start some upstream thinking on these subjects.

    I wholeheartedly agree.
  • Posts: 6,657
    JonnyPistachio wrote:
    show previous quotes

    Thank god these stats are low.

    I agree. But I think many people in this country are under the impression that they are MUCH higher.
    JonnyPistachio wrote:
    show previous quotes

    Ok, but it doesn’t explain how the death occurs. I assume that means the baby kinda starves to death? 22% is not a lot.

    Not really. Progesterone prepares the lining of the uterus to allow implantation of the fertilized egg. Insufficient progesterone can cause the lining of the uterus to be unable to hold on to a fertilized egg, leading to infertility or early miscarriage. (Many, many women miscarry without ever even knowing they're pregnant.) So when the pill blocks the progesterone, the lining of the uterus becomes insufficient to hold on to the embryo. Since implantation of the embryo is necessary for pregnancy to continue (or to be established), the pregnancy just doesn't continue. Placentas provide the nourishment to fetuses, but at this stage in pregnancy there's not yet even a functioning placenta, so the nourishment and waste exchange system isn't even set up yet.
    JonnyPistachio wrote:
    show previous quotes

    So the baby is sucked apart to pieces with a vacuum/syringe? I don’t see this more much different than pulling it apart with tools. It’s terrible either way to me. Like I said, I can’t squash a bug, let alone make baby soup with a vacuum.

    The majority of abortions occur early enough that you can't even find an embryo. There aren't really even pieces to be sucked apart.
    JonnyPistachio wrote:
    show previous quotes

    The other methods? Hmm, but they DO occur.
    show previous quotes

    My mistake. I honestly didn’t mean to make it sound like they are the most common procedures. (I said the first one I listed was outlawed in the original post.)

    So then, no, the first "procedure" you listed doesn't occur since it's against the law. (Of course this leaves only less safe procedures for the very, very few women who are far enough along and have whatever medical indications that warranted this "procedure". I put it in quotes because "partial birth abortion" is not a term for a specific medical procedure.)

    Yes, the others do occur - possibly less often than other methods of abortion like shoving coat hangers into your uterus, having someone punch you in the stomach, throwing yourself down a flight of stairs, or committing suicide. I don't know.
  • Posts: 6,657
    JonnyPistachio wrote:
    show previous quotes

    Sorry, I must've missed it...I didnt see where any scientists say that a baby isnt a person one day before birth, and then become a person as soon as it is born. I dont think there isnt really that much of a difference in the two. The arbitrary comment is the agrument that no-one will win about the definition of a person/human if we have opinions on the matter. Yes, the law can state that it isnt a person before it is 'born', but we all don't let the law govern our moral beliefs.

    in fact, not to sidetrack (and this is a longshot), but the law is somewhat hypocritcal. You can abort a baby legally, but if someone kills a woman who is pregnant, they can be charged with two murders.

    http://forums.pearljam.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=135746&start=195#p3065485

    The paragraph I quoted doesn't specifically define "person" but it does say that scientific information shows that a fetus can't experience consciousness, sensation, or emotions until birth. And I'm sure there is plenty of science and philosophy that defines "person" as having developed the ability to experience these things.

    I'm not saying there isn't any debate within the scientific community. I'm just saying it's not arbitrary baseless, unscientific shit that I'm pulling out of my ass.
  • Posts: 6,657
    stardust1976 wrote:
    Nope, I'm not suggesting in any way that MOST abortions are performed as an alternative to birth control, I am saying that SOME are. I personally know a woman who had three children already, she is a couple of years younger than me - married, all of the children have the same father (a chauvinistic arrogant arsehole moron - but that's besides the point), all the kids are healthy, they are financially stable, no issues to speak of. She fell pregnant to her husband, and they waited until the 11 week ultrasound, where they were told the baby was a girl, (and yes, I know that it's not always possible to tell the sex of a child that early on, but it IS possible - I found out that early that my son was a boy)..and she then had an abortion. No issues with the child other than the fact that it was female and they wanted a boy (they had two girls and one boy already). My issue lies here with the fact that the law says that's ok. All they had to do to get an abortion at 11 and a half weeks was to say that they didn't want to be pregnant. (she had the procedure booked BEFORE the ultrasound, with the option to cancel). She didn't cancel the appointment and then a couple of months later became pregnant again and it was a boy - who they kept. I find this disgusting. And I get that this is the minority. I have stated over and over again - a woman's right to choose is essential. I just believe there should be a way to impose a moral requirement on that, but obviously it's not going to happen.

    And I would never say to her 'you've killed your baby'. I don't necessarily think completely that way - I understand what you are saying on that point. MY children were real to me, and babies from that point on, but her child wasn't real to me - and I could never say to her, no matter how much it disturbs me that she did it, that she killed her child, because it IS a different situation to someone having a late pregnancy abortion, or someone killing their child after it is born. I get that - but I think I would have a different point of view if she had been over half way through her pregnancy - because it IS a real living moving child by that point, that with a lot of EXTREME medical help could survive outside the womb.

    So I guess that is really my ultimate timeframe when I think it over in my head logically. ONce a pregnancy progresses to the point that the baby could survive without the mother, then it's IN MY OPINION wrong to terminate it - but I also know this rarely happens. Most abortions are done early on and I know this. But personally for me in regards to my own body, its a lot earlier than that point.

    I would agree though, about the point made giving the comparison between abortion and the fact that if someone murders a woman while she is pregnant, they are charged with two murders. I would ask though, because I really don't know - are there laws in regard to second or third trimester abortion? If so, this would make this point (the comparison between murdering two people and abortion) invalid completely.

    I still won't ever agree that a foetus isn't a baby - but that's my own opinion, and everyone has theirs, and there has been a lot of valid points made in this thread.

    That's a sad story about the woman you know. Personally, I don't feel really comfortable with someone in Western cultures ending a pregnancy solely because of the sex. But I'm glad my comfort level isn't imposed upon her choice. Here's something else to think about: Plenty of women are not honest about their reasons for having abortions. Some make the reasons seem "better" than they are and some make them seem "worse". I've found that oftentimes there's more to the story.

    Roe v. Wade - which is a Supreme Court ruling interpreting what is constitutional, but not a law in itself - says abortion cannot be criminalized in the 1st or 2nd trimesters. Post-viability, individual states may choose to criminalize it, but they cannot criminalize it in cases where it's necessary to save the life or health of the mother. 38 states prohibit the abortion of a viable fetus. 1 of those states make an exception for rape or incest. 1 of those states makes an exception for rape, incest, or lethal fetal abnormality. 1 of those states makes an exception for fetal abnormality (but doesn't specify that it must be lethal).

    I'm not sure how many states charge people for 2 murders when they kill a pregnant woman.
  • Posts: 29,003
    scb wrote:
    http://forums.pearljam.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=135746&start=195#p3065485

    The paragraph I quoted doesn't specifically define "person" but it does say that scientific information shows that a fetus can't experience consciousness, sensation, or emotions until birth. And I'm sure there is plenty of science and philosophy that defines "person" as having developed the ability to experience these things.

    I'm not saying there isn't any debate within the scientific community. I'm just saying it's not arbitrary baseless, unscientific shit that I'm pulling out of my ass.

    but they respond to music so how can it be said they cant feel sensation?
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say

Welcome!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
Sign In
Register

Quick Links

Categories