Difficult anti-abortion video

[Mithcoriel]

I hope this is in the right section. It won't let me search the forum for "abortion" cause the word is too common..

I just watched this interesting youtube video:

What do you guys think about that?
Now, I'm totally pro-choice. But it's kind of difficult to argue when they bring up something like this.
I personally don't think the mother was evil for having an abortion. I think that was her right, and she didn't need to be "forgiven" for it, even though I can of course totally understand Gianna's feelings. Her life depended on it after all.
But, if you were to debate with her, how would you justify being pro-choice? You'd essentially be telling her that her mother had the right to kill her, and that she should have died.

That's one thing that makes this particular debate so difficult: you'll find several people in the world today, whose mother was e.g. talked out of an abortion, or whose abortion failed, etc. People who would have almost been killed by abortion. How do we argue pro-choice without basically telling those people: "If things had gone the right way, you should be dead." ? And add to that: this woman had to fight the consequences of the abortion her whole life, with all the disabilities she carried out of it.

One thing I can think of is to point out that you can't just generalize this. This doesn't automatically mean that all abortions are wrong. But is this argument even any good? Gianna's abortion would have also gone into the category of abortions I thought were...well, not exactly okay, it was late-term after all. But still. Each of those abortions I think are okay, no matter how justified, could result in a person who could one day reprimand me for that oppinion.

Another thing I always note is, that by that logic, everytime you decide not to have sex, you are killing someone. A person who was conceived outside of marriage could go on a campaign against the idea of chastity before marriage, because he wouldn't be alive had his parents stayed virgins till marriage. A person conceived via adultery could do the same thing: "If you say adultery is wrong, you're saying I shouldn't exist." Also, every time you stopped someone from being raped, you'd be preventing potential children from existing.

What do you think?

 

[Giliell]

Well, I don't find it that difficult.
In that situation, the abortion was totally wrong and unethical.
Convenience abortions to get rid of the result of failed contraception are for the first trimester.
Yes, I know, there are women who totally manage to ignore that they're pregnant for a very long time, but that's hard luck and life isn't peaches and cream.
The ones telling that girl (the mother) that she was too young to have the baby at 17 and after most of the pregnancy were clearly ignoring medical facts and any kind of ethical standards.
First of all, there are many girls in this world who have kids when 17.
No, I'm not fond of teen parents, but medically there is a slightly higher risk for a 17 year old than a 20 year old due to the fact that the 17 year lod's skeleton might still be growing and too small.
But that's not a very high risk.
Babies born after about 30 weeks of gestation (pregnancy) are "routine" now but were a medical challenge 20 years ago, but clearly they were not "hopeless cases anyway".
I think the mother was as much a victim of bad medical practise as the young woman is.
Late-term abortions are only a difficult topic when talked about under the wrong preconditions.
Becasue nowadays in the western world, they only take place rarely and under certain preconditions.
One possibility is that the woman's life is at risk. In that case you'll usually go for an emergency C-section in order to save mother and child.
The other is severe medical conditions in the child, in which the procedure is more or less similar to the one described in the video. Only that (at least here) the lethal injection is made in the heart of the fetus so that such a thing cannot happen anyway.

I've heard about horrible conditions in the few clinics in the States that will perform late-term abortions and they must not be tolerated, especially for the sake of the mother. I know they are totally different here.

I wouldn't debate her saying that her mother was right, I don't think the abortion that late in pregnancy without any good reason was justified. That doesn't mean that every abortion is unjustified.
Personal is not the same as important.


And about the "what if".
Well, the mother of my best friend tried to misscarry her. If she had succeeded I'd never known one of the most important people in my life right now. But if my parents had gone to the movies instead of making me taht night and had done it 2 days earlier or later, I wouldn't be here either, someone else would, maybe.
And here's the sorry news: People get hurt in reproduction.
Mothers and children sustain horrible damages from both natural childbirth and C-sections.
Doctors missread one single information, or the machine gave a wrong reading or they missjudge a reading and the child can be dead. The mother can be dead. That doesn't mean that modern gynaecology is quackery and should be forbidden.

 

[WolfAU]

What do you guys think about that?

That the woman attempted to undergo an abortion at 7 months is appalling. That the girl survived but was sick is a mixed bag, especially given that the disease appears to have been completely iatrogenic, plus she then would live with at some point learning her birth mother tried to abort her (which she appears to have come to terms with).

My attitude is there are alot of people out there who argue complete, unrestricted freedom in regards to abortion, and don't see any ethical issues. I disagree with that stance, but find it a much less damning stance than the alternative of very highly regulating it (forcing people to have children they never wanted, and are likely in no position to care for, and may end up ruining both the parents and childs lives). My personal stance is that women who are too blasé about abortions (ie have several, and show signs of complete contempt for the system, no meaningful attempts to effectively use contraception, stable relationships etc, should be able to legally be forced to have their tubes tied (that it should be impressed apon them that while they have SOME RIGHT to decide if they are ready for a child, it is not a matter they can treat so recklessly as quite a few women do).

if you were to debate with her, how would you justify being pro-choice?

Pretty much as above... beats the hell out of the alternative, the concept that life begins at conception is madness, and there are plenty of valid reasons to abort (in cases of severe disease, or risk to the mothers health), what I advocate is reform to abortion laws, rather than the usual fundie crap of "life begins at conception, its murder" which is just beyond infuriating to have to listen to.

You'd essentially be telling her that her mother had the right to kill her, and that she should have died.

I think she has a right to decide whether she (and hopefully her partner) are ready for a child, but again, no one would claim they have the right to decide this at 2 years after they're born, the question is "when does this right expire", with me only advocating late term abortions in matters of serious health.

There is an element of euthanasia that comes up in such matters... how severe would a genetic disorder need to be to warrant an abortion, at what stage of pregnancy etc.

As I've raised with many a pro-life dipshit, while I advocate reform, this is the wrong battlefield to be fighting on, if they want fewer abortions, improve contraception, education and help women make some smarter life choices, combined with fighting stereotypes (ie there is a stigma they buying/having contraception makes you a slut in many places, making women feel very uneasy about having it). However this will never come up, because their problem is with pre-marital sex, and I don't think it would be crazy to suggest trying to increase restrictions on abortion are an attempt to scare women into abstinence... In other words, ignore the fuckers.

This is an extremely rare case in most regards, and pro-life campaigners have obviously chosen it for that reason to use as propagranda.

Yes, I know, there are women who totally manage to ignore that they're pregnant for a very long time...

This is largely linked to poor education (not just about signs, but what to do, who to talk to) and social stigma (a woman may have ethical unease about early abortions because of social stigma, or may fear harassment).

The ones telling that girl (the mother) that she was too young to have the baby at 17 and after most of the pregnancy were clearly ignoring medical facts and any kind of ethical standards.

I wouldn't put too much stock in the rhetoric of the video, its clearly biased towards a pro-life stance.

Doctors missread one single information, or the machine gave a wrong reading or they missjudge a reading and the child can be dead. The mother can be dead.

Agreed, hence why I think the decision to become a parent should most definately not be entered into lightly (the physical stresses, emotional, financial, and many people are not prepared to be parents, and may never be).

 

[Giliell]

My personal stance is that women who are too blasé about abortions (ie have several, and show signs of complete contempt for the system, no meaningful attempts to effectively use contraception, stable relationships etc, should be able to legally be forced to have their tubes tied (that it should be impressed apon them that while they have SOME RIGHT to decide if they are ready for a child, it is not a matter they can treat so recklessly as quite a few women do).

And we were agreeing so well on other issues :lol:
I still don't know where you got that impression from. I have no idea what makes you think that somebody would do that lightly. I won't say that there may not be the occasional idiot out there who does those things, but you're judging "women" here.
I know that what you describe was a common practise in the former socialist states in Eastern Europe where contraception was hard to come by and abortion easily avaible, but I doubt that you'll find that kind of behaviour often if women have the choice between normal contraception and abortion, especially repeatedly.
Let me tell you about fist trimester abortion, about the medical procedure (Can't comment on the legal, I had one due to a so-called missed abortion, that's when the embryo dies but isn't rejected by the body. The procedure is the absolute same as for elective abortions).
So, you go to the hospital and are scheduled for surgery. Of course you haven't eaten or drunk anything that day. They get you ready and bring you to the operating room. There you move onto a special bed which is similar to a gyn's examination chair. The big difference is that they need to tie your legs to it. And since they need to fix the arm with the infusion, that is tied to the bed, too. So now you're lying on that bed, on your back, your basically tied to that bed and your genitals are fully exposed while some unrecognisable people in scrubs move around you and give you an examination.
Luckily, some time after that they sedate you and you wake again about an hour later with the whole thing done.
Since it's only a minor surgery, you can go home some time later. Still, you'll bleed like hell, feel nausea and the aftermath of the sedation for some time, meaning that people usually are off sick for about a week.
Sex is not a pleasure for some time since they had to insert quite some large stuff.
So, if you seriously think that women would prefer that on a regular basis instead of simply taking the pill, a condom, the loop, depo or any other contraception method, you must think us to be pretty masochistic.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I don't find anything difficult about it at all.

 

[WolfAU]

I still don't know where you got that impression from. I have no idea what makes you think that somebody would do that lightly.

This is a mix of you obviously being a fairly intelligent and decent individual, and probably a hint of feminist bias. The funny thing is (before you go calling me sexist... again), the person who persuaded me over to this way of thinking was actually a woman, a friend of mine in highschool who through her families connections to healthcare was informed of some nasty anecdotes which she followed up with some figures (she listed them at the time but I don't recall them and they'd be Australian figures and out of date).

The reality is some PEOPLE, men and women are completely self centered, and do in fact treat such matters with complete indifference. I'm not going to get into figures, because in some ways its irrelevent, suffice it to say they're enough to justify reform in my eyes, and even if thats not the case, to me thats kind of like saying there's no point in outlawing something clearly immoral because its rare.

...but you're judging "women" here.

Not really, but then a wise, careful, responsible individual may have little need for abortions (barring rape, complications or disease), I don't know the figures on "elective" abortions as a proportion of total abortions in western countries, but I would assume it would be a considerable majority (say 80-85+ %) of them.

Had a quick flip through the wikipedia entry on this, they raise an interesting issue that abortion may decrease crime, not a ridiculous notion given that many elective abortions would be from individuals who may likely be unable to give proper care to their child. It also raises the issue of abortion being abused as a form of sex selection (ie wanting a son rather than a daughter). Also the article indicates it is in violation of the Hippocratic Oath (something I have sworn to, I work/study in the biomedical field but am not a doctor so am not required to... I did it mostly for the hell of it).

you must think us to be pretty masochistic.

I don't particularly, though there is plenty of evidence to support such statements if I did (corsette, high heels, childbirth...). I'm not claiming these women are smart, but there are women out there who have had 4-5+ abortions, with little good reason. I mean if you need more proof than that that people are fucking stupid when it comes to sex, look at the prevalence of Chlamydia in many western countries (something I've had to study at uni), incredibly high prevalence (with figures that something like 1 in 10 Australians in my generation who have pre-marital sex will catch it), incredibly easy to prevent (condoms), sensitive tests and an incredibly effective treatment (a single course of antibiotics, to which resistance is incredibly rare).

Also, impressive cherry picking, given most of my above post was quite favourable towards women (ie blaming most of this on social stigma and poor education). And for the record... I think I'd be happy enough a heavy fine for repeated elective abortions with little justification (ie say 4 in 8-10 years without justification)

 

[Don-Sama]

I'm not in the mood to read everything now, I will later though.

here's a video of noelplum99 that he made just days ago about abortion, it pretty much sums up my views..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuIcEsaAFB4

I do think there should be a max time of an abortion, if the health of the mother is on stake then it is different though. But I think doctors should decide at what state that should be..

It's sad about the lady in the video though with her imaginary friend.. met a creationist (rare in holland) who had some problems with his heart that was abit like her too...

 

[Giliell]

quote="Giliell]The funny thing is (before you go calling me sexist... again), the person who persuaded me over to this way of thinking was actually a woman, a friend of mine in highschool who through her families connections to healthcare was informed of some nasty anecdotes which she followed up with some figures (she listed them at the time but I don't recall them and they'd be Australian figures and out of date).

Being a woman doesn't make her right
Well, coming from a family of people working in healthcare myself, I know a hell lot of nasty anecdotes (not about abortions) myself. I also learned to understand that I only get to hear about the worst exceptions.
I'm trying to dig up some numbers about how many women have multiple abortions in contrast to a single one.

The reality is some PEOPLE, men and women are completely self centered, and do in fact treat such matters with complete indifference. I'm not going to get into figures, because in some ways its irrelevent, suffice it to say they're enough to justify reform in my eyes, and even if thats not the case, to me thats kind of like saying there's no point in outlawing something clearly immoral because its rare.

I'm not going to argue about some people being idiots. But I'm always curious about how you'd change things. So, say (this is just made up) 1% of women who seek an abortion do so multiple times because they're too lazy. What kind of law would you make that stops these women and doesn't endanger their health nor that of the fetus?

...but you'rNot really, but then a wise, careful, responsible individual may have little need for abortions (barring rape, incest, complications or disease), I don't know the figures on "elective" abortions as a proportion of total abortions in western countries, but I would assume it would be a considerable majority (say 80-85+ %) of them.

Sorry, but that's naive.
You should take a look at failure rates of birth control methods They can fail even the most intelligent people and not all people are.

It also raises the issue of abortion being abused as a form of sex selection (ie wanting a son rather than a daughter).

Which is a totally different issue we might discuss somewhere else.

I don't particularly, though there is plenty of evidence to support such statements if I did (corsette, high heels, childbirth...)

Ahhh, you have no idea how good it feels to wear a corset once in a while. It's a holiday for the back, believe me.

I'm not claiming these women are smart, but there are women out there who have had 4-5+ abortions, with little good reason. I mean if you need more proof than that that people are fucking stupid when it comes to sex, look at the prevalence of Chlamydia in many western countries (something I've had to study at uni), incredibly high prevalence (with figures that something like 1 in 10 Australians in my generation who have pre-marital sex will catch it), incredibly easy to prevent (condoms), sensitive tests and an incredibly effective treatment (a single course of antibiotics, to which resistance is incredibly rare).

I'm not saying people aren't or in dire need of better education, but again, what's the point? How would outlawing abortion make that any better. And yes, people make mistakes. Intelligent people make mistakes, too. Condoms fail, too (ending your bedtime-sports realizing that instead of one condom you have two halves is one of the less pleasant memories I have...).

 

[Ciraric]

The doctor should have killed the baby.

I mean, that's his job. Right?

 

[WolfAU]

You should take a look at failure rates of birth control methods They can fail even the most intelligent people and not all people are.

I know, hence why I said "maybe", and what I was getting at is overall the figures of responsible individuals would be much lower than irresponsible. But I am aware of the failure rates of contraceptives, hence why I support using redundant methods and am in favour of further research into improving contraceptives (not only more effective, but cheaper, easier, fewer side effects etc).

Looking at those figures... that hardly inspires confidence that many methods are beaten by the withdrawal method...

Which is a totally different issue we might discuss somewhere else.

Not really, its a good reason to regulate elective abortions, thats my only point.

Ahhh, you have no idea how good it feels to wear a corset once in a while. It's a holiday for the back, believe me.

Yes, pity about that whole, "needing oxygen to breath" thing.

...How would outlawing abortion make that any better.

And we started talking about OUTLAWING abortion when? Increased regulations are good, for starters as you've expressed your personal opinion that late term elective abortions are wrong, for whatever reason. As for regulating the number, the main desired outcome would be, apart from limiting a practice I see largely as a "necessary evil", it would also be welcome for social reasons (trying to encourage it to be viewed as acceptable, but undesireable... or at least convincing more people), but making laws to alter peoples minds is a dangerous game.

The doctor should have killed the baby.
I mean, that's his job. Right?

And the award for random trolling goes to...

 

[ImprobableJoe]

The doctor should have killed the baby.

I mean, that's his job. Right?

And then ate it. :facepalm:

 

[Sloth]

Well, I'm just glad that she is alive. That is quite a story.

I'm still pro-choice though, the only time late term abortion should ever be allowed is when the baby is deformed or the mother's life is in danger.

Although, I think we need to make access to abortions easier. That way it won't be likely to get that far in the first place.

 

[Allah]

My personal stance is that women who are too blasé about abortions (ie have several, and show signs of complete contempt for the system, no meaningful attempts to effectively use contraception, stable relationships etc, should be able to legally be forced to have their tubes tied

I actually read about something like this happening. I believe it was in Chicago, the city offered low income women a sum of money (a few hundred dollars I believe) to tie their tubes. Someone thought it was racist, however, and they shut it down.

 

[Giliell]

I know, hence why I said "maybe", and what I was getting at is overall the figures of responsible individuals would be much lower than irresponsible. But I am aware of the failure rates of contraceptives, hence why I support using redundant methods and am in favour of further research into improving contraceptives (not only more effective, but cheaper, easier, fewer side effects etc).

Looking at those figures... that hardly inspires confidence that many methods are beaten by the withdrawal method...

Na, they're not that bad. The problem for most is the difference between perfect use failure and typical use failure. I have the nagging feeling that a lot of unwanted pregnancies could be avoided if antibiotics carried in large letters a warning "will make pill/depo fail"
Yes, I know, it's written somewhere in the instructions, but honestly, nobody reads them.

Which is a totally different issue we might discuss somewhere else.

Not really, its a good reason to regulate elective abortions, thats my only point.

Oh, I'm all for regulating them. My opinion is, as said, that elective abortions should be first trimester only. Since you can't tell the sex by then anyway (apart from having the placenta punctured, and you could regulate that doctors aren't allowed to tell the sex then) that would get rid of that issue.
Somebody who's willing to abort a perfectly healthy baby not because they don't want children, or they don't want children now or that it was a rape child but for the simply reason that it's the wrong sex doesn't deserve a kid.

Ahhh, you have no idea how good it feels to wear a corset once in a while. It's a holiday for the back, believe me.

Yes, pity about that whole, "needing oxygen to breath" thing.

Don't believe everything they show you in the movies. You can't really "suffocate" yourself by occasionally wearing a corset, the reason being that your lung is inside your ribs and they are a closed bone structure.

And we started talking about OUTLAWING abortion when? Increased regulations are good, for starters as you've expressed your personal opinion that late term elective abortions are wrong, for whatever reason. As for regulating the number, the main desired outcome would be, apart from limiting a practice I see largely as a "necessary evil", it would also be welcome for social reasons (trying to encourage it to be viewed as acceptable, but undesireable... or at least convincing more people), but making laws to alter peoples minds is a dangerous game.

OK, we heavily disagreed on that issue before, so no use in discussing it again now.
I agree on the need for regulation, but I disagree on any attempts to make things dependant on whether somebody is perceived to be responsible or not or something like that.
How do you judge that somebody didn't make a serious attempt to use contraception?
Some people are just horribly fertile, although they try.

 

[Marcus]

The doctor should have killed the baby.

I mean, that's his job. Right?

And then ate it. :facepalm:

That's just wrong.



You mean "eaten".

 

[ImprobableJoe]

That's just wrong.



You mean "eaten".

I may have meant "eated"?

 

[Marcus]

I may have meant "eated"?

Eating babies is no excuse for poor grammar. Nor, come to think of it, for poor table manners. Anyone using a fish fork during the baby course has no place in polite society.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I may have meant "eated"?

Eating babies is no excuse for poor grammar. Nor, come to think of it, for poor table manners. Anyone using a fish fork during the baby course has no place in polite society.

I'm simply using the local dialect of the Appalachian mountain peoples who are known for eating babies and various "city folk" who break down in their areas.

 

[MRaverz]

Her birth was a miracle? Aborted babies look like Holocaust victims? It's a miracle that she walked? God was merciful because she got one friend? It's a miracle that the spinal surgery was successful? She owes her parent and grandparent to Christ? She wants to spread the truth, yet bases it on a belief? She forgave her mother... due to the power of god...? Throw your life away having sex?

This video annoyed me and there's so much I could comment on, I really don't know where to start. Why must these mundane events even be considered miracles? Why is there the assumption that some deity has caused everything in her life? Isn't that quite a selfish way to view a God, as someone who helped them to be saved so that they can save others?


On the issue of abortion, I'm pro-choice - I don't see why my opinion on abortion should be forced onto someone who is actually having a child.

 

[Mithcoriel]

Her birth was a miracle? Aborted babies look like Holocaust victims? It's a miracle that she walked? God was merciful because she got one friend? It's a miracle that the spinal surgery was successful? She owes her parent and grandparent to Christ? She wants to spread the truth, yet bases it on a belief? She forgave her mother... due to the power of god...? Throw your life away having sex?

Well, while I do disagree with the very christian message of this video, I don't blame Gianna for feeling that way. I mean harsh experiences can turn you into a firm believer, and her whole life has been a wild crazy experience. While it wasn't scientificaly impossible for her to survive the abortion, or learn to walk, it was still rather lucky.

Now I don't know if aborted babies look like holocaust victims, I wouldn't rule it out, but either way, it wouldn't matter, cause they wouldn't have been sentient.