Funkyterrance wrote:Player, I really appreciate your detailed response. It was very informative.
I suppose when I look at the debate about abortions I assume certain things are understood but evidently I am being hasty. I don't consider a miscarriage an abortion since it is a natural occurrence and no outside intervention has occurred. While this may not be technically correct, I think it is the obviously the general consensus.
It is
assumed that this is the case. However, as I stated, when you look at the statistics, most people just don't realize that miscarriages ARE included or how many women getting an "abortion" are actually having a miscarriage removed. I know because I went through it. I have given the full and complete details in other threads.
Funkyterrance wrote:I am, essentially, a naturalist and therefore the aspect of intervening in the progress of the unborn goes pretty strongly against my beliefs. Lets just assume that the fetus is healthy, the mother is healthy and the baby when it is born will have half a chance at a reasonably happy life. These are the abortions that are in question as far as I am concerned. Adoption, as mentioned earlier, would solve any problems regarding underprivileged children.
Except, again, those assumptions are just false many times. Also, its not just a matter of "underprivilaged child" -- give a better home = good outcome. When a woman does not want to have a child, she generally does not take as good care of herself as she ought. The child that is born will NOT necessarily be healthy. This, again is not necessarily reflected in abortion statistics, because its just hard to track. Again, the data usually comes from voluntary surveys and how many women really are going to say they are aborting because they want to keep using illegal drugs? (just to point out one issue with the data). Some studies have tried to delve into this type of issue better... and that is part of why you see such a wide variation in numbers.
Funkyterrance wrote: I understand that many women who have abortions intend to ultimately have children but I am going to go back to my example of people I know who have terminated what they decided at the time were unwanted pregnancies. These individuals all have children now and still regret having the abortion. None of these people regret having their existing children.
Then your experience is not that diverse. You have also not visited many courts where child abuse is dealt with, not been to the homes of many seriously disabled children (note.. I am talking a good deal beyond being in a wheelchair, etc). Also, you have to define "regret". In many cases, the regret is that they would not have gotten themselves into that situation, or that they just wish things were different. I have NEVER..and its false to claim that abortion is something easy or that people like, but that is part of the whole point. This is a personnal choice, its not something that an outside entity.. people not even involved have any right to dictate.
Funkyterrance wrote:So, to maybe streamline the discussion would it be more beneficial to focus on those abortions that were not due to natural causes?
Except, that is a distortion. And, who gets to define "natural causes" anyway. IN my case, even when I had a "fully natural" miscarriage (I had several), because my blood is Rh neg, I had to get an injection each time. Each time, the lab techs and nurses would look at the "post partum" bit, not see a baby and literally assume I had an abortion.. and note, I am talking medical professionals, in a hospital. IF THEY misunderstand so heavily, you can imagine how the general population feels.
After that incident, I have had opportunity to talk with a LOT of local women. I was very far from the only one with such an experience. Again, when you realize that anywhere from 30-50% miscarry.
Funkyterrance wrote:I don't think that anyone in their right mind would object to a fetus being aborted when it will die anyway or is dead already, especially if this means the mother will be harmed by non-action. Any extreme opinions, one way or another, should be taken in light of the fact that they are just that: extreme.
Except, you are talking about the Governor of S Dakota, laws passed in Mississippi, etc, etc, etc. elsewhere. So, extreme or not, they are significant numbers in the US.
