Abortion

[donniedarko]

When you wash your hands, over the course of 30 years, you kill more individual "beings" than that number to the power of another incredibly large number. Is that wrong?

[DontBeAfraid]

Those figures are gross misrepresentations of reality cornish maid.

[Cornish Maid]

More accurate statistics

1920-2005 - 757,000,000 reported abortions worldwide. Estimated number 945,000,000 in total.

Estimated monthly average is 1,225,000.

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/poli...wrjp337sd.html

[Cornish Maid]

When you wash your hands, over the course of 30 years, you kill more individual "beings" than that number to the power of another incredibly large number. Is that wrong?

I think we participate in germ warfare. Bacteria which is beneficial to our health we encourage and bacteria which is detrimental to our health we do not.

They respond, to our methods, and we have the MRSA problem at the moment . Just one example. Wipe them out or they will cause havock with our health.

Seems reasonable to me.

[Havoc Angel]

More accurate statistics

1920-2005 - 757,000,000 reported abortions worldwide. Estimated number 945,000,000 in total.

Estimated monthly average is 1,225,000.

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/poli...wrjp337sd.html

Looks like someone wants to baffle us with huge numbers. How about you compare those to the 85 year amount of murder deaths (include dead civilians in warfare please.) Or death through traffic accidents. Or suicides. Or natural deaths. Or the birth rare.
Even with this amount of abortions mankind is still growing almost over exponentially.

oh and mankind is causing havoc to the wildlife one earth, so it's reasonable to exterminate it then. Where to start? So many people and so little time....

[DontBeAfraid]

Actually those numbers include miscarriage and stillborns as those are technically "aborted" pregnancies. Maybe cornish maid doesnt know she is being intellectually(sp) dishonest and is just reciting misinformation..... or maybe she does know whe is not telling the truth.

[Cornish Maid]

I understood it to mean registered abortions, not including miscarriages and stillbirths.

This data from the UK does include miscarriages.

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/poli...edkingdom.html

[Cornish Maid]

Looks like someone wants to baffle us with huge numbers. How about you compare those to the 85 year amount of murder deaths (include dead civilians in warfare please.) Or death through traffic accidents. Or suicides. Or natural deaths. Or the birth rare.
Even with this amount of abortions mankind is still growing almost over exponentially.

oh and mankind is causing havoc to the wildlife one earth, so it's reasonable to exterminate it then. Where to start? So many people and so little time....

I don't want to baffle anybody, just curious about how many abortions have and are being performed.

The figures are disturbing but its going on. Maybe you think its a good idea.

[DontBeAfraid]

I understood it to mean registered abortions, not including miscarriages and stillbirths.

Thats what the anti-choicers were going for....

[Cornish Maid]

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/poli...ion/index.html

OK, disregard previous post, and when opened above link, click onto

Historical abortion statistics by country, which includes miscarriages, and you will see a pattern emerging.

[DontBeAfraid]

Yes I did see a pattern.... It looks like the US is the worst offender with 1.2 -1.6 million abortions per year and this trumps every other country I checked by at least 1 million. It also shows that abortions nation-wide have been on the decline for the past decade.

Now I didnt add up every other country on the list but they seemed to average maybe 40k PER YEAR(I have clicked on several more countries and this average is pretty fair as some countries are through the roof(japan, russia etc) and others are in the low thousands.... so all those combined with the US adds up to about 5.1 million legal abortions PER YEAR which is nowhere NEAR 1.2 million per month..... UNLESS you add in all the miscarriages which are clearly seperated on the second breakdown you gave.

oh, and just to reiterate the disclaimer found just above the statistics: Both entities which were engaged in compiling the data found on the page have a very vested interest in over estimating the numbers.


edit: wow I missed russia! They apparently abort more than they birth..... but then again their numbers DONT SHOW THE MISCARRIAGE NUMBERS! Im inclined to believe they are lumped in with their abortion number; so using them to calcutate human abortions and not natural abortions is impossible.

edit: another pattern I am noticing: The most liberal countries usually have some of the lowest abortion rates.

[Cornish Maid]

It's good to see the Russian rate coming down. I had heard that levels were pretty atrocious during the Communist regime. Looks like they were and that didn't include the unreported cases.

[Ningishiddza]

Currently, the legal definition of death is the absence of brainwaves.

Under this definition, an abortion during the first 10-12 weeks would be permissible.

Medical personnel have had the ability to test a pregnant woman for the existence of brainwaves in the foetus for nearly 20 years. The medical data shows that a foetus does not exhibit brainwaves until about 10-12 weeks.

As it currently stands, brainwaves observed at about 10-12 weeks appear to emanate from the medulla oblongata. If so, then the legal definition of death is still met, since the brainwaves must emanate from the cerebellum. The medulla oblongata only controls involuntary muscles such as the heart.

The point at which a foetus begins showing brainwaves from the "main brain," where higher order thinking occurs, is the point at which exists a senchant being, and at that point, abortions should cease.

Where the "health" of the mother is at issue, "health" must be strictly defined in the most narrowest sense. Otherwise, liberals will expliot vague definitions of "health," and they have already done so. For example, it was argued that if a woman "was forced" to have a baby, she would be depressed and it would affect her mental "health."

I see nothing wrong with an abortion in circumstances where continuing the pregnancy would result in the death of the mother, extensive damage and further physical health complications, or which would prevent the mother from having future children. Essentially one would be killing one to save the life of another. Philosphically, I have no issue with this, and in fact, if it were necessary, would kill 500,000 to save the lives of 20 Million. Both Truman and Churchill were faced with this choice, and they both collapsed and sloughed off their moral, ethical and legal duties and responsibilities and ran away from it, which ultimately led to the deaths of 20 Million people.

As far as rape and incest, abortion is not justified. Studies done on rape victims who carried the child to term show no negative affects. In some cases the children were placed for adoption, but in other cases, the women could not bear to give the child up for adoption and raised it, without negative consequences. It should be noted that the women who raised the children came from loving homes where the mother and father instilled good discipline and moral ethical values, and these women were strong, independent women, who had no self-esteem issues. They also sought counseling as part of their rehabiliation after their rape ordeal.

I have no problem recognizing that women have rights regarding their bodies and reproductive issues, but with rights comes duties, obligations and responsibilities. What the liberals want is the court/government recognition of rights without the obligations and responsibilities. As we might soon see, this may prove detrimental to their cause. There are currently at least 2 men's rights groups just dying for the ultimate test case to challenge women's rights and to assert the right's of men where abortion issues arise.

[Cartesiantheater]

I have no problem recognizing that women have rights regarding their bodies and reproductive issues, but with rights comes duties, obligations and responsibilities.

Interesting. How about this?

Women get the right to choose, but men NEVER have to pay child-support. If it's "your body" before birth, then it's "your problem" after birth.

[Jupiter]

Currently, the legal definition of death is the absence of brainwaves.

Under this definition, an abortion during the first 10-12 weeks would be permissible.

Medical personnel have had the ability to test a pregnant woman for the existence of brainwaves in the foetus for nearly 20 years. The medical data shows that a foetus does not exhibit brainwaves until about 10-12 weeks.

As it currently stands, brainwaves observed at about 10-12 weeks appear to emanate from the medulla oblongata. If so, then the legal definition of death is still met, since the brainwaves must emanate from the cerebellum. The medulla oblongata only controls involuntary muscles such as the heart.

The point at which a foetus begins showing brainwaves from the "main brain," where higher order thinking occurs, is the point at which exists a senchant being, and at that point, abortions should cease.

Where the "health" of the mother is at issue, "health" must be strictly defined in the most narrowest sense. Otherwise, liberals will expliot vague definitions of "health," and they have already done so. For example, it was argued that if a woman "was forced" to have a baby, she would be depressed and it would affect her mental "health."

I see nothing wrong with an abortion in circumstances where continuing the pregnancy would result in the death of the mother, extensive damage and further physical health complications, or which would prevent the mother from having future children. Essentially one would be killing one to save the life of another. Philosphically, I have no issue with this, and in fact, if it were necessary, would kill 500,000 to save the lives of 20 Million. Both Truman and Churchill were faced with this choice, and they both collapsed and sloughed off their moral, ethical and legal duties and responsibilities and ran away from it, which ultimately led to the deaths of 20 Million people.

As far as rape and incest, abortion is not justified. Studies done on rape victims who carried the child to term show no negative affects. In some cases the children were placed for adoption, but in other cases, the women could not bear to give the child up for adoption and raised it, without negative consequences. It should be noted that the women who raised the children came from loving homes where the mother and father instilled good discipline and moral ethical values, and these women were strong, independent women, who had no self-esteem issues. They also sought counseling as part of their rehabiliation after their rape ordeal.

I have no problem recognizing that women have rights regarding their bodies and reproductive issues, but with rights comes duties, obligations and responsibilities. What the liberals want is the court/government recognition of rights without the obligations and responsibilities. As we might soon see, this may prove detrimental to their cause. There are currently at least 2 men's rights groups just dying for the ultimate test case to challenge women's rights and to assert the right's of men where abortion issues arise.

I will check this out further, but I for one think that's sound research, I will carefully note & retain your post!

[Sammy56]

As far as rape and incest, abortion is not justified.

I disagree. What if a 12-year old girl was raped? She is not emotional capable of handling a baby. Especially in younger women, being raped and getting pregnant could ruin your life if you had to care for the baby. Even if you didn't, it could cause unneeded physical and mental stress. It could delay education. The girl could be labeled as a slut. It could tear up her body. Incest, however, doesn't just cause problems for the mother. It could cause awful genetic disorders in the baby as well.

Studies done on rape victims who carried the child to term show no negative affects.

I don't buy that. At all. Any sources?

In some cases the children were placed for adoption, but in other cases, the women could not bear to give the child up for adoption and raised it, without negative consequences.

Again, sources?

It should be noted that the women who raised the children came from loving homes where the mother and father instilled good discipline and moral ethical values, and these women were strong, independent women, who had no self-esteem issues.

But what about women who aren't like that? Do they have less of a right to be happy?

Another thing no one thinks about is the children. It is emotionally damaging to find out you came from an unwanted pregnancy and I can imagine it's even worse if that pregnancy was from rape or incest.

[loganosborne]

Studies done on rape victims who carried the child to term show no negative affects.

Only in some cases not all.

[Cornish Maid]

[QUOTE=Ningishiddza]Currently, the legal definition of death is the absence of brainwaves.

Under this definition, an abortion during the first 10-12 weeks would be permissible.

Medical personnel have had the ability to test a pregnant woman for the existence of brainwaves in the foetus for nearly 20 years. The medical data shows that a foetus does not exhibit brainwaves until about 10-12 weeks.


So if your mother had aborted you in the first three months, perfectly acceptable because you were legaly dead, we wouldn't be benefiting from your valuable contributions to this site. Glad she didn't.

[jinxz]

Getting back to a slightly earlier point; there used to be a concept in Catholic theology called "limbo." Limbo was where the church said the unbaptized infants and the unborn (also of course unbaptized) went when they died. Limbo was not pleasant like heaven, and neither was it perditious like purgatory or hell. Instead it was some sort of state of perpetual numbness, neither pleasant nor unpleasant. I guess the church went with this explanation for so long because it wouldn't relax its dogma that only the baptized got into heaven but felt that saying dead babies go to hell was too harsh. But they did away with limbo within the last twenty years or so, saying that these "lost souls" are left up to "the mercy of God." Meaning that this question is supposedly yet another inscrutable mystery.
Now it seems that most Protestant sources I've seen have always maintained that dead babies and aborted fetuses went to heaven (some even conferring on them the status of martyrs). This is probably because they don't hold to quite the same doctrine of original sin that Catholics do, and make baptism less important than individual and inner conversion. But it's always seemed to me that the real danger in this logic is that it would suggest that killing one's baby is the morally best thing one could do, since it would guarantee one's offspring's everlasting happiness. To not do so would subject your child to the power of the devil for much of their life if not forever after-wards. If this belief is taken for granted, there seems no way to justify letting one's offspring live since there's nothing to be gained by life but infinite risk (the infinite pleasures of heaven dwarf any pleasure that they might have experienced in this life).
Of course this all rests on the presupposition that souls exist, and if one does away with that, the whole argument becomes moot. That's probably why this is such a contentious issue (especially with religious folk), because it forces us to consider whether or not we have any souls or "rights" at all.

[Jupiter]

Loganosborne and Sammy56 (nice avatars both of you!) I do not dispute your points & I very much note them too - when I commented on Ningishiddza's research I should have said I was specifically referring to the research about the brain waves themselves.

The medulla is part of the brainstem, which regulates essential automatic actions such as breathing, and heartrate. Other structures within the brainstem include the midbrain, and reticular formation, each of which controls different body functions. The cerebellum is involved in producing a complex pattern of nerve signals required for smooth, coordinated and balanced movements. You control many aspects of motion unconsciously, mainly thanks to your cerebellum. This is also where the 'programmes' for learned movement patterns are coordinated, for instance the sequence of moves in a tennis swing, or my 'finger memory' when I am playing a piece I have learned on the Piano.

The cerebrum - the outermost portions of the brain. It is the epicentre of consciousness and deals with unique human abilities, such as language, logic and consciousness of self. The cerebrum is divided into two halves - left and right celebral hemispheres - each of which is divided into four lobes.

Ningi, where brainwaves are being recorded in the cerebellum, are they being detected in the cerebrum as well at that point? Because the point at which self-awareness is activated - surely that it where abortion should not take place? I might be imagining the memories, but I possibly do have a memory of being "inside" myself - presumably struck from sometime after my own cerebrum was functioning.

Source of information:- The Brain & Central Nervous System, published by Reader's Digest (c) 2000.

[Raptor Witness]

Of this generation it will be written, that while they cried, "save the whales" while they were exterminating their own unborn species.

[Sammy56]

Comparing whales and embryos doesn't really work Raptor.

Many whales species are near extinction do to human activity. I think it is only right to try and repair the damage we have done to these living creature.

Embryos are not part of an endangered species by far (quite the opposite really). A 8-week old embryo is not alive in my opinion. It is not conscious, the defining characteristic of humans.

[jeffweeder]

It's a good point though sammy, humans can go to remarkable lengths, yet fail to see what is going on in their own back yard. Just imagine for a second, that you were that actual Embryo, that wasn't really you, or maybe it was going to be your son or daughter, and someone(with knowledge) stepped in with a pair of pliers and proceded to rip it apart.
You as an embryo would.............
I as the father of that " non existent" embryo, would procede to apply those pliers to his nuts, and get my wife the hell out of there.

[DontBeAfraid]

An unconscious(no brain waves) embryo is not a person.... Its barely more alive than moss. An embryo cant imagine itself, it would never care that it got terminated. I dont have any memories of anyhting until I was about 3 YEARS old, but we are going by frontal lobe brainwaves here, not the actual ability to recognize your own existance so 3 years is kinda late.

[jeffweeder]

OM good gracious me, DBA, try to see my point, let the clouds drift away for a little while, ...Were you an embryo once? Are all embryo's personal"...dude.
Its sad that you would Not fight for the chance to live and become you...hey, the up side is that you aint you yet. So dont give up.......