Is Planned Hamburger more important than the entire good of America?

[michigancat]

i can see his point.  conception is a firm, fixed point in time, at which point the new organism begins development.  in contrast birth occurs at a variable point in time from conception.  while most babies are born at roughly the same time from conception, some can be born much earlier or somewhat later than the median.  regardless of the timing of birth, those babies are at very nearly the same developmental place as other babies the same age from conception.

obviously, as you get farther from conception this distinction becomes less meaningful.  but for young babies, age from conception is a much better indicator of their point in development than is age from birth.

true, but the severing of the umbilical cord, removal from the womb, (and everything else associated w/ birth) is a clear, significant transition. It's more arbitrary than conception, sure, but it definitely shouldn't be considered "arbitrary" by any definition of the word relative to anything else.

[8manpick]

Compromise, no more abortions, just premature births. Cut the cord, see how it goes

[Yard Dog]

i can see his point.  conception is a firm, fixed point in time, at which point the new organism begins development.  in contrast birth occurs at a variable point in time from conception.  while most babies are born at roughly the same time from conception, some can be born much earlier or somewhat later than the median.  regardless of the timing of birth, those babies are at very nearly the same developmental place as other babies the same age from conception.

obviously, as you get farther from conception this distinction becomes less meaningful.  but for young babies, age from conception is a much better indicator of their point in development than is age from birth.

For instance, the most premature baby to survive an early birth, Amillia Taylor, was born at just 21 weeks and six days into her gestation, which was two weeks before the legal abortion cut off at the time in the US.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

What are the positives that would be gained if abortions were illegal? (Assuming we have some agreement on rape/incest/health)

A lot fewer cruelly murdered innocent babies.

More dead pregnant ladies who didn't want to be pregnant and probably a few more murdered babies (actual babies who have been born) and toddlers.

Serious question: How many more of each, do you think?

Another serious question: Do you think large scale bans on abortion would lead to "back alley" clinics worse than Kermit Gosnell's, which somehow managed to exist under our current legal framework?

Probably about 10,000 dead women per year based on the fact that up to 5,000 women died per year in illegal abortions before Roe vs Wade and the U.S. population has doubled since then.

Let's just start with this first number. You claim that "up to 5,000 women" per year died in illegal abortions prior to Roe v Wade. I'm not sure where you got this number from, but it is absurd on its face.

Consider: In 1970, according to the Census Buereau, the total number of women who died between the ages of 15 and 34 was approximately 170,000. Are you really going to tell me that you honestly believe that 5,000 (or 3%) of those deaths were due to an illegal abortion? I guess you did say "up to 5,000" - so you're right, the real number is almost certainly a hell of a lot lower than that.

[star seed 7]

Illegal abortionist will NOT work on women over 34

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Seems like a pretty logical dividing line 

yeah, I mean you can have valid arguments against abortion but calling birth an "arbitrary" and "illogical" dividing line is absolutely absurd. Like, where the eff did that argument come from.

Let me put this as nicely as possible: You're being stupid. I've already explained, several times, why birth is an arbitrary and illogical dividing line. If you won't listen to me, maybe listen to sys.

[Mrs. Gooch]

What are the positives that would be gained if abortions were illegal? (Assuming we have some agreement on rape/incest/health)

A lot fewer cruelly murdered innocent babies.

More dead pregnant ladies who didn't want to be pregnant and probably a few more murdered babies (actual babies who have been born) and toddlers.

Serious question: How many more of each, do you think?

Another serious question: Do you think large scale bans on abortion would lead to "back alley" clinics worse than Kermit Gosnell's, which somehow managed to exist under our current legal framework?

Probably about 10,000 dead women per year based on the fact that up to 5,000 women died per year in illegal abortions before Roe vs Wade and the U.S. population has doubled since then.

Let's just start with this first number. You claim that "up to 5,000 women" per year died in illegal abortions prior to Roe v Wade. I'm not sure where you got this number from, but it is absurd on its face.

Consider: In 1970, according to the Census Buereau, the total number of women who died between the ages of 15 and 34 was approximately 170,000. Are you really going to tell me that you honestly believe that 5,000 (or 3%) of those deaths were due to an illegal abortion? I guess you did say "up to 5,000" - so you're right, the real number is almost certainly a hell of a lot lower than that.

I got it from this article. http://www.ourbodiesourselves.org/health-info/impact-of-illegal-abortion/
I don't think there is really any way to know how many deaths due to illegal abortions really occurred since a lot of them were not reported as deaths due to illegal abortion.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Illegal abortionist will NOT work on women over 34

If you followed the link, you would see that the census data is broken down by age groups - not for each year of age. I combined the stats from the 15-24 and 25-34 age groups. Of course you can have children before 15 and after 34, but you also start introducing way more natural causes of death the older you go. Stop. Being. A. Dumbass.

[michigancat]

Seems like a pretty logical dividing line 

yeah, I mean you can have valid arguments against abortion but calling birth an "arbitrary" and "illogical" dividing line is absolutely absurd. Like, where the eff did that argument come from.

Let me put this as nicely as possible: You're being stupid. I've already explained, several times, why birth is an arbitrary and illogical dividing line. If you won't listen to me, maybe listen to sys.

I'm not sure you know what arbitrary means.

[star seed 7]

Illegal abortionist will NOT work on women over 34

If you followed the link, you would see that the census data is broken down by age groups - not for each year of age. I combined the stats from the 15-24 and 25-34 age groups. Of course you can have children before 15 and after 34, but you also start introducing way more natural causes of death the older you go. Stop. Being. A. Dumbass.

So only women between 15 and 34 die to illegal abortions.

If I was 34 I think I'd wait until the magical 35th birthday to get the abortion then

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

What are the positives that would be gained if abortions were illegal? (Assuming we have some agreement on rape/incest/health)

A lot fewer cruelly murdered innocent babies.

More dead pregnant ladies who didn't want to be pregnant and probably a few more murdered babies (actual babies who have been born) and toddlers.

Serious question: How many more of each, do you think?

Another serious question: Do you think large scale bans on abortion would lead to "back alley" clinics worse than Kermit Gosnell's, which somehow managed to exist under our current legal framework?

Probably about 10,000 dead women per year based on the fact that up to 5,000 women died per year in illegal abortions before Roe vs Wade and the U.S. population has doubled since then.

Let's just start with this first number. You claim that "up to 5,000 women" per year died in illegal abortions prior to Roe v Wade. I'm not sure where you got this number from, but it is absurd on its face.

Consider: In 1970, according to the Census Buereau, the total number of women who died between the ages of 15 and 34 was approximately 170,000. Are you really going to tell me that you honestly believe that 5,000 (or 3%) of those deaths were due to an illegal abortion? I guess you did say "up to 5,000" - so you're right, the real number is almost certainly a hell of a lot lower than that.

I got it from this article. http://www.ourbodiesourselves.org/health-info/impact-of-illegal-abortion/
I don't think there is really any way to know how many deaths due to illegal abortions really occurred since a lot of them were not reported as deaths due to illegal abortion.

Well that sounds like an unbiased source. It, in turn, links to an article from NARAL, which cites a few studies from the 60s and earlier, all of which seem to use the "up to" qualifier. Of course we can't know the exact number of deaths caused by illegal abortion, but you can use common sense by starting with the overall census numbers, as I did.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Seems like a pretty logical dividing line 

yeah, I mean you can have valid arguments against abortion but calling birth an "arbitrary" and "illogical" dividing line is absolutely absurd. Like, where the eff did that argument come from.

Let me put this as nicely as possible: You're being stupid. I've already explained, several times, why birth is an arbitrary and illogical dividing line. If you won't listen to me, maybe listen to sys.

I'm not sure you know what arbitrary means.

Arbitrary: based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

In other words, exactly my point. There is no meaningful difference between a child 2 weeks prior to birth and 2 weeks after.

[Trim]

There is no meaningful difference between a child 2 weeks prior to birth and 2 weeks after.

[michigancat]

Seems like a pretty logical dividing line 

yeah, I mean you can have valid arguments against abortion but calling birth an "arbitrary" and "illogical" dividing line is absolutely absurd. Like, where the eff did that argument come from.

Let me put this as nicely as possible: You're being stupid. I've already explained, several times, why birth is an arbitrary and illogical dividing line. If you won't listen to me, maybe listen to sys.

I'm not sure you know what arbitrary means.

Arbitrary: based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

In other words, exactly my point. There is no meaningful difference between a child 2 weeks prior to birth and 2 weeks after.

I mean, going from being encased in a sack of fluid in another human and getting all its nutrients from a cord in its stomach to being unprotected from the elements and having that cord cut and being forced to breathe and eat through its face seems like a couple meaningful differences.

So if you ignore, like, everything associated with birth, I suppose you're right.

[Yard Dog]

https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/06/1/gr060108.html

This article is from 2003, but that shouldn't change the numbers in it. From the sounds of it, deaths from botched illegal abortions were actually very low after the use of antibiotics became available.

[sys]

good lord, you have to force the little fucks to eat and breathe?  smdh.

[mocat]

yard dog is ok with abortions, as long as they're illegal. they're not that dangerous!

[Yard Dog]

yard dog is ok with abortions, as long as they're illegal. they're not that dangerous!

That is simply not true. But, to Mrs. Gooch's statement, it is false to think that it is more deadly overall for abortion to be illegal.

My personal belief is that a positive sex ed culture as opposed to the negative fear driven sex ed we currently have would lead to less teen pregnancy and thus less desire for abortions. That would require parents to talk to their kids about it and cultivate a family environment that encouraged discussion of such things. It has proven very successful in countries who adopt the process.

Serious question, do you all think that the majority of people who seek abortions do so because of their inability to pay for the baby, their lost ability to "achieve their dreams", or is it due to the shame of having a child out of wedlock? (or another reason?)

[Mrs. Gooch]

yard dog is ok with abortions, as long as they're illegal. they're not that dangerous!

But, to Mrs. Gooch's statement, it is false to think that it is more deadly overall for abortion to be illegal.

Outlawing abortion is more deadly to actual people.

[8manpick]

I think that many just don't want to have a kid at that time and that is A-OK with me

[star seed 7]

From the women I know:

Wasn't ready for a kid - 2
Family coerced her because the dad was black - 1 (very churchy pro-life people too)
Raped - 1

[sys]

i kill a lot of small vertebrates, especially mammals.  killing day old mammals is much easier psychologically than killing adults of the same species.

[star seed 7]

Ksuw would rather throw them all on deathrow

[sys]

because of their development and ability to process (and express) fear and pain and such.

[Mrs. Gooch]

From the women I know:

Wasn't ready for a kid - 2
Family coerced her because the dad was black - 1 (very churchy pro-life people too)
Raped - 1

From the ones I know:

Too young to have a kid and financially unable to support - 2
Financially unable to support a second child - 1