Not trolling, a legit Anti-Abortion Thread.

I know two women personally who have been unable to conceive due to damage of the reproductive system because of an abortion. Both suffer from Post Abortive Syndrome. It would be interesting to see the averages of how many women are made fully aware of all the consequences they may develop in the future before making the decision to abort.

If i were an abortionist i would be very scared right now. I am not sure if they are getting the real numbers of the concequences. Informed consent is a tricky. I really wonder what kind of informed consent these doctors are giving their patients or if they just say well your problems will be solved once you have this abortion. My guess is they are saying something like it is your choice of weather or not to have the abortion and there is always a small chance of complications. Alot of abortion doctors are not the best physicians and i don't really know about the staff at the clinics, but the staffs job is not to tell anyone of the problems of an abortion might have. Their only job is to witness that the patient sighned the informed consent prior to proceedure.

I don't know why they would inform patients of the possible future ramifications...other than just enough to avoid any potential lawsuits. They are in the baby killin' business, and scaring people off from fully explaining to them future consequences of the procedure does not help the sales numbers of your business.

Well in general that is why all informed consents are done to ward off any lawsuits.It is all about risks to benefits. Example a patient has to sign a informed consent to receive blood. The doctor states from your blood tests you are low on blood I recomend we give you a couple of pints otherwise your blood pressure will continue to go up or your heart rate or you will continue to pass out and it will get worse . After the blood you should feel better. In the mean time we will find the source of your bleeding....
What does a abortion doctor tell their patient? I really have no idea because the patient is stable and the risks are future complications with pregnancy and a ton of emotional bagage in years to come. An abbortiotionist is really a rare one!

John,
The strong objections are not about abortion being performed in the case of incest, rape, or other tragic circumstances. It is the casual assumption that it is justifiable in all circumstances, and that it is worth all of the energy and anger to defend OR oppose.
Morality is not something that can be taught by a sermon or a book, but what we learn as children from our parents and society. Public education being one of those "societal" branches. There are those people (myself included) that look to, and hope for, a power that is much more cognizant and aware of something more. Not just the base human instinct (or lack of one) to defend something or oppose something because it is the cool thing to do.
The "proof" argument was just to illustrate how silly it is to look for positive proof in anything without explanation of fact, and that explanation of fact only explains a small part of most subjects. Chemistry, mathematics, and most other absolutes are easily defendable. Human emotion and affairs of life are not so easily explained away by quoting obscure (or not so obscure) drafts of biblical lore.
It is the position of most Liberals to justify actions based on arguing the point of the Conservative. This is why the subject of "religion" was injected into the argument. Conservatives, as a whole, believe that the two subjects are joined....Liberals want nothing to do with the combination, and use it to illustrate how "wacko" Conservatives are. BUT, if we are to choose sides in the debate, I choose the one that offers a MORE elevated position on abortion, albeit not what either side would choose. Thank God for the free will of humans.

Wicked, you define trusting God to be an elevated position. Of course that carries two requirements. That there is a God. And that your interpretation of what God wants *you* to do is accurate. Therein lies the point of contention.

I'm pretty sure that there are plenty of liberals that believe in God. So the idea that you separate the religious from the non-religious by conservative vs liberal might be the first clue that your interpretation of what God expects from you is suspect in the eyes of others.

It doesn't take belief in God to realize that abortion is immoral. Just the fact that people don't brag about getting one should be a clue that even those who get them don't believe it's moral. But when people start using their religion as support for their argument, they are suggesting that they subscribe to a higher moral authority than the rest of us, and invite judgment upon themselves. If you read up on what Jesus asked of his followers to be perfect, you'll find that conservative America is failing to even try to meet those high standards.

"if you look at it the people who do not believe in God are the ones advocating killing what is clearly a baby child"
I think most churches in the usa don't really speak out against abortion and i know most religions in the world don't have a problem with it.
every ectopic pregnancy should be aborted, it is dangerous and not a natural pregnancy.
"I know two women personally who have been unable to conceive due to damage of the reproductive system because of an abortion"
oh, so there are consequences to having an abortion.
there are even more consequences to having a child.

oh, so there are consequences to having an abortion. there are even more consequences to having a child.

Wow.

Wow 6 solid hours of work comes along and I miss a lot. Rod, as many have said a sensible cutoff for legal abortion is when the fetus could survive outside the womb. I think most states use this as a basic guideline and I think it a sensible one. Could those fetuses eventually becomes babies? Absolutely. A zygote could eventually become a baby, and the morning after pill prevents that from happening - is that murder? To a Christian who believes as Dan does that a soul enters the zygote at conception, I suppose emergency contraception (morning after pill) is murder. Now obviously as medical knowledge/technology improves the viability target may continue to shift to earlier and earlier points in time in a pregnancy - ultimately reaching the point of a viable non-human uterus even. What then? At that point, a zygote itself can be considered "viable" because it could be transplanted into a lab-grown uterus -- so the morning after pill itself becomes illegal...

I think that for MOST people on both sides (certainly not all), the question is where to draw the line. It is not a question that science can answer. Science can inform, but not answer... Unfortunately extremists on both sides end up sufficiently escalating the issue into a double-sided slippery slope screamfest leaving little room for actual discourse.

While the medical issues mentioned are important and I absolutely agree that women should be well informed (and no doubt not all are) of the risks (as with any surgical procedure), they are irrelevant to the discussion of the "morality" of abortion. Like any medical procedure methods will improve and chemical abortions with little or no risk to the mother are inevitably in our future -- that in no way alters the question we are all discussing here.

Well, it seems pretty clear that the time may be a little late. What we call a fetus is in every way shape or form a human. I think that is too late for general I don't want to raise this thing considerations. That is like saying grandma can't possibly make it to the store and get groceries so she can feed herself, so we need to kill her argument. They need to move the time in considerably for non life threatening procedures and reign in planned parenthoods selling of abortion. If they truely want to be planned parenthood, then they need to give all sides of the debate and let the women see the child.

I think what you are the most confused about is that you believe I am attempting to change your mind. That was NEVER my intention. I am just stating my point of view....like it or not. If you feel the need to try and pick apart my conversation, feel free. However, you have proven my point.......

"most churches in the usa don't speak out against abortion"

.....nothing....silence

"most religions in the world don't have a problem with abortion"

.....nothing....silence

"there are consequences to having an abortion and even more consequences to having a child"

eubanks,"Wow"
}

Not sure what you are after, jo?

I think most churches do speak against abortion. They usually stay away from the politics and preach about the sanctity of life. Of cource, the catholic church just recently went on the attack against supporting politicians who support abortion. So I would have to say your not correct on that.

Most religions don't have a problem with abortion? Don't know where you have been? I think the major religions have a huge problem with abortion. I think that is why the non religious are so up in arms about religions on the subject. Stereotypes are usually developed by observations and trends in most cases. I don't think people are making up the fact that religions are against it.

Not sure what you are trying to get at about on the consequences quote? Are you saying there is no consequences or you amazed that someone is saying there are more consequences to having a child than not? Not sure what your argument is? If you want to stir the pot, you really need a defined position.

Besides, I think the bi-annual abortion throw down is about done.

(Message edited by deltahoosier on January 30, 2010)

(Message edited by deltahoosier on January 30, 2010)

"oh, so there are consequences to having an abortion.
there are even more consequences to having a child."

Joe Shmoe, By saying there are even more consequences to having a child. I am wondering
if you are confusing consequences with responsibilities?