Abortion video

1,2 million per year roughly in the states, 17 thousand roughly in Sweden. Between 6 and 14 million per year in China. 1,5 mil total per year in Russia.

Just between Russia, China and US, there's approximately 16 million of kids getting aborted every year. The rate at which mankind would advance if you combine all countries is just insane. Its insane as it is, it'd be even more insane if without the abortions.

By advance you mean overpopulate the planet even further stressing our dwindling resources? Yes we keep on "Advancing" until we hit the point where the planet can no longer support the population and we have wars over the dwindling resources. It is going to happen sooner or latter... Overpopulation will be a very big deal in our lifetime mark my words.
 
Abortion is always that subject thats perfect for debate. What ever happened to seperation of church and state? I'm not saying everyone who believes that abortion should be "illegal" is a religious type, but you can not deny that "church" is most certainly heading the front for making a personal choice illegal.

I'm merely assuming that those that say abortion shouldn't happen what so ever cannot imagine what it feels like to be raped, or for that matter a 10 year old girl raped by her father or uncle or grandfather. The suicide risk for the rape victim between those 9 months and the rest of life would be incredibly high (not just for a pregnant rape victim, but for any for that matter!) and for someone to withstand that type of psychological and physical burden would be incredibly admirable, but nothing that should, in my opinion, be expected of ANYONE. There have been cases of rape victims being diagnosed pregnant at catholic ran hospitals and being denied abortion. That is church over ruling state. Not cool.

I don't agree with how some women (or more adequetly termed 'girls') use abortion AS thier birth control. That is incredibly dangerous to thier health and very very lazy. I think that maybe some sort of log should be kept in a nation wide registry. If you have more than a set amount of abortions that aren't needed as a health safety (I'm talking like 5+.) you should be told "GTFO and grow the fuck up, hoe!".


It is incredibly difficult on a child to go without a loving family. Does that warrant an abortion? Not really. I think what warrants an abortion is the mother's mental stability. Some women can raise three kids by themselves and be remarkable!

But if the mother isn't capable of being all that the term "mother" entails, then I don't think they deserve to be a mother at all. And adoption, while it would be a pleasent solution, is not realistic for all children. There are already thousands of children waiting to be aborted right now. We don't need millions more feeling like noone loves them. This can lead to far more worse problems later on in life.

If the choice doesn't directly affect you, you don't have a right to decide what choice is made.

I, personally, would never have an abortion. I have a disease called Endometryosis (I do believe Uzor mentioned one of his friends having it but could not remember the name.) On other topics I have posted about the effects that has had on me, but as a quick summary, it causes periods to be so horribly painful that I have gone so far as to take one vicoden every couple hours the entire first day of my period and still feel no lessening of the pain. It causes massive cysts, possible tumors, even cancer if not found quickly. As a result I lost an ovary and a tube, and have a low percentage chance of concieving. Abortions lower your percentage of being able to get pregnant, period. I do believe my friend who had one was told by the doctor it can lower your chances by as much as 25%. So that is not exactly a risk that I, myself, would want to take. But becuase I don't think I could do it, for moral reasons as well, does not mean that I hold any less respect for people who do go through with this procedure, if they do so in a mature and well thought out manner.
 
Abortion is ultimately the woman's choice.

When people are allowed to make a choice, you can't expect them to be perfect.

That being said there will always be good and bad choices made.

Making criminals out of someone just because you don't like how or why they made thier choice is stupid. You should be either for or against abortion, thier reasons are thier reasons alone.

Myself I think after the third trimester should be illegal. I think you should have made up your mind before then anyway.
 
I think you mean something else, because "after the third trimester" is birth, which means an abortion after that time is most definitely illegal. >_>;
 
I think you mean something else, because "after the third trimester" is birth, which means an abortion after that time is most definitely illegal. >_>;

tbh, i lol'd.
 
Myself I think after the third trimester should be illegal. I think you should have made up your mind before then anyway.

But again, what penalty would you propose for a woman who made that choice?

Just to keep the ball rolling a little longer, I found a post at Shakespeare's Sister asking the same thing. The post was a result of a column by Anna Quindlen inspired by the video in question.

Quindlen said:
How Much Jail Time?

Buried among prairie dogs and amateur animation shorts on YouTube is a curious little mini-documentary shot in front of an abortion clinic in Libertyville, Ill. The man behind the camera is asking demonstrators who want abortion criminalized what the penalty should be for a woman who has one nonetheless. You have rarely seen people look more gobsmacked. It's as though the guy has asked them to solve quadratic equations. Here are a range of responses: "I've never really thought about it." "I don't have an answer for that." "I don't know." "Just pray for them."

You have to hand it to the questioner; he struggles manfully. "Usually when things are illegal there's a penalty attached," he explains patiently. But he can't get a single person to be decisive about the crux of a matter they have been approaching with absolute certainty.

A new public-policy group called the National Institute for Reproductive Health wants to take this contradiction and make it the centerpiece of a national conversation, along with a slogan that stops people in their tracks: how much time should she do? If the Supreme Court decides abortion is not protected by a constitutional guarantee of privacy, the issue will revert to the states. If it goes to the states, some, perhaps many, will ban abortion. If abortion is made a crime, then surely the woman who has one is a criminal. But, boy, do the doctrinaire suddenly turn squirrelly at the prospect of throwing women in jail.

"They never connect the dots," says Jill June, president of Planned Parenthood of Greater Iowa. But her organization urged voters to do just that in the last gubernatorial election, in which the Republican contender believed abortion should be illegal even in cases of rape and incest. "We wanted him to tell the women of Iowa exactly how much time he expected them to serve in jail if they had an abortion," June recalled. Chet Culver, the Democrat who unabashedly favors legal abortion, won that race, proving that choice can be a winning issue if you force people to stop evading the hard facts. "How have we come this far in the debate and been oblivious to the logical ramifications of making abortion illegal?" June says.

Perhaps by ignoring or infantilizing women, turning them into "victims" of their own free will. State statutes that propose punishing only a physician suggest the woman was merely some addled bystander who happened to find herself in the wrong stirrups at the wrong time. Such a view seemed to be a vestige of the past until the Supreme Court handed down its most recent abortion decision upholding a federal prohibition on a specific procedure. Justice Anthony Kennedy, obviously feeling excessively paternal, argued that the ban protected women from themselves. "While we find no reliable data to measure the phenomenon," he wrote, "it seems unexceptionable to conclude some women come to regret their choice to abort the infant life they once created and sustained."

(Full Column)
 
But again, what penalty would you propose for a woman who made that choice?

Just to keep the ball rolling a little longer, I found a post at Shakespeare's Sister asking the same thing. The post was a result of a column by Anna Quindlen inspired by the video in question.

Make "Doctor, physician, hospitol assisted or simply assisted abortions" illegal DURING the third trimester, give the penalty to the doctor or the person doing the assisting and do nothing to the woman. And only allow abortions during this time for medical reasons, which I guess need to be determined. So going someplace to get an abortion DURING that time would be out of the question. And any doctor or person performing such operation would serve jail time. Obviously this would take care of the doctors.

This could of course force some crazy people to try to do it at home by themselves. But I don't think you'll be able to stop someone who would be willing to abort at home by themsleves during the third trimester anyway. IF they can do that, they can pretty much do it no matter what, if they can do that, they are probably those type of people that kill their babies.

Should there be a penalty for a woman in that case? Probably. But I think that would be determined after making assisted abortions illegal.
 
Make "Doctor, physician, hospitol assisted or simply assisted abortions" illegal DURING the third trimester, give the penalty to the doctor or the person doing the assisting and do nothing to the woman. And only allow abortions during this time for medical reasons, which I guess need to be determined. So going someplace to get an abortion DURING that time would be out of the question. And any doctor or person performing such operation would serve jail time. Obviously this would take care of the doctors.
Why send the doctors to jail but do nothing to the woman? If she went there of her own free will and knowingly broke the law, why should she not be punished as well?

I've noticed between this thread and the BG thread, very very few people have suggested punishments for the women involved. It was always the doctors they said should be sent to jail, not the women. If the woman did something wrong, shouldn't she be punished? If she should not be punished, then obviously she did nothing wrong in the first place. Which means abortions should stay legal.
 
Reflecting on the topic of this thread on my way home from work last night, an interesting hypothetical scenario occurred to me concerning something that Trip said earlier about what his definition of a person is, that basically a being is no more than the sum of their experiences. The scenario is as follows:

1) For the sake of argument, let us say that someone started offering a "Deferred Parenthood" plan that allowed an embryo to reach full term ex utero in some form of incubatory sensory deprivation tank. Let us further say that the infant's development could be arrested within the normal birthing range, essentially developing no further once it had reached the point where it would be viable outside the womb, and persisting in that state until released to further mature.

2) Let it also be permissable by law to "opt out" of parenthood and have the "sleeper" euthanized in some form.

In such a scenario, who among you would view that as murder? To me, at least, the whole scenario is horrible to even contemplate, let alone condone, and this is why I still believe there need to be legal, ethical, and social ramifications for late term abortions - legal and ethical for the medical staff, social for a woman who would seek to end a pregnancy at so late a date.
 
Last edited:
Reflecting on the topic of this thread on my way home from work last night, an interesting hypothetical scenario occurred to me concerning something that Trip said earlier about what his definition of a person is, that basically a being is no more than the sum of their experiences. The scenario is as follows:

1) For the sake of argument, let us say that someone started offering a "Deferred Parenthood" plan that allowed an embryo to reach full term ex utero in some form of incubatory sensory deprivation tank. Let us further say that the infant's development could be arrested within the normal birthing range, essentially developing no further once it had reached the point where it would be viable outside the womb, and persisting in that state until released to further mature.

2) Let it also be permissable by law to "opt out" of parenthood and have the "sleeper" euthanized in some form.

In such a scenario, who among you would view that as murder? To me, at least, the whole scenario is horrible to even contemplate, let alone condone, and this is why I still believe there need to be legal, ethical, and social ramifications for late term abortions - legal and ethical for the medical staff, social for a woman who would seek to end a pregnancy at so late a date.

Your scenario isn't really that original. The last time this topic came up, someone proposed a similar scenario where the fetus could be removed and allowed to develop in a tank. It's an interesting notion, but completely irrelevant to this discussion about what punishment (if any) should be given to women who unlawfully terminate their pregnancies.

And I award double points to Darkdante for perfectly emulating the video by advising harsh penalties for doctors and ignoring the role of the women in the decision-making process.
 
Last edited:
Thanks. That's what I was after - how original my scenario was. I asked a question that you seem to be in the process of artfully dodging by labeling it irrelevant.

Would you, since you've chosen to respond, consider that murder?

If so, then yes, perhaps a woman seeking an abortion outside the bounds that society as a whole deems acceptable should be found guilty of a crime.

I also state flat-out that I believe repercussions to a woman that unlawfully terminates a pregnancy should remain within the social realm. Honestly, I wouldn't be opposed to a criminal sentence along the lines of negligent homicide or manslaughter for an unlawful late-term abortion, but I also believe that not every immoral, irresponsible act should carry a prison sentence tacked on as punishment. In fact, I think there are worse punishments than prison sentences - being required to register in a manner similar to sex offenders comes to mind. The more I think of it, the more I see that that's where I was headed in my previous post when I suggested social ostracism in the first place.
 
Why send the doctors to jail but do nothing to the woman? If she went there of her own free will and knowingly broke the law, why should she not be punished as well?

I've noticed between this thread and the BG thread, very very few people have suggested punishments for the women involved. It was always the doctors they said should be sent to jail, not the women. If the woman did something wrong, shouldn't she be punished? If she should not be punished, then obviously she did nothing wrong in the first place. Which means abortions should stay legal.

Because the doctors are performing the abortion. You could of course punish the woman as well, and send her to prison, and make her a criminal for something that may/may not be in her control. Making our woman criminals is not the way we want to go.

Anyway I don't see punishing a woman for something she may feel she has to do for the best of her own life and the life of a would be child. I can see plenty of situations where punishing a woman for an abortion would put woman in an even more difficult position than they are in now. Punishing doctors however is the smartest simplist way to go about it. The doctors are getting monetary gain from this, they arn't in dire need to do abortions, and telling them they can't do abortions will not put them in a bad position in anyway.

While I believe in abortion and pro-choice there is also the fact that one day a crazed President like Bush could put laws into effect thereby making all abortions illegal. Deciding soon where the lines are may keep enough of the crazies happy so that they have their limits and we have our freedom.

Making abortions illegal during the third trimester addresses alot of the "inhumane" videos we see, and also gives woman alot of time to make a decison if they want to have an abortion or not. Because when you think about it, what if a baby is due 1 week from today, and the mother aborts the baby? There has to be a line somewhere and I think that line needs to be drawn before the freedom to have an abortion is taken away.
 
Because the doctors are performing the abortion. You could of course punish the woman as well, and send her to prison, and make her a criminal for something that may/may not be in her control. Making our woman criminals is not the way we want to go.

So they've no free will of their own in the case? They're the ones who went to the clinic and signed up. Last i checked, the one who goes and buys somthing ilegal knowingly is also guilty, just like the seller.
 
So they've no free will of their own in the case? They're the ones who went to the clinic and signed up. Last i checked, the one who goes and buys somthing ilegal knowingly is also guilty, just like the seller.

Your comparing getting pregnant and having a baby to buying gil?
 
I fail to see why only the doctor should be punished... the women would have to ask to get an illegal operation performed. She's just as much at fault.

Edit: Because buying and selling automatically means gil buying. Couldn't be drugs or weapons.
 
Abortion, rather simply, should remain legal. Whether you agree with it or not, the fact of the matter is that the alternatives are worse.

Once we start having a 100% successful method of birth control (and don't say "no sex", morality police), we can begin to discuss the legality of abortion. Until then, even if you disagree with it, it's simply a necessary evil.
 
Back
Top